Andrea Yates: How The Media Persuades Us

Six years ago, reporters told us about a woman who drowned her five children in the bathtub while her husband was at work. They told us how she planned and strategically held each one under the water. They then reported that she called her husband and told him to come home because she was finished. In every news article, an image was used and reporters usually used the same images.

For example, the first image was a family portrait and was taken a few weeks before the tragedy happened. This was one of the popular photos used by the media. I think this is a good form of non-verbal communication because every detail says something. You see Andrea happy and holding the baby. This in itself leaves out the fact that she never was happy. Especially at this time. She was depressed for months before she went over the deep end. It does give you a sense of happiness. The children seem very precious and trusting. You can get a sense of security from them. This was usually coupled with the second image of her in her jail suit walking into Court.

The coupling of these two images can lead viewers into two different directions. On the one hand, you see a distant, cold, silent woman. You might think of her as a liar. She acted loving in the first image, but the truth comes out. On the other hand, you may think that something had to have happened to her to make her like this. You may think this doesn't seem right. This isn't her.

Evidently, back in 2001, the coupling of the images didn't help her. She was found guilty of murder. Why did this happen? Why didn't the jury see the vulnerable mother? The trial lasted for a year. During that time, the third image started appearing.This is an image of the tombstone on the children's graves. There are five images, one of each child, printed on the front of the stone. When looking at this image, you get a sense of sadness, anger, and young lives lost. This is a symbol of negative attitude. It makes you feel guilty if you don't condemn her. I think that by using this image, reporters inadvertently sealed Andreas fate. When someone sees this image, they probably automatically think she should pay for killing those poor kids. So, when it came time to find her guilty or not, I think this image helped in finding her guilty.

The newspaper articles gave a variety of different twists on the story. Each one contained the same basic information, but in different texts.

"Andrea Yates, 36, is charged with capital murder. Police believe she systematically drowned all five of the couple's children, ages 6 months to 7 years, on Wednesday morning, then called police and her husband, a computer specialist at NASA."

The above text was taken from Court TV's website archived news articles. The highlighted words, I believe, are intense words used to achieve the desired goal. Chapter seven talks about language used by persuaders. The specified words above would have what is called high marker power. The articles covering the case usually have these types of words because it gives the readers a sense of horror.

"911 tape reveals unemotional Andrea Yates"

The above headline flashed across my computer screen. When looking at it, I was reminded of something. The judicial slogan is "Innocent until proven guilty." But this headline makes it sound like she is guilty or that she didn't care. It says she was unemotional. The "ad populum" fallacy says that people tend to believe what they hear about the behaviors of others without considering alternative reasons for that behavior. Maybe she was stunned. She may not have comprehended what had just happened. I think they could have made the headline say "911 tape reveals a quiet (or silent) Andrea Yates."

If you notice that the headline size is large. This is important in capturing the attention of the reader. It is written in our book that America is obsessed with size. The bigger the better. I think that by using large text, it is meant to be taken serious.The negative publicity caused by the media causes us to infer her as a negative person. When in reality, by leaving things out of the media, or by not focusing on some things, we don't know the whole story.

"This crime story would unravel in dark and strange ways, with the reasons why a loving mother of five had drowned all of her children tangled in issues of depression, religious fanaticism, and psychosis." -Crime Library archives.

For example, this text was taken from the crime library website archives. The media mentioned a couple of times about the history of depression and medicines Andrea was on. But the details weren't really elaborated on. They were mentioned in passing, but that was it. We, as readers, didn't get to hear much about her history of mental illness or about the medicines she was on.

"With either verdict, Andrea Yates will be a prisoner"The headline above is an example of the fallacy "begging the question". It is already assuming her guilt before it had been proven in the court of law.

"Yates experts both believe she was insane, just not legally"

This headline doesn't make sense to me. They believe she was insane, but not legally. Are they kidding me? Insane is insane, regardless of legalities.

"When Resnick continues testifying Wednesday, he is expected to reiterate his opinion offered during her 2002 trial — that she believed the killings were right at the time, because she was acting under the delusion that it was the only way to save her children from hell." -Court TV archives

This was another text taken from the same article as prior. Although it was mentioned in the first trial, it didn't mean anything. Neither did this next text.

Jurors Tuesday saw a videotaped interview Resnick conducted with Yates on July 14, 2001. She wore an orange jumpsuit, and her black hair was long and flat against her face. She spoke in a flat tone.

" 'Did you love your children? Were you angry with them?' Resnick asked Yates.

'I didn't hate my children,' Yates replied.

'You loved your children?' he tried again.

'Yes, but not in the right way,' Yates said.

She told Resnick that Satan lived inside her, making her a bad parent, and that her children weren't properly developing.

'They just did a lot of silly stuff, and didn't obey,' Yates said. 'They didn't do things that God likes.'Yates quoted from Scripture, telling the doctor that she believed it was 'better to tie a millstone around your neck and throw yourself out to sea' than to cause a child 'to stumble.' "

-Court TV archives

In this next paragraph, you can see she was not in the right frame of mind. A sane person doesn't scratch at their head constantly because they believe the number "666" is written on them.

"Yates called 911 to turn herself in after she methodically drowned her five children, one by one, in the bathtub. And while she calmly answered investigators' questions in the days to come, what she told them made no sense. She picked at her head until it scabbed, because she was certain the numbers 666 were burned on her scalp. She believed that cameras had been planted around her home to monitor her parenting. She said she could hear Satan growling her name. She said she once saw a cartoon character on television give her children a private message: 'He said, Hey kid, stop eating so much candy, then flash — back to the program,' Yates told Resnick."
-Court TV archive

The prosecution tried to say she wasn't legally insane because she knew what she was doing was wrong. In my opinion, there's more to it than that. I mean, yes, she knew what she was doing was wrong, but as one can see from this next text, taken from the same interview, continuing from before, she felt she was doing good.

If she killed her children — Noah, 7, John, 5, Paul, 3, Luke, 2, and Mary, 6 months — while they were still innocent, Yates believed, they would go to heaven and she would be punished.

'How would you be punished?' Resnick asked.

'By being executed,' she said.

'Was that a good thing or a bad thing for you to be executed?' the doctor asked.

'Probably a good thing,' she replied.

'Why?'

'Because I'm not righteous,' Yates said." -Court TV archives

Evidently, this interview wasn't shown to the jurors during the first trial. If it had been, the men and women could clearly see she was delusional. She knew she would go to prison, but her way of thinking was that at least her kids would be safe.

Court TV archivesCourt TV archives

CNN.com report

Court TV News Archive