MM4 - Media Ownership 

Moral Panics

One key area in understanding the social construction of news is the phenomenon of moral panics, famously analyzed by sociologist Stanley Cohen. Cohen's seminal work on the "mods and rockers" subcultural conflict in 1964 sheds light on the mechanisms underlying moral panics. His research was later complemented by Stuart Hall's examination of the moral panic surrounding "black muggers" in the 1970s. While Cohen focused on subcultural groups, this concept applies to various other moral panics, including those related to knife crime, Islamophobia, and even the COVID-19 pandemic.

Defining Moral Panic: A moral panic can be defined as a situation where a news story, issue, or social group is sensationalized and magnified by the media, creating a public perception of exaggerated fear and concern. The process of creating a moral panic typically unfolds in several stages.

1. Identification of Problem Group or Issue: Moral panics often begin with the identification of a problem group or issue. Cohen's study highlighted the mods and rockers as two subcultural groups perceived as problematic in the 1960s. Similarly, Stuart Hall examined the moral panic surrounding young black men as perceived threats. More recently, moral panics have targeted groups like teenagers wearing hoodies.
2. Demonization Through Media: Media outlets play a crucial role in moral panics by publishing stories that demonize these identified groups. They employ language and imagery that exaggerate the perceived problem, portraying it as much more significant than it actually is. For example, headlines may describe "hordes of teens," implying negativity and threat.
3. Oversimplification of the Issue: To sustain the moral panic, the media often oversimplify the issue at hand. They reduce complex factors to black-and-white portrayals, removing any ambiguity or nuanced understanding. In doing so, they create a straightforward narrative that portrays the identified group as solely responsible for the problem, neglecting underlying causes.
4. Moral Entrepreneurs' Involvement: Moral entrepreneurs, individuals with social or political influence, play a pivotal role in the creation of moral panics. They make public statements condemning the targeted group, contributing to their degradation and demonization. These influential figures can include politicians, law enforcement officials, and even prominent celebrities.
5. Police Targeting and Justification: The media's portrayal of the group as a threat often leads to increased police targeting. Law enforcement may conduct more arrests, initiate frequent stop-and-search operations, or engage with the group in a more aggressive manner. This heightened police activity seemingly justifies the moral panic, as increased arrests and interactions are presented as evidence of the group's deviance.
6. Creation of Folk Devils: As the moral panic intensifies, the initially identified group becomes "folk devils." They are branded as society's villains and symbols of the perceived problem. The media's narrative reinforces this image, further fueling public fear and concern. Consequently, the demonization of the group becomes deeply ingrained in societal perceptions.

Understanding moral panics, their origins, and their consequences is essential for sociological analysis. It highlights how media, influential figures, and societal dynamics can collectively shape public perception and contribute to exaggerated fears and concerns. By critically examining moral panics, we gain insights into the power of media and societal reactions to perceived threats.

Evaluation

While moral panic theory provides valuable insights into how media shapes societal perceptions, it's not without its criticisms and complexities. Several scholars have offered critical perspectives on this theory, highlighting its limitations and nuances.

Jukes' Critique (2015): One notable critique comes from Jukes in 2015, who argues that moral panic theory can be somewhat vague and imprecise. Jukes suggests that defining who qualifies as deviants isn't always clear-cut. Moreover, Jukes points out that some of the individuals or groups labeled as "folk devils" during moral panics may not necessarily be genuinely harmful or malicious. To illustrate this, Jukes cites the example of the moral panic surrounding pedophiles in the early 2000s, emphasizing that not all individuals within this group were inherently evil. Furthermore, Jukes questions the assumption inherent in moral panic theory that portrays the public as passive and gullible consumers of news, suggesting that it underestimates public discernment and critical thinking.

Critchner Perspective (2009): Critchner, in 2009, introduces the notion that moral panic theory might be too abstract and challenging to test empirically. He argues that creating a moral panic deliberately for research purposes would be unethical. Consequently, the theory's validity becomes difficult to verify. Critchner also highlights that retrospective application of the theory to past events allows for interpretation to align with specific interests, raising questions about objectivity.

Value-Laden Characteristics: One overarching critique is the value-laden nature of characteristics associated with moral panic theory. Critics argue that these characteristics, which include excitement, surprise, and focus on elite groups, are determined not by neutrality or objectivity but by the subjective judgments of news outlets, editors, journalists, and owners. This subjectivity can influence the creation and portrayal of moral panics.

Postmodernist Perspective: Postmodernists challenge moral panic theory, emphasizing the complexity of moral panics due to diverse media interpretations. They argue that not all social groups will be demonized uniformly across different media outlets. New media platforms have given a voice to groups labeled as "folk devils," enabling them to present their perspectives. Examples include subcultural groups like Goths and Emos, who contest media portrayals and assert that they do not conform to the negative stereotypes assigned to them.

McRobbie and Thornton's Argument (1995): McRobbie and Thornton (1995) contend that moral panic theory may have become outdated for several reasons. First, the frequency of moral panics has increased over time, making it challenging to sustain prolonged demonization of specific groups. Additionally, heightened awareness of contextual factors has led people to critically assess moral panic narratives. Reflexivity among individuals means that public perceptions can shift as more information becomes available. Furthermore, achieving consensus on who is good or bad is difficult, as values and beliefs vary widely among individuals and social groups. Lastly, there is the risk of backlash when starting a moral panic, as exemplified by the case of John Major, who initiated a moral panic about family values but faced backlash when his extramarital affair became public knowledge.

In conclusion, while moral panic theory provides a framework for understanding the role of media in shaping public perceptions, it is subject to critique and may not offer a complete or universally applicable explanation for the complexities of social reactions to perceived threats and deviance. Scholars continue to engage in critical discussions to refine and expand our understanding of moral panics in contemporary society.