Reportage of certain crimes like the Columbine High School massacre accelerates moral panics, causing society to quickly adopt new crime policies (the incident at Columbine, for example, caused many schools to adopt zero-tolerance policies and stricter gun laws to be passed).
On the contrary, how does media coverage of crime expedite crime policy initiatives, and do Americans react too quickly to media coverage to adopt new policies, or are reactions improved because of the speed at which social issues are reported?
Do the media exaggerate crime and cause people to unnecessarily live in fear?
I wont tell you my occupation or people I know but if you knew what really happened on the streets everyday you would never leave your house. Peace out.............
Reply:Yes. A fearful populace is an easily controlled populace...
Reply:There is no exaggeration in my city. As of last night in Philadelphia there has been 236 murders and that is just in the city, not including the suburbs.
Reply:YES! I don't know why but they do
I think because for some reason many people enjoy hearing sick news. If it wasn't all shocking bad stuff people probably wouldn't watch it
Reply:sensationalism equals ratings equals larger advertising accounts.
real news falls by the wayside and no one notices. we're all too busy talking on our cell phones about how outraged we are by what our supervisors said to us and we did not notice that they were slowly taking any and all power to address grievances from us.
oh well, at least we still have tv. damn! tv sucks! why did they have to take the good shows?!?
Reply:Keeping people in a state of fear moves them to cooperate. Take global warming for example, even though it is only a theory, the media blows it up into something that is a huge crisis. Even if global warming was a danger, it wouldnt happen for thousands of years, and yet the media exaggerates and makes it sound like it is going to happen tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment