Mugshots: The Next Big Thing In Journalism?

An article on CNN.com caught my attention this morning which discussed the journalistic value of mugshots.

Wait, mugshots? You mean, the usually awful pictures they take of you when you are arrested?

Yep, the very same.

The CNN article notes that the use of mugshots in journalism is spreading, particularly in areas with high crime rates. For example, on the home pages of such newspapers as Newsday (New York City) and the Palm Beach (Fla.) Post, there are links to mugshots of those recently arrested in the area.

The Palm Beach Post deputy managing editor, Tim Burke says the feature attracts several thousand clicks a day.

"It's just another way to get readers online," Burke said. "There's low risk and a high level of consumer saleability."

The article also explores a $1 Clearwater (Fla.) publication called "Local MugSHOTS", one of many weekly magazines filled with, well, local mugshots. It has a circulation of 250,000 in nine states.

Its publisher, Max Cannon, sees it as a public service, particularly in low/middle income communities.

"The publication seems to sell best where the crime takes place," Cannon said.

But couldn't one (myself) make the argument that this is just another form of sensationalistic journalism?

John Watson, associate professor of journalism at American University in Washington, DC was also interviewed for the article, and made a similar argument.

"Here's a bad guy. Is that a public service? Maybe if you look at it with a very jaundiced eye," Watson said. "If you were really doing a public service, you'd point out specifics."

CNN notes that "some publications, such as Local MugSHOTS, offer only names and charges, The Palm Beach Post adds the date and time of the arrest. Newsday provides a few paragraphs of details regarding the incident."

Imperfect though it may be, Watson sees the value in mugshot journalism.

"We like being frightened without being in actual peril," Watson said. "These are pictures of monsters who actually exist, and we can look at them from the safety of wherever we are, and they disappear when we close the book."

That may be true, but is just another example of giving the public something they want rather than something they need, as Ted Koppel would argue? Is this new journalistic fad because of the simplified tastes of the reader or the need of publications to entertain in order to attract readership? Is it both?