Essay \"Media Representation of the Clifford Olson Murder Case\" - grade B PDF

Preview

Summary

Media Representation of the Clifford Olson Murder Case
...

Description

Running head: CLIFFORD OLSON MURDERS

Media Representation of the Clifford Olson Murder Case Ryerson University

1

CLIFFORD OLSON MURDERS!

2

Introduction: The mass murders of at least 11 children aged 9 to 18 by British Columbian Clifford Olson was met with a sentence of 11 consecutive life sentences in prison, ruled in January 1982 (CBC News, 2011, para. 1). These murders were committed between 1980 and 1981 and were most likely preceded by victims being drugged with a mixture of an anesthetic-like drug called chloral hydrate, and alcohol. Victims were raped and mutilated before being stabbing with a knife, strangled, or hit with a hammer (Reynolds, 1982, p. A4). Olson died of cancer in September 2011 while in prison (CBC News, 2011, para. 1). By using Stewart Hall’s politics of representation, one must examine the way in which the media portrayed these murders. Pathologizing Olson in various articles as a heinous monster that exhibited problematic behaviours and apparent psychopathic tendencies since childhood is established via language used within the media, as well as through metaphors of monstrosity. Additionally, his wife Joan Olson was depicted by the media as passive and in hiding, unwilling to discuss the case with reporters. Furthermore, Olson’s child victims were portrayed as naïve to his manipulation. From these various factors, consumers of the media are left to determine whether or not they feel that the punishment set by the Canadian judicial system was fit for the crimes committed by Clifford Olson. Media Representation of Clifford Olson, Murderer:

CLIFFORD OLSON MURDERS!

3

Through representation of the media, Olson was depicted as a “notorious” “monster” (Reynolds, 1982, p. A4; CBC News, 2011, para. 7; CBC News, 2011, para. 25; Lautens, 1982, p. A10). Exemplifying these traits, he was recurrently referred to in all examined articles as having psychopathic affinities. Indeed, reporting after his 2011 death, CBC News (2011) states that Olson “present[ed] a high […] psychopathic risk,” yet it is only briefly mentioned in a Toronto Star article published just after his sentencing that after completing a 30-day psychiatric evaluation, he was deemed fit to stand trial (para. 42; Lautens, 1982, p. A10). These facts are worded in such a way that the reader overlooks them, choosing menacing labels for this murderer that appear to better fit the crime he has committed. Indeed, photos of a middle-class White man as a murderer shocked the public, as it goes against the norms of the privileged majority and thus, is seen as more threatening to society. Olson does not fit the criminal labels that are often attached to marginalized groups, such as minority populations (Khan, 2014, p. 49). However, this assumption that individuals who are White middle-class males do not commit crime should be called to interrogation and the media representation of these supposed anomalies should not be accepted at face value (Jhally, 1997, p. 3). Unfortunately, due to White male privilege, surveillance of Olson was lacking despite the fact that he was considered a prime suspect early in the investigation (Reynolds, 1982, p. A4). With cultural representations of crime

CLIFFORD OLSON MURDERS!

4

echoing racial representations, the media describes cultural practices that associate crime and anti-social behaviours with a “Black and immigrant identity” (Khan, 2014, p. 50). As if to justify the fact that a member of a White privileged class has committed such a crime, he is made out to be the ‘psychopath,’ as if his individual brain structure is to be feared, not his ‘kind’; it is noted by the Toronto Star that “no one spotted the violence of which he was capable” (Lautens, 1982, p. A10). It is emphasized that his ability to “know right from wrong, [and] just [not] care” is atypical to societal norms, while not once mentioning in any article the colour of his skin or his ethnic heritage (CBC News, 2011, para. 41). These uncharacteristic behaviours are highlighted in the media as beginning early on, as he was “a braggart and a bully, a liar and a thief” even in childhood and “a habitual criminal from the age of 10” (CBC, 2011, para. 16; Lautens, 1982, p. A10). It is duly noted that in his youth, Olson had wanted to be a boxer and this activity became “the only success [he] had in his early years” (Lautens, 1982, p. A10). This aggressive pastime became displaced as a focus in his life, as he spent subsequent years in and out of juvenile detention centers and eventually prison, for various crimes. A discourse analysis surrounding the prominence of media representation of Olson’s criminally-inclined childhood should be evaluated as an attempt to “suppress alternative ways of making sense of an issue”; perhaps instead of being psychopathic from a young age, Olson had difficulties adjusting, or similar

CLIFFORD OLSON MURDERS!

5

complications, all of which are not mentioned or elaborated upon in the articles as being predecessors to his serious crimes as an adult (Khan, 2014, p. 55). Stewart Hall acknowledges that representation of events in the media neither capture nor process all potential factors leading up to the represented event, and so the true meaning will reflect what the audience makes of the facts presented to them, taking into account the language used, among other influences (Jhally, 1997, p. 7). Moreover, Hall states, “there will never be a finally settled, fixed meaning”; this is not to say that these are necessarily the exact factors, but they are potential causes that were not considered (Jhally, 1997, p. 6). Media Representation of Olson’s Victims: Eventually, these smaller crimes escalated into the drugging, rape, mutilation, and murder of 11 young children aged 9 to 18 (Reynolds, 1982, p. A4; CBC News, 2011, para. 10). The media does not hesitate to mention that a longtime police officer, representative of Canada’s legal system, was “sickened when [h]e first saw the evidence of how these children were killed” (Reynolds, 1982, p. A4). This “arrogant” man, portrayed as being disliked even by fellow inmates, “ha[d] many of the characteristics of a psychopath. He [wa]s very charming, very loquacious and very manipulative” (Lautens, 1982, p. A10). These manipulation tactics are what the media leads readers to believe are what led children to be coerced into the trap Olson had created. This alludes that the

CLIFFORD OLSON MURDERS!

6

children fit the stereotypes of being trusting, naïve, and innocent. This left his child victims in a position to be easily taken advantage of. As a reader, one must “interrogate the text” for such facets as stereotyping. For the victims of the Olson case, the children were part of the “all of Us” group: they belonged when Olson did not and were insiders and normal when Olson was an “Other” (Khan, 2014, p. 64). The victims are seen as a whole, as “onedimensional characters” of about the same age group (Khan, 2014, p. 64). The meaning of these classifications of dichotomies “is not the only way, but one of the principal ways in which we go about giving meaning to things” (Jhally, 1997, p. 8). Not only was he allegedly good with children, “he was always hustling the girls” who did not trust him, picked up hitch-hikers, and “reportedly lured [victims] with the promise of a job, and then plied them with alcohol and drugs. He [then] tortured them, sexually assaulted them, killed them and then dumped their bodies” (Lautens, 1982, p. A10; Reynolds, 1982, p. A4; CBC News, 2011, para. 15). There is a large media emphasis on the young age of Olson’s victims, with a repetition of the 9 to 18 year age range and the fact that they were “youngsters,” “little kids,” “young victims,” “girls,” “young people,” “children,” etc. (CBC News, 2011, para. 14; Lautens, 1982, p. A10; Reynolds, 1982, p. A4). The language utilized by the media communicated the savagery of Olson’s crimes

CLIFFORD OLSON MURDERS!

7

simply through emphasis on victims’ youth and thus, calling to readers’ minds the stereotypes of innocence and helplessness surrounding them (Khan, 2014, p. 51). Media Representation of Joan Olson: Joan Olson is vaguely mentioned, if at all, in the articles examined. Perhaps this is because acknowledging the fact that Olson was married and had a 9-month-old son would act towards humanizing him. A Toronto Star article released shortly after Olson’s sentencing for 11 counts of first-degree murder, describes Mrs. Olson as being imprisoned within her own home, the result of “media and public attention” (Reynolds, 1982, p. A4). Though receiving $90 000 in a trust fund for their son in exchange for the information Olson disclose to the court regarding the locations of his victims’ bodies, Mrs. Olson seems to not be benefitting from this money in any way (Reynolds, 1982, p. A4). A feminist perspective can work towards explaining media representation of Joan Olson. Based on societal gender constructs, she is seen as “peripheral, invisible, [and an] appendage […] to” her husband (White, Haines & Eisler, 2013, p. 146). With the judicial system as well as a great majority of criminals being men, it is unsurprising that these norms reflect society’s expectations and thus, Mrs. Olson does not appear to be a “statistically significant” threat to society (White et al., 2013, pp.151-152). In fact, being a White middle-class married woman makes her seem even less likely to commit a crime than her husband, based on societal standards. Mrs. Olson then, by light of the media, is merely a

CLIFFORD OLSON MURDERS!

8

victim of Olson as well, now made to feel targeted in her own home with her infant son not by her own actions, but by the actions of her socially-superior male partner. Did the Punishment Fit the Crime? Olson was sentenced to 11 life sentences in prison and was eligible for parole in 2007 (Reynolds, 1982, p. A4). Despite victims’ families wanting him to be put to death, Canadian laws prevented this punishment from occurring; however, Olson was given his first parole hearing in 2006 and was denied (CBC News, 2011, para. 36-37). In 2010, it was discovered that Olson was receiving Old Age Security payments and Guaranteed Income Supplement in prison, which caused a great upset, resulting in a legislation change, whereby some federal prisoners’ pension payments could be ended. After his initial parole hearing, Olson was entitled to a new hearing every two years, but this changed in November of 2011, so that families would not have to “relive the original ordeal” biennially (CBC News, 2011, para. 44-46). Even in death, Olson is depicted as so horrible, that his burial service was to be kept low-key, with the public never being informed of the location due to potential picketing and negative reactions of such a service (CBC News, 2011, para. 6). Victims’ families noted that although the judicial system would not bring justice for their lost loved ones, via the illegal sentencing of the death penalty, life

CLIFFORD OLSON MURDERS!

9

has brought them justice in the end through Olson’s suffering and eventual death from cancer (CBC News, 2011, para. 8-9). With CBC publishing an entire article on the changes made to Canadian legislation due to one criminal, it is clear that the media is reflecting not only Canadians’ beliefs that those who commit crimes like Olson’s should be shown no mercy, but that the death of someone who commits these crimes is to be celebrated. Consumers of the media, taught that the solution to criminal activity is to “‘fix’ the problem” through such punishments as incarceration or even capital punishment for more ‘serious’ crimes, are very likely to outwardly reflect these views (Khan, 2014, p. 55). Conclusion: The crimes of Clifford Olson are undoubtedly horrific, but one must still consider the way in which their views of the particularities of the case reflect that conscribed by the media in which they receive their information from. Referencing Steward Hall’s ideas concerning the politics of representation, one should examine the way in which the media portrayed these murders before coming to indefinite conclusions. The pathologizing of Olson in various articles as a psychopath and monster that exhibited criminal tendencies since childhood is established through the language used within the media, as well as via metaphors and societal standards. Additionally, his wife Joan Olson was depicted through the media as passive and in hiding, unwilling to discuss the case with reporters,

CLIFFORD OLSON MURDERS!

10

which can be criticized via feminist critiques. His child victims were portrayed as innocent and manipulated to their eventual brutal deaths. Certainly, these murders are a horrific stain on Canadian history, but as consumers of the media, society must challenge representations of such cases and be willing to examine all potential aspects to get a better sense of the big picture.

CLIFFORD OLSON MURDERS!

11

References CBC News (2011, September 30). Serial killer Clifford Olson dies. Retrieved March 6, 2015. Jhally, S. (1997). Stewart Hall: Representation & the Media [foundation transcript]. University of Massachusetts. Khan, U. (2014). The Politics of Representation. In D. Brock, A. Glasbeek, & C. Murdocca (Eds.), Criminalization, Representation, Regulation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Lautens, G. (1982, January 15). Clifford Olson: Profile of mass murderer. Toronto Star, p. A10. Reynolds, F. (1982, January 21). Home is prison to Olson's wife / Olson slipped knockout pill into drinks, prosecutor says. Toronto Star, p. A4. White, R., Haines, F., & Eisler, L. (2013). Crime & Criminology: An Introduction (Second ed.). Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press....