The Media Stimulate Moral Panics And Create Folk Devils

Moral panic is “a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests and its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media; the moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops, politicians and other right-thinking people; socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnoses and solutions; ways of coping are evolved or resorted to; the condition then disappears, submerges or deteriorates and becomes more visible” (Cohen, 1973, p.9). This means moral panic is an exaggeration or distortion of some perceived deviant behaviour by the media. In contemporary context, moral panics are not just one-off events, “it is their reappearance that confirms their status as moral disturbances of any significant order” (Marsh and Melville, 2011, p.7). Basically moral panics are social issues that relate to real fears about a particular behaviour such as paedophilia due to the exaggeration of media influence.

Moral panic What is moral panic? Moral panic is a form of collective behaviour that from one day to the other considers a certain group of people dangerous. The reasons might vary from fake rumours to real (exaggerated) facts. The period of a moral panic usually ends with social actions either in form of attacking the "other" (in the case of a Satanic Ritual) or in changing the law (pornography on the Internet).

In human societies there will always be issues or problems that occur which cause some form of reaction from those who feel that their values or societal equilibrium is being threatened. Stanley Cohen and Jock Young led the way in explaining the notion of moral panics and how they are formed and their consequences on society. There have been numerous of these moral phenomena over the years, which have gripped society in a vice lock of terror and more often than not, ignorance. This essay will discuss the concept of the moral panic and look at the case of HIV/AIDS which caused a huge conflict of morality within society. This essay will also analyse the failings of health organisations, politicians, and the

Simon Watney ([1988] cited in Moral Panics and the Media, 2006, p. 251-252) argues that in the example of AIDS “posed a significant challenge to any moral panic model”. He proposed five major criticisms: firstly, he argues that moral panics place blame on the state as a prime mover in moral panics. Whilst this may lend itself to be true in the case of the U.K. government, it does not consider that British society was naturally prejudice against the minority groups inflicted by the virus before its arrival. Thus, the campaign to warn the public on the virus did not directly influence the public into a moral panic but was instead a factor. Secondly, “a model which separates out individual moral panics cannot appreciate how they may overlap and reinforce each other”. Thirdly, it does not recognise the significance of dominant discourse. During the 1980s, Britain had already gained a significant prejudice against these minority groups – as mentioned above – and thus it may not be useful to describe the pandemic as a moral panic as the dominant discourse of society at that time was naturally homophobic and racist. Therefore, it can be argued that HIV/AIDS only heightened the social anxiety of, for example, gay people, because the anxiety was already in place. The fourth criticism to be made by Watney (1988) is that the theory does not allow for folk devils resisting the status. Folk devils are

This can help the wider community understand their own moral obligations and behaviour within society. As noted by ‘….Smolej (2010), portrayals of crime and deviance in the media are often seen as essential parts of social control since the media has a central role in defining what is deviant and condemnable.’

36). They also characterized moral panics using the following five features: “Concern”, “Hostility”, “Consensus”, “Disproportionality”, and “Volatility”, which typically occur sequentially. Moral panic itself is defined by Cohen as when “a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests” (Burns and Crawford, 1999, p. 148). The subject and duration of a moral panic varies. It may be new or it can be something that has existed for a while but only for a certain time is it seen to be problematic. It can suddenly appear then quickly disappear or it may produce noticeable differences in law or in society (Burns and Crawford, 1999, p. 148). It can be proven both, the Burns and Crawford article entitled “School Shootings, the Media and Public Fear: Ingredients for a Moral Panic,” and the Brezina and Phipps article entitled “False News Reports, Folk Devils and the Role of Public Officials: Notes on the Social Construction of Law and Order in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.” fully demonstrate the social reaction to the event they are describing meets the definition of a “moral panic” according to the definition by Cohen (Burns and Crawford, 1999, p. 148) and Goode and Ben-Yehuda’s five features (Steeves and Milford,

A moral panic is the public’s response to problems that seem threatening to the society. Moral panics are used by the media, however people are likely to panic out of proportion due the way it is upheld.

As mentioned earlier Stanley Cohen (1972) is one of prominent sociologists that devised the term ‘moral panic’. He defined the concept as ‘A sporadic episode which, as it occurs, subject’s society to bouts of moral panic, or in other terms, worries about the values and principles which society upholds which may be in jeopardy’ (Cohen, 1987; 9). The term ‘moral panic’ was introduced by Stanley Cohen (1972) in his book entitled ‘Folk Devils and Moral Panics’.

Challenge: Select and describe a “moral panic” against a perceived deviance. Analyse the role of the “moral entrepreneur” and “folk devil” in your selected case. Finally, explicate what it demonstrates about individuals and their socialization. (Length: 2 000 words)

In reference to the media’s role, they have been highlighted for playing a part in maintaining these views by portraying victims in a certain way according to the newsworthiness of each story

Oftenly people within a culture create its own organizing principles and definitions when certain things occur that affect a community and/or society simultaneously, one of them being moral panics. Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda introduces us to the concept of moral panics and what they consists of in their article “Moral Panics: Culture, Politics, and Social Construction”. According to the author 's, moral panic is an exaggerated response or concern by the public to an issue that is seen as threatening the moral standards of society, however the harm exposed may be minimal to none, usually ignited by the media, higher officials, action groups and so forth . Moral panic has become a well-known word often used to categorize social problems that we are exposed to today. Here, we see some examples of the three theories: the grassroots model, the elite-engineered model, and the interest-group theory, and how they are present in our lives today.

Moral panics do not occur spontaneously, they are a result of an intricate interplay of behaviours and responses (Muzzatti & Rothe, 2004: 329). The media and moral entrepreneurs often tend to stir up the general public in defining deviant behaviour (Becker, 1963: 147). Subsequently, President Bush can be labelled as a moral entrepreneur, owing to his actions and ideals after the 9/11 attack.

A moral panic develops in a society when there is some type of threat looking to harm the society in some way. The threat of a nuclear attack by the USSR and its possible plan to control society through communism aided in the development of a moral panic during the Cold War era (Cold War History). American fears continued to grow as the relationship between the two countries became very tense (Hadley). During the Cold War era, the public

Michael Tonry in his book “Thinking About Crime” brings up the subject of moral panics (pg 86). A moral panic as defined by Stuart Hall is as follows

Moral panics have been a topic of interest by those who are concerned with criminal and deviant behavior for many years. The term first appeared in criminology in a book written by Stan Cohen, in 1972 and involved a general misinterpretation of the situation, with an exaggerated reaction to a perceived threat, when the actual threat that is being offered (Cohen, S., 1972) (Walters, R., & Bradley, T., 2005). This essay will attempt to explore this concept in further detail, with regards to the literatures findings and explanations of the motives, processes and finer details of a moral panic. It will then explain the media’s role in perpetuating the cycle that is involved with a moral panic. This will include the justification that is used by those in media roles, and the “melodrama” (Anker 2005) (Wright, S., 2015) that is often used in the reports of the issues that give rise to the panics. Lastly, the outcomes of the media’s influential role in the process will be examined through the literature, and also through examples of moral panics in recent settings. This will hopefully provide an overall understanding of the development, perpetuation, and lasting effects that are involved in a moral panic.