The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things

This book focuses on the sort of public media scares that have, and continue to, grip the American public. It argues that not only are these episodes of mass hysteria completely unfounded, they are actively detrimental to the American population. From fears of car-jacking and plane crashes to those of silicone breast implants and unwed teenage mothers, Glassner uncovers significant evidence that these threats were grossly overblown, even in the face of hard countervailing evidence. So, that raises the question of how these non-issues become the basis for widespread fear. On this Glassner is clear. He places the blame squarely on the media and lobby groups. The frequency and the tone with which the media presents scare stories leads to their power and proliferation. Glassner certainly shows the existence of significant scares, and offers compelling evidence that many of these were overblown. As for Glassner's second contention, that these fears are actively hurting Americans, his claims are not uniformly sound. One of the strongest parts of this book is Glassner's discussion of the ways in which unreasonable fears perpetuate racism against young black men. Many are well aware of the failures of the heavily-funded war on drugs, and how the conditions of poverty, hunger, and lack of opportunity are completely ignored. But some of Glassner's claims are just as far-fetched as the media events he studies. Claiming that airline crash hysteria is dangerous because people who might fly would otherwise engage in the more dangerous activity of driving is specious at best. The bulk of this book is a series of topical chapters on various hysterias. In his conclusion Glassner addresses the question of why Americans are so susceptible to these scares. Here, Glassner points to one of the phenomena that has defined the lives of Americans in the second half of the twntieth century: celebration of the culture of experts. Each of these scare campaigns gained legitimacy through public pronouncements made by those who appear to be knowledgeable experts. Each of these campaigns has loud, publicly-oriented experts of its own. And experts seem reliable. Herein lies the danger. Professionalization began in the United States in the 19th c., as practitioners in certain fields sought the hallmarks of professionalism: standards, limited entry, national organizations, and peer review. In the wake of WWII, as American culture celebrated higher education, especially science, Americans came to respect, even celebrate the culture of experts. They sought experts to analyze and improve all areas of their lives. The very standards of education and professionalization suggested that expert opinion was trustworthy, that it was best. This very trust has allowed for the manipulation of the American public. In a culture in which expert opinion is revered, and the very fact of expert status suggests qualification, it becomes difficult to determine what is reasonable trust and what is not. In seeing Glassner's conclusions, it becomes clear that one of the problems is surely too much news. With 24-hour news channels, programs like Dateline on television every night of the week, all of this airtime has to be filled with something. This creates an atmosphere ripe for exploitation. This book certainly made me think, however, I suspect Glassner might be preaching to the choir. People who are reading academic sociology are likely not the same people who drink up hours of sensationalist news without a second thought.

Nutshell review - This is an interesting book - it explores various things which most of us fear (which we shouldn't) and other things that we are not being fearful enough of (or aware enough of) and probably should pay more attention to. Fear mongering is, of course, as old as the ages and this is a good book to increase one's awareness of the problem in today's world and to help us gain a better and more useful perspective of certain "hot" issues.

The Cyberporn-Child Molester Fear Epidemic Started by Time Magazine

Time Magazine, July 3 1995

Cover: Boy sitting in shock in front of the computer screen.

Title: "CYBERPORN - EXCLUSIVE: A new study shows how pervasive and wild it really is. Can we protect our kids - and free speech?"

The research team cited for the study came from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Principle investigator Marty Rimm (author of The Pornographer's Handbook: How to Exploit Women, Dupe Men & Makes Lots of Money - book published long before Times article came out). Marty Rimm's research `team' renounced the study as false right after the article was published.

1. The article claims 917,410 instances of sexually explicit material easily accessible by kids (remember this is 1995).

Turns out this was a lie, of the 917,410 pornographic files claimed to have been found only 3% contained pornographic images (an were only available with membership fees)

2. On USENET groups, 83.5 percent of the pictures were pornographic.

Turns out the 83.5% figure is correct but it is of the pictures on just 17 USENET groups (there were thousands in existence at this time) plus you needed special software to download them.

This fake statistic was cited by Pat Robinson's Christian Coalition and Gary Bauer's Family Research.

Politicians used this fake statistic to push through the Communications Decency Act in 1996 (which was later overturned).

All of the above happened AFTER the study was debunked proving that fear can quench the ability of truth to spread.

But that's not all

The editors of Time made "a sleazy connection between cyberporn and another overstated menace: in the context of reporting that as many as a dozen childrenhad been lured on-line by child molesters, the magazine informed us that `more than 800,000 children are reported missing every year in the US."

By including this statistic, which has nothing to do with cyberporn, Time helped to perpetuate one of America's most enduring but fallacious panics. In national surveys conducted in recent years three out of four parents say they fear that their child will be kidnapped by a stranger. They harbor this anxiety, no doubt, because they keep hearing frightening statistics and stories about perverts snatching children off the street. What the public doesn't hear often or clearly enough is that a majority of missing children are runaways fleeing from emotionally abusive parents. Most of the remaining number of missing children are runaways fleeing from physically or emotionally abusive parents. Most of the remaining number of children are "throw aways" rejected by their parents, or kids abducted by estranged parents. According to the criminal justic experts, a total of 200 to 300 children a year are abducted by nonfamily members and kept for long periods of time or murdered. Another 4600 of America's 64 million children (.001 percent) are seized by nonfamily members and later returned.

Without question every such incident is a horrible tragedy, yet once again, kids are not equally at risk. Child molesters, both inside and outside families, tend to target vulnerable children. Youngsters with disabilities and poor communication skills, troubled kids whose reports adults distrust, and children whose parents are absent or inattentive." Pages 61-61 The Culture of Fear

Other stories:

Fear Epidemic for the Elderly: People over 65 are less likely than any other group to become victims of violent crime. Yet by focusing on a random murder the elderly have become one of the most scared groups. Preferring to stay in their homes to avoid the horrors outside they end up watching a lot of TV (especially news) which further intensifies their fear, a vicious cycle.

Workplace Fears: In April 1994, Time Magazine ran a headline that "not a month goes by without violence in the workplace". This led to many media stories, some citing 2.2 million attacked on the job and people worried that the guy at the next desk might bring an automatic weapon to work to kill them.

In reality out of 121 million only 1000 get killed and even thjat is mostly by robbers. The most deaths being amoungst cops, security guards and cab drivers. Yet somehow the whole workforce became believers in the crazy office misfit gunman.

Teen Gambling: The USA today ran a headline, "Teen Gambling: An epidemic"

Indianapolis Star stated that 9 out of 10 students had gambled.

US News and World Report called it "the latest peril for America's troubled teenagers."

In reality kids aren't gambling at casinos and making bets with mobster bookies.

Actual studies show most gambling is done by buying lottery tickets or betting on a football game with some friends. Kids who do become gamblers tend to have drug or home abuse as part of their reasons for going to gambling.

Black rap kills, white murder songs don't:

IRONY: When a white man (especially a cop) is killed, rap lyrics are often blamed. Such as the controversy with Tupac Shakur before he was hot dead. Yet there are country songs proposing violence as well, Sixteen Tons, Folsom Proson Blues :I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die". Tupac Shakur had more rap lyrics against violence that for it, same as country singers, But he is black thus it is his fault.

Extract from The Culture of Fear: The Halloween Fear Epidemic

"Those Halloween goodies that children collect this weekend on their rounds of `trick and treating' may bring them more horror than happiness," Began a story in the Times in October 1970 that launched a long-running crime panic. "Take, for example." The reporter continued, "that plump red apple that Junior gets from a kindly old woman down the block. It may have a razor blade hidden inside. The chocolate `candy' bar may be a laxative, the bubble gun may be sprinkled with lye, the popcorn balls may be coated with camphor, the candy may turn out to be packets containing sleeping pills."

Similar articles followed in the nation's news media every autumn for years to come. In 1975 Newsweek reported in its edition that hit newsstands at the end of October, "If this years Halloween follows form, a few children will return home with something more than an upset tummy: in recent years, several children have died and hundreds have narrowly escaped injury from razor blades, sewing needles and shards of glass purposefully put into their goodies by adults." Etc. etc.

The myth of Halloween bogeymen and bogeywomen might never have been exposed had not a sociologist named Joel Best become sufficiently leery that he undertook an examination of every reported incident since 1958. Best, currently a professor at the University of Southern Illinois, established in a scholarly article in 1985 that there had not been a single death or serious injury. He uncovered a few incidents where children received minor cuts from sharp objects in their candy bags, but the vast majority of reports turned out to be old-fashioned hoaxes, sometimes enacted by young pranksters, other times by parents hoping to make money in lawsuits or insurance scams.

Ironically, in the only known cases where children apparently did die from poisoned Halloween candy, the myth of the anonymous, sadistic stranger was used to cover up the real crime. In the first incident family members sprinkled heroin on a five-year-old's Halloween candy in hopes of fooling the police about the cause of the child's death. Actually the boy had found and eaten heroin in his uncle's home. In the second incident a boy died after eating cyanide-poisoned candy on Halloween, but the police determined that his father has spiked the candy to collect the insurance money. Bill Ellis, a professor of English at Penn State University, has commented that both of these incidents, reported in the press at first as stranger murders, "reinforced the moral of having parents examine treats - ironically, because in both cases family members were responsible for the children's deaths!"

Yet if anonymous Halloween sadists were fictitious creatures, they were useful diversions from some truly frightening realities, such as the fact that far more children are seriously injured and killed by family members than by strangers.

I had heard pretty good things about this book but was disappointed in it (and actually gave up on it with about 60 pages to go.) The chapters each cover different subjects but they all are making the same point: media plays up a new fear periodically by bending statistics and using sensationalized reporting. Even with new subjects as examples, the theme was repetitive with no new insights.

Also, the author does have his own pet fear: he is afraid of guns. And he is willing to use the same type of incomplete (and/or discredited) statistics he accuses media of using in other subjects in an attempt to inspire his fear in readers.

I finished this book, considering I hate reading and haven't read a book since high school, that should mean something. I'm not a fan of people shoving their opinions down my throat, but I picked this book up out of curiosity. And I had a feeling the author and I would agree on more things than disagree.

I really do place most of the blame of this countries problems, fear, irrational paranoia, and emphasis that we are all alone and need to depend on the government for protection on the media- the news programs specifically. They chose what to report on, they chose what slant to bring to the story, they leave out details, and hardly ever report on the honesty, humanity, and morality of man.

This book just confirmed what I already believed. Although it was refreshing to know that I'm not the only one that finds the media destructive. He touches on good points. Even things I wasn't scared of, but the American public may be concerned about. Some of his statements, seem to be unfounded and he could have backed them up more with facts. He can sometimes assume facts because of his personal beliefs. But overall the book was good. I don't feel the need to read it more than once though.