In a world in which imagery is having an increasingly important influence in audience perceptions they also determine to a large extent the importance or relevance of crime and criminal justice. Graber (1980) found that 95% of what we know came from the media whether it distorts information or not. People, consciously or subconsciously have anxieties about what is being reported, and the media have been criticised for these anxieties about crime and disorder over the years. Coverage of murders, muggings and other social disorders give the impression that these crimes are an everyday occurrence, and the situation is not getting any better because they are amplified. They think murder is far more common than it is, and underestimate frequent crimes, such as burglary or larceny. "In the real world, the more serious a crime is, the less frequently it happens," Warr says.
For print and broadcast media, more often than not there seems to be a hidden agenda either commercially, politically or socially. Commercially, crime sells. Extreme and unusual crimes will always have news value for audiences. The news media have the opportunity to edit video footage before it airs eliminating disturbing images, but there is no commercial interest in reporting un-sensational news. As a popular tabloid would say "if it bleeds it leads". Politically, it may be to change government policies or to get at the opposition that during their time in government there has been a breakdown in society; and socially it may be to create awareness. Sometimes it intentionally or unintentionally labels. The latter creates moral panic. Moral panic is a term used to describe media presentation of something that has happened that the public will react to in a panicky manner with much exaggeration.
In the 80's when the AIDS epidemic was terrorising everyone, the Royal College of Nursing predicted that the number of infections in the UK would rise to one million by 1991 if current trends continued.