Media Hysteria (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Ulmer]

The media has an important role to play in modern society, making sure the populace is contantly worrying about things that statistically are next to impossible (ie the ratio of 6 anthrax letters to some 20 billion pieces of processed mail or 4 hijackings to some 20,000 flights per day), so that they aren't thinking about other issues which could be more concerning to certain organisations.
In other news, Jessica Randall, age 6, scored her first home run at the Halifax regional slow pitch tournament. Bob Saydol's dog Mirsh is recovering well from her recent spaying. Findings indicate that those who avoid the news live longer, healthier lives. More news at 6.
------------------
Link Removed | Burt Lancaster is Link Removed | dOc

 

[Shaw]

This is not only a problem of the media and it's perssitent yellow journalism and so on.
Shaw
Moncton, NB, Canada
[Edited last by Shaw on October 23, 2001 at 08:35 AM]

 

[andrew markworthy]

As Brad has already wisely commented, this is another replay of the 'War of the Worlds' scenario. For years the reaction to the broadcast was an area of major study in social psychology. No doubt at this moment there are several learned papers and doctoral theses being prepared on bioterrorism neurosis.
The wisest thing I ever heard on media stories of impending doom was told to me by an old man a few years ago. He pointed out that every few years for as long as he could remember, the media have had stories of mass destruction (not one of which has come true - so far). And always the concern is over something which is the result of intellectual activity, so that if disaster happens, we will have brought it on ourselves for being too clever. He said it's like we are those self-flagellating monks in the plague-ridden Middle Ages, claiming 'mea culpa' at every opportunity and seeing the plague as God's wrath for our being too presumptive.
Certainly there have been trends in our historically recent worries, but in all cases the source of our neurosis is science and technology over-reaching itself:
1930s: poison gas
1940s: a little thing called World War II; doom and gloom merchants preoccupied with a real problem
1950s and early 1960s: nuclear war
1960s and early 1970s: overpopulation and pollution
late 70s/1980s: nuclear war
1990s: the greenhouse effect
2000s: bioterrorism
Now that doesn't mean that there aren't problems to be tackled, but it's at times as if the media are longing for one of these threats to happen so that they can say 'told you so'.

 

[Mike Lenthol]

Ok, the media IS over reacting, but...
What I find a little disturbing is the references to the probabilities of being effected by bio-terrorism. That logic seems to be on same level with "we are going to die eventually anyway".

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Well, we are all going to die eventually, but without some perspective on how prevalent the latest "issue" is, it gets blown out of proportion. How many people are killed in auto accidents, die of cancer, or thousands of other causes compared to the current threat? You don't hear about every fender bender in the world, so why every "possible" (not even confirmed half the time) exposure to anthrax. It's the disaster of the day syndrome.
------------------
Link Removed | Burt Lancaster is Link Removed | dOc

 

[Ryan Wright]

Imagine this situation, you rip open an envelope and get covered from head to toe in some dust.
What do you do?

Of course you call 911. That isn't irrational. This is:
"I'm afraid to open my mail."
"I told my husband to be very careful with our mail."
"I threw away 3 letters yesterday because I didn't know where they were from and I didn't want to open them."
"I wouldn't open that. It might have anthrax in it."
"I don't want to work in the mailroom anymore. I'm afraid I might get anthrax."
I hear these and more on a daily basis. My own wife told me she's afraid to get our mail. I asked her why someone would want to send us anthrax? She countered: "Why would they send it to the major newspapers?" Uh, because they're high profile targets. I'm not. The terrorists don't know I exist and quite frankly, they don't give a damn about me. Nobody is going to waste perfectly good anthrax on me.
The idea was lost on her. She still thinks we should be careful opening our mail. So does my buddy's wife. So do many of my coworkers. It's insane. I personally am not worried about it one bit.
------------------
-Ryan (http://www.ryanwright.com )
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you do criticize them, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes.

 

[Todd Hochard]

[insert Dr. Evil voice here]Actually, Ryan, I've wanted to kill you for quite some time.[/]
I've instituted somewhat of a "personal media blackout." I've come to the conclusion that I would rather meet my untimely demise blissfully ignorant.
Todd

 

[Darren H]

From the AP wire.
"Study says newscasts create fear for kids"

Local newscasts give scant coverage to key children's issues such as education while creating a "climate of fear" by exaggerating crime dangers for kids, a study says.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/wire/2001/1...ear/index.html

 

[Holadem]

Well, we are all going to die eventually, but without some perspective on how prevalent the latest "issue" is, it gets blown out of proportion. How many people are killed in auto accidents, die of cancer, or thousands of other causes compared to the current threat? You don't hear about every fender bender in the world, so why every "possible" (not even confirmed half the time) exposure to anthrax. It's the disaster of the day syndrome.

Jeff, I don't agree at all. Anthrax is not an accident. This is the realisation of fantasy that has been around for several years. We have all heard of bio-terrorism. UN inspections in Iraq and talk of manufacture/synthesis of these stuff in that country have been around for years, and I never really paid attention. When you realise that this shit is actually happening today, that it has begun, that someone is actually doing this now, I am sorry but it is quite... unsettling.
SOmeone said only politicians and the media was at risk. Tell that to the postal workers.
Contrarly to what was said in this thread, it is the coverage of the war that pisses me off: ALl Bin Laden needs to do to evade us is to watch CNN.
--
Holadem

 

[EugeneR]

The U.S. media has gotten to be a joke. Real sad, considering they are one of the pillars of a democaratic society. Whenever we're involved in something really serious, be it the Gulf War, or international terrorism, I can't help but feel that the news channels, and for most part the newspapers, have turned into "Pravda." There's little analysis beyond patriotic jingoism. It's one thing to rally benind the president in a time of crisis, but it is another to blindly toe the party line, not questioning what is happening. "America under attack," "America strikes back." I'm getting a little tired of marketing slogans for the news.
This really made me ill during the Gulf War. I thought the news coverage was beyond horrible. I supported the war, but the "rescuing Kuwait" justification was a joke. We were there for the oil, which was clearly an important national interest, and that was as plain as the nose on your face. But not one major news outlet ever questioned the ridiculous rationalization. And they kept cheerfully showing the coverage of buildings, tanks, personnel carriers blowing up. You know, they may not be American, but you are showing us pictures of people dying... Maybe you could be a little less happy about it?

 

[Todd Hochard]

Is the Anthrax thing really happening to US? In no way do I mean to belittle the loss of life, or those affected, but how many have died? THREE, I think (I'm breaking my own blackout rule here).
THREE. I have a better chance of dying from a shark attack. I haven't been in the ocean since 1997, but I still have a better chance. Here in FL, I have a MUCH bigger chance of getting struck by lightning.
If they are trying to terrorize me, they are failing.
Todd