The Pleasures of Moral Panic

Thursday, 11th June 2009

Like Julian Sanchez, I consider Reason's compilation of 40 years of Time magazine's addiction to hysteria a real treat.

This 1972 effort - warning, as you can see, of the inexorable rise of Satanism in the United States - is just the beginning of it.

From there it's but a hop, skip and jump to scaremongering about cocaine use, rap music, population growth, "crack kids" and, best of all, Pokemon. Yes, Pokemon.

I suspect that Reason could have gone much further: surely Time must have warned us that we're all going to die of swine flu? Or was that bird flu?

Pretty much each and every one of these issues are classic examples of moral panic. And in each case, as Reason demonstrates, Time's journalism was only too happy to buy into hysteria based on anecdote and hearsay and rarely upon anything akin to logic or sound research.

But who needs facts or common sense when it's so much more entertaining to predict a new plague that will destroy everything that is sweet and good and true and wholesome about America?

As I say, it's all good fun.

Filed under: Americana (477 more articles) , Hackery (218 more articles) , Journalism (62 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (7)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

MikeF

June 11th, 2009 2:34pm Report this comment

What is the term 'moral panic' doing in The Spectator? There are no 'moral panics'. As objective social phenomena they do not exist; they are just a self-regarding phantasm of the left-liberal imagination.

The term does, however, also serve a more pernicious purpose. That is to create the impression that some people somehow take a detached, rational, analytical approach to political and social problems as opposed to a supposedly merely reflexive response based on an affront to received opinions that they attribute to anyone who thinks differently.

In that sense the term is more than just a conceit. It is also profoundly anti-intellectual and irrational because it attempts to stifle reasoned debate by potraying contrary points-of-view as somehow intrinsically infantile and worthy of nothing but contempt. As such it represents not merely a trivial use of language but a debasement of its purpose as a means of conducting reasoned argument. I expect The Spectator to stand up for the integrity of the English language, not contribute to its debasement.

Ray

June 11th, 2009 3:10pm Report this comment

Og course, Satan never really went away.

That said, his greatest triumph has been to convince the Western world that he doesn't really exist.

Justin Pressive

June 11th, 2009 9:26pm Report this comment

Kind of like the moral panic engulfing the BNP which you have relished germinating?

Alex Massie

June 12th, 2009 12:40am Report this comment

Justin Pressive: Your comment would be more persuasive - devastating even - if I had been hyping the so-called threat posed by the BNP. But I haven't been so doing. In fact, I think they are troglodytes who will perish once exposed to sunlight and proper scrutiny.

Any fair reading of my thoughts and writing on this will contradict your rather odd interpretation of them.

Alex Massie

June 12th, 2009 12:43am Report this comment

MikeF: If you think I am endorsing "moral panic" then perhaps you should read the post again.As far as I know, though I cannot speak for others, The Spectator's blogosphere remains immune from such panics...

Corsair

June 13th, 2009 8:31am Report this comment

Excellent stuff, thanks for bring it to our attention. It's good to laugh at Time for drinking the Ehrlich Kool-Aid, but is it not the case that Reason's very own Ronald Bailley has recently drunk a whole vat of the stuff regarding 'Climate Change'. Stones and glass houses?