Society's moral panic attacks - all grist for the media mill

The problem is that when the misdoings of the guilty few and the incompetence of their governing bodies was revealed, suspicion fell on all clergy - the innocent as well as the guilty – and the good work the churches were doing suffered. This is characteristic of moral panics - the actual incidents of misuse and abuse are comparatively few, yet the perception is that all are under suspicion. Responsibility for this lies with reporting that provides little by way of context, unscrupulous politicians and a public that is largely media-illiterate.

So, if new technology and malfunctioning social institutions can offend, who are the offended?

With technology-based moral panic it is often the technophobes - those that fear new technology - who panic at the release of yet more powerful tools into the hands of individuals, business and government. These may be people uncomfortable in a world where services are accessed, goods purchased and transactions increasingly mediated
via  keyboard and screen. They are people left behind by the technological revolution of the past 30 years, whether through poor education, lack of opportunity or through choice.

Others take an Orwellian attitude to technology - especially the new media technologies of compact video camera or picture phone. The horse, however, can be said to have bolted. Government and business already hold extensive information about individuals, despite privacy legislation, and security cameras record the movement of people in public places. While the use of information recorded by security cameras is regulated by law, similar use of information documented by individuals with video and still cameras and picture phones is not. Anyone can take pictures in public places and place them on their website. Such a freedom is obviously critical to the media in a democratic society. Any restriction on individual rather than media rights would bring criticism of government and from the photography industry fearing a decline in the sales of imaging devices.

Others experience moral panic because the world is changing too fast for them and because they do not understand the process of social and economic change. The challenge may be to the religious beliefs that give meaning to life and that guide individual behaviour. The moral panic about cloning and stem cell research are two recent examples of how the potential benefits brought by biological science can be interpreted as something fearful.

The religious critique of modern technology is as valid as any other, however the risk is that those experiencing moral panic could fall prey to the self-appointed moral guardians of society, some of whom inhabit the outer limits of contemporary Christendom - the evangelical faiths that occupy the political far right, whose social attitudes might
appear little different from those held by the Taliban.

Moral panics normally have a short life, however when opportunistic politicians and some elements of the media intervene they can be prolonged. The question of whether moral panics are solely the creation of sensationalist reporting or whether reporting deepens or prolongs moral panics is debatable and would have to be considered on a case by case basis. Certainly, the relationship of the media to a surge of concern, fear or panic in society is complex, and easy explanations are best avoided in all but the simplest, most obvious and superficial instances.

Moral panic sells television time and newspapers and it should not come as a surprise that it is the so-called early evening 'current affairs' programs on commercial networks and elements of the tabloid press that play on the fears. As social phenomena, moral panics must be reported - they are valid media material, involving classic media themes such as 'the victim' and 'the hero'. They elicit emotions like fear, loathing and outrage - all good news for media products that set out to exploit such emotions.

Television and the press personalise issues by reporting how individuals are affected. Commonly, these are stories of victims or of spokespeople articulating the fear of those feeling panic. This is proper, of course, because issues affect individuals and reporting how this happens can demonstrate their potential.

But the media has to go further if it is to fulfill its public duty to report and explain. In the case of the quality press and the more investigative and responsible television and radio programming, it accomplishes this by disclosing the origin and history of moral panics; how the controversy has developed; the veracity of claims about the source of the panic and by putting the fears in context to gain a proper perspective.

That is the stuff that informed decisions by regulators should be based on.