Fear vs. Desensitization: Which is Worse?
A moment of seriousness...We’re all aware that it takes some major sensationalizing to make a product or social issue come to the forefront of our minds. The mentality that instilling fear into the public will cause action is a well-known motivation factor for us here in America. Picture a mass exodus to pick up canned goods and water when they announce a possible black out or a case of the bird flu. Or perhaps an average, understanding person turning against others because the government keeps telling them that “certain people” pose a risk to national security, thus making that person racially prejudiced. Fear is a catalyst for not only extreme behavior but also ignorance.
The New York Times recently touched on this briefly as it relates to health issues. The article was entitled: When Disease Loses Its Most Potent Ally, Fear. Disease is probably an area that this fear vs. desensitization issue comes into play more often than not. SARS, Bird Flu, Mad Cow…it’s amazing how crazy people get over these things. Especially when they don’t even recognize that obesity or smoking is killing tens of thousands more each year than all of the aforementioned combined.
On the flip side, we are also aware that too much of pushing an issue will cause society to get bored with hearing about it, as the Times article points out. Think the current state of the education or health care systems; contracting STDs or caring about our environment. People are so sick of hearing about all the problems that we have to deal with that they tune out altogether.
I feel that the current state of the American perspective is largely a battle between fear and desensitization and I don’t know what’s worse. Having Americans constantly afraid, leading to massive consumption of un-needed things and borderline mis-truths, or having the general populace not giving a shit and being ignorant to things that do need to be tended to? It’s a fine line these days, but I hope at least some of you can see through the fear mongering and actually care about things that matter to you.
There is too much going on these days to be indifferent.
posted by Lisa @ 6:36 PM
4 Comments:
Wow - definitely a sobering point Elle. It seems to me that people have a scale of things they worry about, and tend to focus on things that are either of immediate urgency or the rewards heavily outweigh the risks. That's why safe sex is (most of the time) at the top of people's minds, but the environment isn't.
The media doesn't really help either, as EVERYTHING is of immediate urgency -- ever see those promos to the 10 pm news? "The milk your children are drinking could be killing them slowly. More at 10."
One small bird flu incident nearby, though, and suddenly people are going to the nearest food store to stock up enough water and duct tape for 6 months.
What frustrates me is the media's tendency to put the spotlight on a particular story or two and glaze over other important issues. Or to turn certain issues into trends. For example, ten years ago, AIDS was in the news all the time, and even though it's as much of a concern as it was a decade ago, it's simply not a hot topic anymore. So people went from being terrified they'd get AIDS from kissing or hugging someone, to being blase about getting it and having unprotected sex (I'm actually not sure that safe sex is a more urgent issue these days than the environment is, as single guy mentioned in his comment; I don't think either topic is considered particularly compelling, despite their importance). It would be nice if the news was able to get public concern and interest in issues without creating an atmosphere of panic, but with ever-shortening attention spans, sensationalism is mandatory or people will turn the page/change the channel.
I also wonder how much of this nervous mentality is left over from 9/11. Here was this scary event that nobody was prepared for, and maybe the fear that's being expressed over something like bird flu is leftover post-traumatic stress disorder.
Fear is worse.
Betty: I think foreign news isn't always better, but that's not your argument. You want to get all the different perspectives you can, and make informed decisions. I agree with that.
One of Jon Stewart's pet peeves is that news organizations run around chasing money instead of being the responsible fourth estate. And it's obvious that the days of Nast and Murrow are gone. Hell, Stewart's the closest thing we even have to Nast, you know?
If you're in the press though, what is your incentive to serve the public interest? What do you think pulls more viewers: the very dangerous influence of interest groups on the government, or Jennifer and Angelina in a street fight?
I know what I'd watch ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home