 | | | | by Stuart Waiton |
Discussing irresponsible journalism with a new member of Glasgow's quality press in summer 2000, I complained about the way broadsheet newspapers increasingly seem to print, uncritically, stories based on dubious research.
| So long as the research in question fits the fear that 'we are all at risk', it seems to receive front page coverage. Sharing these concerns, my new acquaintance raised an additional danger: that once a newspaper had printed a story it became part of media folklore, regardless of its validity and accuracy. Rehashed over and over again, the original flawed research simply became a fact of life.
| During summer 2000, the hot headlines had been 'a third of teenagers carry weapons!' (1), based on research by Professor Neil McKeganey of Glasgow University (2). Professor McKeganey and his research partner John Norrie found a connection between young people who take drugs and carry weapons. This, they concluded, was 'a wake-up call to schools, parents and agencies working with young people', and a warning that 'organisers of events attended by young people cannot assume that no weapons will be present'. As well as hitting the front pages of the Scottish broadsheets, the findings also appeared on BBC Radio 4 news. But what did the research really prove?
| One of the key findings of the survey, as stated in Professor McKeganey's press release, was that 'boys who took illegal drugs were three times as likely, and girls five times as likely, to carry weapons as their non drug-taking peers'. The report also argues that as the number of different drugs taken by young people increases, the more likely it is that they will be carrying a weapon - the implication being that more drugs equals more knives which equals more stabbings.
| Yet this research did not, as the headlines suggested, discover that a third of teenage boys carry weapons. Rather, it found that a third have once - at some time in their lives - carried a weapon. Having carried out a detailed survey of young people's drug taking and attitudes to drugs, McKeganey and Norrie threw in two additional questions: 'Have you ever carried a weapon?' and 'What was that weapon?'. There was no further clarity about how often the weapon was carried. Nor were there any questions about whether or not these young people had ever used a weapon. There was also no indication of how often young people take drugs; no indication of whether or not young people are more likely to carry a weapon while on drugs; and no question about whether they have used their weapons while under the influence of drugs. Contrary to the impression given by the news headlines, this research is unable to show any link at all between drugs and actual acts of violence.
| | | The distinction between those few young people who use weapons and those who do not is lost |
| How else might we tell how many young people do carry knives? In contrast to the 'one in three' reported by the press, Strathclyde police figures show that, of the 20 509 people recently stopped and searched by Strathclyde police in their drive to create 'safer streets', one weapon was found in every 40 searches. Assuming the police target their searches at 'likely' candidates and at 'likely' locations, the real percentage of young people carrying knives at any one time is likely to be smaller than this.
| As for drugs: some young people do take drugs. But they take them in different places and for different reasons, often as an experiment and often for fun. Lumping everything from dope to heroin under the category 'drugs', and equating drug-taking with potential violence, is an obvious recipe for a media panic. But what impact does it have? The distinction between those few young people who use weapons and those who do not is lost, and all young people are discussed and policed as though they pose a danger to society.
| A combination of McKeganey's misleading survey, and the media's even more misleading interpretation of his findings, has had real consequences for young people. Strathclyde police have adopted McKeganey's research as a justification for increasing their policing of young people, and have extended their 'safe streets' initiative. And, as my journalist friend predicted, the notion that one third of young people carry weapons has already been rehashed by the press, to flesh out the stereotype of dangerous teens. More recently, central government brought through new youth curfew measures in the wake of the Damiola Taylor murder, a case so horrifying because it was so rare.
| An article headlined 'Scots children drink more than parents' explained that the study of youth drinking 'comes in the wake of a Glasgow University survey which revealed that more than a third of boys and one in 12 girls carry a weapon' (3). I was about to phone my friend for another rant about how the combination of dubious research and bad journalism had now established this myth of knife-carrying druggie kids…but then I noticed the byline on the article. It was hers.
Stuart Waiton is the author of Scared of the Kids: Curfews, Crime and the Regulation of Young People, Sheffield Hallam University Press, 2001 (buy this book from Amazon (UK)), and a contributor to Teenage Sex: What Should Schools Teach Children?, Hodder & Stoughton, 2002 (buy this book from Amazon (UK)).
(1) The Herald (Glasgow), 7 April 2000, carried the headline 'Young turned armed and dangerous'. The Scotsman, 7 April 2000, carried 'Many Scottish children regularly carry weapons'. The Guardian, 7 April 2000, carried 'Knife study a "wake-up call" for Scotland'
(2) Professor Neil McKeganey is at the Centre for Drug Misuse Research at the University of Glasgow. His research was published in the British Medical Journal, Vol 320, 8 April 2000
(3) See The Sunday Times, 23 July 2000
|
|
|
| | |
