A moral panic is not a new phenomenon it is an atypical event which is taken by the media and presented as a typical event which in turn looks like it is happening everywhere. According to Goode and Ben- Yehuda (1994) there are five vital elements that define a moral panic, these being: ‘concern, hostility, consensus, disproportional, and volatility’. In order for a moral panic to exist Goode and Ben- Yehuda (1994) believe that these elements should be evident. Stanley Cohen’s (1972) theory of a moral panic included the ‘deviancy amplification spiral’ (Cohen, 1987; 82). A moral panic is usually based upon acts which are deviant. As Goode and Ben-Yehuda (1994) explain, ‘the ‘folk devil’ is ‘deviant’: someone engaged in a wrong doing and whose actions are considered harmful to society’ (p 52). Such deviance is usually criminal, although it does not always have to be. In order to make the media appear newsworthy and attention-grabbing they use the deviancy amplification spiral, subsequently making petty problems appear severe. They often turn situations around and make them appear as shocking or terrifying circumstances. Naïve and terrified people then buy the newspapers, listen to the radio, and watch television programmes. They take everything in and see it as been the ‘norm’. This is when the spiral continues and the police service gets involved. The police then have to be seen to be doing something about the problem, as a result of this they carry out more ‘intensified’ policing on the specific deviancy problem. This acquires a lot of police time as they are put under public pressure to make more arrests. Consequently, magistrates are put under additional pressure to deliver stricter sentences, making the initial fear formed by the media appear justified. The media amplify such act until there are ‘a translation of serotypes in to actuality, of fantasy’s into reality’ (Jones, 2003; 83). Throughout all this the media are continuously profiting by publishing such panics.
Moral panics can occur at anytime anywhere. However they tend to occur at times when societies are finding it difficult to modify to momentous changes. Such changes lead chaos within society creating panic among people regarding the status of their society. Moral panics are represented by the mass media in many ways; through newspapers, the radio, and the television. The nature of them can be based on both novel events and events which have been of existence for a long time, but it takes something to spark off the importance of it. For instance, bullying has always occurred throughout schools but in 2002 13-year-old Jack Glasby took is own life because of the bully he received at school, due to this there was a moral panic in the mass media about bullying in schools. Following this a number of parents decided to remove their children from schools. The effects caused from moral panics can go in one of two directions; they can either die out quickly, or have more severe long-term consequence; as it did in the ‘video nasties’. The ‘video nasties’ was recognized after the murder of the toddler James Bulger by two juveniles (Critcher, 2003; 64). The media turned this into a moral panic; many papers said that dramatic action was needed against the ‘evil’. Bradley cited the Times newspaper as an example, the headline read ‘restore the notions of pure innocence and born evil in a way that few people were prepared to question’. (Bradley, 1994; 1-2). Consequently, the Video Recording Act 1984 was introduced that controlled video recoding.
Evidence, therefore, supports the idea that ‘moral panics’ do in fact have implications upon public perceptions of crime. Many theorists argue that there are three ways in which the media can affect upon the publics perception of crime. Jock Young’s supports these theories and believes the three ways in which the media can do so, is: “By mass manipulation, by commercial ‘laissez-faire’, or by consensual paradigm” (cited in Jones, 2003; 86). By allowing the media to influences upon ones perception of crime they are perceived by theorists as being ‘mass manipulated’ by the media, consecutively left looking like ‘gullible’ parties of society. In comparison to this theory is the commercial ‘laissez-faire’ approach. Theorists who agree with this form of methodology maintain the view that the public’s opinions of crime previously existed, and their only decision to constitute is that of what newspaper to acquire. Many also deem that the media can represent a ‘consensual paradigm’, whereby individual’s opinions on crime are fuelled by media rather than actual encounters with crime (Williams, 2004; 50-51).
The dramatic and over exaggerated ways in which the media represents crime leads to the general public being more inclined to think that crimes are; greater, more frequent, and consist of more violence. Hough et al’s (1988) study supported this and revealed why so people assumed this, as when he asked 1,249 people in England and Wales where their main source of information about crime came from, he discovered that a whopping 91% of people replied through the newspapers and magazines. This study therefore supports the belief that there was an obvious relationship linking the public’s perception of crime and the Medias coverage of crime. In some ways such criminal awareness can be perceived as a good indicator of crime in comparison to those published in the official crime statistics. However the fear and anxiety brought upon society as a result of ‘moral panics’ can also result in numerous undesirable effects.
As previously mentioned the effects of a ‘moral panic’ can be both long and short standing. Using data from IBA research, Wober and Gunter (1990) discovered that the media exposure of crime can trigger significant affects on society. More than a third of respondents commented that crime:
“Made them feel more cautious about going out alone in the dark or that other people had probably also become more afraid of crime as a result…” (Cited in Williams, 2003; 89).
The modifying of peoples lives would be seen justified if their perceptions were accurate. However, the perceptions usually formed of crime are as a result of exaggerated media coverage; ‘moral panics’. This generally being the case, the actions taken by society as a result of such misconceptions can be seen as unjustifiable. Several members of society fear some people more than they would others, due to the perceptions generated from ‘moral panics’. For instance ‘the BCS indicated that most street offences are committed by and against young adult men’ (Jones, 2003; 88). Supplement to this women and the elderly tend stay in at night, one would therefore expect men too significantly to appear in street crime statistics. Not only do ‘moral panics’ affect the general public they also affect the criminal justice system. When reporting in relation to court sentences the media tend to concentrate on the hypothetical lack and leniency of them, Hough and Roberts (1988) proved this when compiling data from the 1996 BCS, they discovered that most people thought the ‘courts were more lenient towards burglar’s than is really the case’. However these perceptions were misconceived as Hough and Roberts (1988) commented:
‘The most likely reason for public misperceptions is that information about sentencing comes largely fro the media, and news values militate against balanced coverage. Erratic court sentences make news; sensible ones do not. As a result large parts of the population are exposed to a steady stream of misleading stories about sentencing incompetence’ (cited in Jones, 2003; 89).
Therefore, evidence supports the notion that the mass Medias coverage of crime is the primary explanation for the public’s apprehension regarding crime throughout episode when the actual crime rate is not increased. Consequently, it can be concluded that the way in which the media does this is through the creation of ‘moral panics’, an intelligent but complex process. The media are constantly profiting from making an impact upon publics perceptions of crime ‘by mass manipulation, commercial ‘laissez-faire’, and consensual paradigm’ (Jones, 2003; 86). The correlation between ‘moral panics’ and public’s perceptions of crime functions just like the ‘deviancy amplification spiral’. The media intensify moral panics, consequently amplifying the ‘fear’ of crime in society, resulting in more abnormal behaviour, higher criminal sentences, and an increase both official and unofficial statistics in the area paid attention to. Evidence suggests that public’s perceptions of crime are formed in one way or another by ‘moral panics’. Jones (2003) broadly summed up this:
“Left realists…claim that people select their newspapers and their TV viewing in accordance with their existing attitudes. Yet, how did these attitudes come to be formed in the first place? As most people are not the victims of serious crime, the obvious alternative source of information is conversation. However, questions then arise to how the other person’s opinions were reached. Even rumours have to start some where” (Jones, 2003; 90)
Bibliography
Bradley, A (1994) A Morality play for all times [WWW DOCUMENT] URL
http:// www.informinc.co.uk
Cohen S (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
Cohen S (1987) Folk Devils and Moral Panics. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
Critcher, C (2003) Moral Panics and the Media. Oxford: Oxford University
Goode, E and Ben- Yehuda, N. (1994) Moral Panics. The social construction of deviance. Oxford: Blackwells.
Williams, S (2004) Textbook on Criminology. US: Oxford University
Jones, S (2003) Criminology. Great Britain: Cromwell Press.
WWW. Theguardian.co.uk
WWW.Newsfilter.co.uk