| Product: |
Crimewatch UK |
| Date: |
29/07/02 (2358 review reads) |
| Rating: |
 |
Advantages: Gets criminals behind bars, Seeks to reassure the public
Disadvantages: Could be accused of not covering enough crimes
I have always been fascinated by Crimewatch, and I suspect the same can be said of its other six million regular viewers.
Since June 1984 the BBC has brought us a monthly dose of 'reality television' at its most unattractive, usually transmitted midweek at 9.30pm in order to catch the optimum audience figures. Usually there are four or five main appeals into murders, abductions, rapes, violent attacks and robberies. These main appeals occur when the culprit is unknown, and usually consist of a reconstruction which is filmed by the BBC using witness statements to recreate the accuracy of the circumstances. Great attention is paid to using actors who physically resemble those involved in the crime, and increasingly these reconstructions are being interspersed with actual CCTV footage. Several dozen less detailed appeals are made on each programme; most of these occur when the police already know the criminal's identity but require the public's help in finding their whereabouts.
Before watching Crimewatch last week, I somehow knew in advance that I would not recognise any of the photofit images, and that I would not have witnessed any of the featured crimes, yet I watched the show because it was the best thing on television at 9.30 on a Wednesday night, and - dare I say it - it makes good viewing. The programme undoubtedly plays on the voyeuristic side of peoples' nature in order to pull in a worthwhile number of viewers. Finding the right tone for the reconstructions is always a balancing act, as they need to be dramatic and compelling in order to hold the viewer's attention whilst not seeking to sensationalize.
Of course Crimewatch only asks for the public's help with a tiny selection of Britain's unsolved crimes, and somehow we feel that these are the only crimes that "matter" enough to warrant television appeals. However, a quick scan through the many stories of robberies, attacks and rapes repor
ted by of Britain's hundreds of local newspapers will tell you that Crimewatch only touches the tip of the iceberg. This suggests that the producers, who liaise closely with senior police advisors, must reject many applications for appeals to be made, but their selection criteria remains a closely guarded secret.
But despite the inherent limit to the number of crimes that Crimewatch can deal with, I do not wish to denigrate the programme's unique ability to reach out to the public's conscience in a way that no other show can. After all, Crimewatch was instrumental in solving some of the most notorious crimes of the 1990s. The child murderers of the toddler James Bulger were caught when CCTV footage was broadcast in a Crimewatch appeal in 1993. Who can ever forget the grainy footage of those two young boys leading James to his death? Although those haunting images have since become a powerful flashback to what happened, we should never forget that their broadcast on Crimewatch was the breakthrough which led to the two 10-year old killers being found.
I also remember the case of Michael Sams, the one-legged abductor who kidnapped the estate agent Stephanie Slater and kept her captive in a wheelie bin. Sams played an audacious game of cat and mouse with the police, but was eventually caught when a telephone recording of his voice was played on a Crimewatch appeal. Sams' wife had watched the programme and instantly recognised his voice on the tape. This directly led to the capture of Sams who was later given four life sentences for the abduction of Stephanie Slater and the earlier murder of a prostitute.
Any detective will know that Crimewatch's biggest challenge does not lie with getting the right people to watch the right appeals, but in persuading those people to make the golden tip-off which leads to a breakthrough. Often the people most likely to recognise the UK's most wanted are those that are least likely to sho
p them to the law, such as wives, children, parents or close friends. Crimewatch tries to make emotional appeals to these individuals by the use of a carefully worded discussion with the investigating detective after the reconstruction has been shown. Nick Ross uses well-known psychological techniques to achieve this: the low voice, the promise of anonymity for the caller and the gentle reminder that the culprit is likely to strike again if not caught. More recently Crimewatch has taken its emotional game plan a step further by inviting the victims' families to take part in a studio-based interview as part of the appeal.
But the programme performs a subliminal role which goes beyond its more obvious function of catching criminals. Crimewatch lends a sense of reassurance to the public's mood on crime. While the cases featured on the programme may be shocking and often highly disturbing, the accent of Crimewatch has always been one of careful optimism, as if to say "yes there are bad people out there, but we've got them all tracked." This underlying theme of assurance is most evident in Nick Ross's words of comfort at the end of every programme. Ross could be described as the eternal optimist, always looking for positive words with which to sign off the show. Not once can I recall him telling viewers that crime was soaring, murders and rapes were on the increase, or that detection of crime was at an all-time low. Yet, sadly, all these statements are true of the 18 years in which Crimewatch has been on our screens.
The "viewer payback" is another part of the show which has great psychological importance. The audience needs to know that progress is being made on the featured cases. However, for legal reasons it is usually impossible to give any detailed progress reports until the suspect has been convicted by a jury - a process which can take months or years (to the obvious frustration of Crimewatch's presenters)
. The viewer payback takes a three-pronged approach: in the short term we are treated to a Crimewatch Update later the same evening, which usually gives little more than preliminary results on the volume of phonecalls for each case. In the medium term, the main Crimewatch show features snippets entitled "Your Call Counts" which provide limited information about arrests of suspects following appeals featured in previous programmes. And in the long term, a spin-off series called Crimewatch File rewards viewers with dramatised reconstructions of the hunt for the criminal, the arrest that resulted from the televised appeal, and the consequent trial and conviction.
The murder of the Crimewatch presenter Jill Dando was an event which left the public in a state of shock. Dando was much more than a respected broadcaster; she was the calming female face of Crimewatch. Like her predecessor Sue Cook she instilled a sense of perspective and sensibility when the programme dealt with its most upsetting cases. For Dando to have been killed in such brutal circumstances was an affront to the nation's suppressed belief that murder "doesn't really happen to normal people".
Crimewatch was aired only three weeks after Dando's killing, when an ashen-faced Nick Ross managed to present the programme with great courage despite the obvious pain written all over his face. While the hunt for Dando's killer clearly had epic importance to the BBC, it was important for the producers not to allow the appeal to dominate the programme entirely. Other people had also been murdered, raped and robbed in that month. Although the Dando appeal was the lead case, Crimewatch retained a sense of normality by featuring its usual mix of other cases on the most watched edition in its history. Nick Ross and the whole production team carried off the broadcast with amazing professionalism and dignity. After showing the reconstruction of Dando's killing, it
seemed implausible for Ross to sign off the show with his customary phrase of "don't have nightmares." But somehow he was able to reiterate this key message by conveying the idea that Jill Dando's death had been a freak occurrence.
It seemed mildly insensitive to "replace" Jill Dando, but after Nick Ross had presented the show single-handedly for six months, the BBC newsreader Fiona Bruce was finally drafted in as the new co-presenter. Crimewatch was later revamped with a more informal, modern studio and a more casual wardrobe for its presenters. For the show to have emerged from its darkest hour is a great credit to the whole production team.
Crimewatch has slowly evolved over the years as its methods have become more sophisticated in line with advances in technology and criminal psychology. But the show still remains true to its original brief. As a tool for catching criminals, Crimewatch delivers one arrest in every three cases featured. An impressive statistic which will give hope to many detectives who have reached their wits end and decided to make a Crimewatch appeal as a last resort.
The programme excels as both a highly watchable piece of television and a worthwhile project in the fight against crime, and one day - who knows - I may recognise my boss or my postman.
Summary:
|
|
