why does the media create fear?
September 24, 2006 3:20 PM Subscribe
why does the media stoke fear in the population? what do they have to gain, really?
This post was deleted for the following reason: please make more of an effort to ask your question if you want people to make an effort to answer it.
Fear sells papers and magazines and keeps you watching the news programs.
posted by brain cloud at 3:23 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by brain cloud at 3:23 PM on September 24, 2006
Define "media"? "Media" is a plural, last time I checked, and includes the daily newspaper, YM magazine, Will and Grace, the 700 Club, Fox News, MTV, Martha Stewart Living, the Economist, NPR, ask.metafilter.com, Google and a whole lot of other things.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 3:24 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by croutonsupafreak at 3:24 PM on September 24, 2006
what do they have to gain, really?
Ask yourself this: what were you doing on September 11, 2001? How about September 12th? 13th?
The answer is: viewers.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:33 PM on September 24, 2006
Ask yourself this: what were you doing on September 11, 2001? How about September 12th? 13th?
The answer is: viewers.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:33 PM on September 24, 2006
Best answer: In a word: money.
In two words: Money and ratings.
In three: Money, ratings and influence.
posted by Effigy2000 at 3:38 PM on September 24, 2006
In two words: Money and ratings.
In three: Money, ratings and influence.
posted by Effigy2000 at 3:38 PM on September 24, 2006
actually, I think this will end just fine
posted by Saucy Intruder at 3:42 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by Saucy Intruder at 3:42 PM on September 24, 2006
Viewers, yeah. Think of the evening-news cliché (okay, think back to the last time you actually watched the evening news). It starts with an interesting story or two, interlaced with a teaser like
posted by hattifattener at 3:50 PM on September 24, 2006
Is YOUR pencil sharpener going to turn YOUR CHILD into a FLESH-EATING ZOMBIE? Find out about this possible THREAT TO YOUR FAMILY... later.Then some really boring filler fluff. And finally, a segment where they tell you that, no, your pencil sharpener isn't dangerous after all. But if you stuck around for that, then you stuck around for the intervening commercial breaks, and commercial viewers is how TV stations make money.
posted by hattifattener at 3:50 PM on September 24, 2006
It's not just the media, it is scientists as well, because they often won't get money to do their research if they don't indicate there's a serious problem.
And then there are politicians, or priests, but also teachers and parents, simply always mongering fear to make us behave.
Or whole industries telling us not to smoke, or to measure our cholesterthingies, because if we don't the quality of our lives will fall dramatically.
It's much easier to sow fear, than having to explain anything in detail.
posted by ijsbrand at 4:06 PM on September 24, 2006
And then there are politicians, or priests, but also teachers and parents, simply always mongering fear to make us behave.
Or whole industries telling us not to smoke, or to measure our cholesterthingies, because if we don't the quality of our lives will fall dramatically.
It's much easier to sow fear, than having to explain anything in detail.
posted by ijsbrand at 4:06 PM on September 24, 2006
Fear = emotion. Emotion = viewers. Viewers = advertising. Advertising = money.
I guess too you could posit all sorts of theories about media oligopolies fearmongering to support government policy such as, oh, say, invasion of certain countries, in a tacit exchange for policy that supports their (the oligopolies') commercial interests. Like abolition of cross media ownership laws. Just for example.
But those would just be theories.
posted by t0astie at 4:14 PM on September 24, 2006
I guess too you could posit all sorts of theories about media oligopolies fearmongering to support government policy such as, oh, say, invasion of certain countries, in a tacit exchange for policy that supports their (the oligopolies') commercial interests. Like abolition of cross media ownership laws. Just for example.
But those would just be theories.
posted by t0astie at 4:14 PM on September 24, 2006
Er, except that the scientists, by their very nature, do explain things in detail. I'm not saying that no scientists ever play things up to get grant money, but by and large the things taken as a concensus in the scientific community (global warming is the biggest "fear" related topic right now, of course) have a shit-ton of "detail" behind them.
Same goes for some of the more common health related stuff (largely because behind it is medical science, see above) like smoking. Anti-smoking initiatives aren't trying to sow fear, they're trying to get people to stop smoking because it's bad for you (and more importantly, those around you, since obviously people should have the right to pollute themselves if they want to).
posted by cyrusdogstar at 4:17 PM on September 24, 2006
Same goes for some of the more common health related stuff (largely because behind it is medical science, see above) like smoking. Anti-smoking initiatives aren't trying to sow fear, they're trying to get people to stop smoking because it's bad for you (and more importantly, those around you, since obviously people should have the right to pollute themselves if they want to).
posted by cyrusdogstar at 4:17 PM on September 24, 2006
"I'm Kent Brockman, on the eleven o'clock news tonight...a certain type of soft drink has been found to be lethal, we won't tell you which one until after sports and the weather with Sonny Storm." Does that answer the question?
posted by kimota at 4:17 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by kimota at 4:17 PM on September 24, 2006
Fear is a good motivator. People like watching nice things on TV too, but fear makes them actually do things. Like vote for the right (wing) candidate, or buy product, or insurance.
It's commonplace here for commercial television current affairs shows to run a story on germs in public places and how you can get flesh eating bacteria from doorhandles, and then run a few ads for antebacterial disinfectant cleaning products during the break. If you look at the ads on telly you will see that a significant proportion use fear as the hook.
Fear is regularly used to market insurance, politicians and religion, it's been working for millennia. Buy my snake oil or burn in hell forever.
posted by Tixylix at 4:32 PM on September 24, 2006
It's commonplace here for commercial television current affairs shows to run a story on germs in public places and how you can get flesh eating bacteria from doorhandles, and then run a few ads for antebacterial disinfectant cleaning products during the break. If you look at the ads on telly you will see that a significant proportion use fear as the hook.
Fear is regularly used to market insurance, politicians and religion, it's been working for millennia. Buy my snake oil or burn in hell forever.
posted by Tixylix at 4:32 PM on September 24, 2006
It's not just the media, it is scientists as well, because they often won't get money to do their research if they don't indicate there's a serious problem.
It's funny you bring this point up...
The other night, I was at Theology on Tap (young adults discussing theology at a bar) and the topic of stem-cell research came up. Being one of the more well-educated people there in the area I was doing most of the talking. The more I talked, the more I came to realize something:
As a former scientist who graduated with a BS in biochemistry, there was never any pretense about the lack of results of embyotic stem cell research, or the exact differences between adult and embryotic stem cells. Or the working results of adult stem cells. The more we talked I came to realize something: Most of the incomplete facts people had was due to what they read in the mass media. They didn't know any better about the facts because a) they didn't educate themselves and b) what education they had came from the media.
Try reading the local CNN science reports and ask a scientists who actually knows about the area. In the mass media, I have more than a few times seen pieces of an article taken out of context and read about grandeur predictions which were never made, yet extrapolated by writers who have no business doing so.
So, no. I have to strongly disagree with your statement about scientists and it comes from personal experience- does yours?
posted by jmd82 at 4:32 PM on September 24, 2006
It's funny you bring this point up...
The other night, I was at Theology on Tap (young adults discussing theology at a bar) and the topic of stem-cell research came up. Being one of the more well-educated people there in the area I was doing most of the talking. The more I talked, the more I came to realize something:
As a former scientist who graduated with a BS in biochemistry, there was never any pretense about the lack of results of embyotic stem cell research, or the exact differences between adult and embryotic stem cells. Or the working results of adult stem cells. The more we talked I came to realize something: Most of the incomplete facts people had was due to what they read in the mass media. They didn't know any better about the facts because a) they didn't educate themselves and b) what education they had came from the media.
Try reading the local CNN science reports and ask a scientists who actually knows about the area. In the mass media, I have more than a few times seen pieces of an article taken out of context and read about grandeur predictions which were never made, yet extrapolated by writers who have no business doing so.
So, no. I have to strongly disagree with your statement about scientists and it comes from personal experience- does yours?
posted by jmd82 at 4:32 PM on September 24, 2006
jmd82: are you saying that the more you talked, the more you realised that you were talking sense and not hyping things for people?
posted by bonaldi at 5:48 PM on September 24, 2006
posted by bonaldi at 5:48 PM on September 24, 2006
Response by poster: first, i did do a search before i posted this question and came up empty. perhaps my search wasn't broad enough. so thanks for your link Steven C. Den Beste.
by media, i mean news media, mostly. i should have specified but it looks like most understood my question.
the most important part of my question is what do the media have to gain. while i agree with most of what's been posted, i'm not sure i see what i'm looking for. money is what i initially thought, but with so much competition these days, all the news pretty much the same hype everywhere. i'm just not sure. i guess influence is closest to the lines of my thinking. but then again, money buys influences, doesn't it.
posted by brandz at 5:58 PM on September 24, 2006
by media, i mean news media, mostly. i should have specified but it looks like most understood my question.
the most important part of my question is what do the media have to gain. while i agree with most of what's been posted, i'm not sure i see what i'm looking for. money is what i initially thought, but with so much competition these days, all the news pretty much the same hype everywhere. i'm just not sure. i guess influence is closest to the lines of my thinking. but then again, money buys influences, doesn't it.
posted by brandz at 5:58 PM on September 24, 2006
I think you're overthinking a bit. the media is just made up of people with a goal. Some of them have the goal of providing information, but a lot of them have the goal of providing a product - "something interesting" - that may be information, at least ostensibly, but in a significant sense, it is about entertainment. It's providing "reality television" - people talking about the world we live in, and what's going on in it.
No one is going to watch a show that says "nothing much is happening here" (was that a bloom county strip? or some movie /tv show... ?). In order to have a story (note that we even call news pieces "stories"), we need to have some kind of conflict, some kind of story arc. People are far more likely to watch some exciting piece about a hidden danger than they are to watch an explication of currently proposed legislation, unfortunately, which is why FOX makes money and CSPAN is a labor of love.
The media don't provoke fear that is uninteresting to people. They are going to spend more time on sharks than on coconuts, e.g. Human beings like drama, basically.
posted by mdn at 7:00 PM on September 24, 2006
No one is going to watch a show that says "nothing much is happening here" (was that a bloom county strip? or some movie /tv show... ?). In order to have a story (note that we even call news pieces "stories"), we need to have some kind of conflict, some kind of story arc. People are far more likely to watch some exciting piece about a hidden danger than they are to watch an explication of currently proposed legislation, unfortunately, which is why FOX makes money and CSPAN is a labor of love.
The media don't provoke fear that is uninteresting to people. They are going to spend more time on sharks than on coconuts, e.g. Human beings like drama, basically.
posted by mdn at 7:00 PM on September 24, 2006
Fear and spectacle attract eyeballs. So does sex. Eyeballs attract money.
Ergo, you have lots of fear, spectacle, and sex on TV. The fact that everyone is terrified of setting foot outside their 'safe' apartments is irrelevant, as long as they stay tuned in and keep buying the advertised products.
posted by Malor at 8:12 PM on September 24, 2006
Ergo, you have lots of fear, spectacle, and sex on TV. The fact that everyone is terrified of setting foot outside their 'safe' apartments is irrelevant, as long as they stay tuned in and keep buying the advertised products.
posted by Malor at 8:12 PM on September 24, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 3:23 PM on September 24, 2006