Abstract
David Wilson’s Looking for Laura: Public Criminology and Hot News is a nonfiction book that intensively examines the way that the media publicizes crimes in society. Published in 2011, the purpose of the text is to explain to the reader the many ways that the media publicizes and sensationalizes crimes. Wilson accomplishes this by giving detailed accounts of specific crimes that have been highly publicized. Most of the crimes that are described have been committed in and around the United Kingdom, where Wilson is from.
Looking back at Wilson’s body of work, it is clear that he has had great experience not only in the area of criminology but also in journalism and media broadcasting. He is also an esteemed professor of criminology at Birmingham City University and has had experience in the prison system as a prison governor. Wilson is also noted as editor of the Howard Journal of Criminal Justice and is extensively experienced in hosting television and radio. As the book indicates, Wilson’s background in these areas helps him to adequately explain the relationship between the media and criminal behavior.
The book begins with a foreword by Donal McIntyre that explains Wilson’s purpose and how necessary this book is in this day and time. Wilson continues this explanation within the Introduction where he further explains his expertise in the given areas of the book, and his past work that have also touched on the area. The previous books that he has written include Images of Incarceration: Representations of Prison in Film and Television Drama and Serial Killers: Hunting Britains and their Victims 1960–2006. Both of these books also examined the areas that are being discussed within the current book.
Written from the point of view of the author, the book utilizes specific examples of crimes that the media has sensationalized. Wilson also gives direct accounts of instances where his professional opinion was needed in many of these cases. One case in particular is stated within the title of the book. This was the case of a 15-year-old Laura Stainforth who disappeared after speaking with a much older man over the Internet. Wilson does an adequate job of thoroughly relating this first case concerning Laura and the media’s response. He further describes this relationship by describing cases of serial killers, prison officials, and televisions portrayal of prison life.
The text and readability of the book was more than sufficient. It allowed the reader to understand what the author was explaining, while also giving a professional examination of publicized crime that would benefit a reader of a higher discipline. One chapter where this was admirably displayed was Chapter Five: Serial Killers—Now You See Them, Now You Don’t. Within this chapter, he explains why some serial killers are widely publicized and others are not. Wilson explains, It is also clear that the media do not publish or broadcast every criminal act that is within the public domain, but are selective of the kind of crimes, criminals and circumstances upon they report. Some criminal acts are chosen over others because of their “newsworthiness”—in other words, those aspects of a crime that journalists argue make for a god news story, a judgment which is, in turn, a product of their “newsroom culture” (p. 111).
Another notable factor of the book is the author’s sufficient usage of past literature. Wilson gives references that are related to the areas of criminology and journalism and gives the reader a more detailed explanation of why some crimes are highly publicized. An example would be Wilson’s notation of Yvonne Jewke’s “newsworthiness” criteria. These criteria included factors such as “celebrity or high-status persons,” “proximity,” and “children.” He also mentioned the works of criminological theorists such as Emile Durkheim in relation to suicide of certain killers. Psychological and social learning theories are also mentioned in Chapter Eight: Explaining “Ordinary” Murder and Murder Investigations. Wilson’s current book sufficiently fits within these previous references.
One minor weakness that was found in the book was the title. Wilson did not refer back to the first case of Laura Stainforth enough. He partially makes up for it by mentioning her in the Postscript, where he sums up the purpose of the book and asks why we forget cases such as Laura’s. A more general title that encompasses all of the topics he covered in the book would have been more sufficient.
Although there was the small weakness of the title, this book has many strengths. His writing style caters to an academic audience as well as an audience that is outside of the world of criminology and journalism. Within the Postscript, he goes back to the case of Laura Stainforth and asks the question of “why?” Why are cases such as these forgotten or ignored and passed on like the latest fad? Wilson gives an adequate explanation as to why this is and brings the world of criminology into a new direction that has not been examined by many researchers.