Medias Role in the Proliferation of Social Disorder - Essay Example

Media’s Role in the Proliferation of Social Disorder What comes to mind when the word ‘disorder’ is heard? Perhaps a vision of chaos or wild behaviour with people running around for cover is imagined. Disorder triggers negative emotions such as fear, anxiety and dread. It can be further provoked when one hears worse news that the one that precedes it. Burney (2005) explains the shift of emphasis on ‘anti-social behaviour’ in the UK from the terminology of ‘disorder’ and ‘incivilities’ in the USA, was spurred by the movement of emphasis away from collective behaviour of delinquents to individual choices of morally deficient people who do negative deeds to harm others. For example, cases of youth attacking schools and killing a number of children and teachers point out to previously observed or diagnosed anti-social behaviour of the culprit. The decision of the young perpetrator of the crime to attack is credited to have caused social disorder. With the growing social disorder in the world, sociologists strive to study why and what can be done to reduce, if not totally eradicate it. The latter seems impossible considering factors that contribute to its prevalence. One is the great effect of media and its sensationalizing of observed disorder to attract its audience. For example, rallies and demonstrations of people for various causes, often controversial ones, can be provocative of social disorder. If demonstrators offend people against their causes and such people strike back at them, then it is likely that violence can ensue between the opposing forces. News footages of such violent exchanges can further inflame the emotions of viewers and push them to join the commotion, resulting in more social disorder. Kelly & Toynbee (2009) suggest that the mediation of ‘disorderly’ behaviour in the newspapers, television, the internet and other media platforms may bring about a feeling that we live in a dangerous society because of the awful events happening around us. Two theorists have attempted to make sense of media’s role in social disorder. One is Stanley Cohen (1973) and another is Stuart Hall (1978). Both theorists have logical explanations of how media participates in the existence of social order in society. Cohen speaks about moral panic, which is a group of people’s reaction to specific threats to the values and interests of their society as well as their way of life. This moral panic can be caused by disorderly behaviour displayed by some people, which lead to distress and disruption of other people’s lives (Taylor et al., 2010). The culprits of such moral panic are often identified as folk devils, which Cohen claims, media represents as evil beings that do horrendous acts to terrorize people and society in general. Media’s strong influence allows it to instil irrational fears in people of such folk devils that wakes up their deep-seated anxieties collectively that it creates moral panic (Cohen, 1973). Hall (1978) offers an alternative theory. He points to social conflict as the root of social disorder. A sense of crisis is manifested by the existence of muggers and other criminals who roam the streets. Media exploits such existence in order to control the general behaviour of its viewers. In “policing the crisis”, media can dictate to the people what to do to avoid such muggers from harming them. Society actually prefers media to maximize the perception that such muggers are threats to safety and security, so people conform to what society instructs them. For example, media exaggerates the criminal acts done by muggers/ criminals and report it to the public so that they take heed and just stay put in a safe place. This way, the government has more control of its people. Cohen (1973) and Hall et al.’s (1978) theories are similar in many ways. Both explain how media tries to control society with the manipulation of people’s perceptions. Both take advantage of people’s fears and insecurities and use it to grab their attention towards something so unpleasant that they cannot help but watch, while simultaneously hoping they never encounter it in real life. By sensationalizing the power of the folk devils , muggers, criminals, etc., negative outcomes of moral panic and a sense of crisis become prevalent. Media‘s job of covering such outcomes puts them in the spotlight as well. Being in the spotlight, they can be very influential with their views, opinions, etc. and they can rely on people’s gullibility to push them further up in power. For example, in covering situations of crisis, media can present one of the opposing sides to be in the right and the other, in the wrong. People can have varying beliefs and affiliations, but if they allow media to control their opinions, they can be swayed to believe even against their long-held convictions. The difference in the two theories is who or what to blame for the disorder. Whereas Cohen’s theory blames it on deviant individuals or groups, who become painted by media as folk devils, Hall et al.’s blame it on society and its inability to resolve conflicts. For example, in matters of political coup de etat where some entities attempt to take over the political leader, media may present various perspectives. In following Cohen’s theory, media can point out the instigators of the coup de etat or the political leader himself as the folk devils, depending on which side it takes. On the other hand, in the perspective of Hall et al.’s theory, media can emphasize the cause of political instability as the reason for the social disorder brought about by the coup de etat. In settling the issue, Cohen’s theory may propose the arrest of whoever is responsible for the social disorder while Hall et al.’s theory would propose to “police the crisis by obscuring deep-seated causes of the social conflict and turning the issue into a moral and legal struggle against violence. The actual causes of the social unrest are left unresolved because they are thought to further deepen the social conflict. An alternative theory is the Media Effects theory by Huesmann et al. (2003). It claims that media itself is the culprit in the propagation of social disorder. According to this theory, exposing people to violence makes them act violently as well, so if media presents a situation of violence to its viewers, it is very likely that they are psyched up to express violence as well. Huesmann et al. (2003) explain that exposure to violence presented by media increases viewers’ aggressive tendencies. From the foregoing, media has been depicted as being very influential in perpetuating social disorder especially if it is biased and reckless. Mediation, or the way media generates perceptions of disorder or anti-social behaviours has been the focus of Cohen and Hall et al.’s research. To them it is more just to consider social factors such as media coverage, public perception and actual behaviour and how they come about and interplay in various situations rather than a sweeping generalization that media is all-powerful that it can brainwash viewers to believe what it wants them to believe. In reporting the news, for example, it is expected that journalists should be objective in their reporting the facts, refrain from inserting their personal opinions and present all sides of the issue as much as possible. After they deliver the news, it should be up to the viewers to drive their own conclusions and discuss their own opinions amongst themselves. However, commentaries of some journalists, especially those who are very influential with their opinions can command the attention, trust and confidence of their followers. For example, if such commentators accuse a certain politician for malversation during his term in public office, even in an objective manner, the perception of the commentators’ followers may be exaggerated and may result in mudslinging of the politician, possibly irking the politician’s supporters. This can ignite an argument between the commentators’ and the politician’s supporters leading to disorder. The commentator, on the other hand, may not even be aware of the consequences of his actions captured by media… or perhaps, he does, and deliberately uses media to sow disorder and further blame it on the politician to strengthen his claim. People should be careful in being easily swayed by what media presents. Not everything reported by the news is true. Viewers should keep an open mind and use discernment in taking in the news. Folk devils may not necessarily be evil, as depicted by media. They may be innocent victims propped up to scare people to serve media’s purpose. Unfairly portrayed as a monster, their integrity and reputation may be destroyed as they are used as scapegoats to divert the public’s attention from more relevant issues such as analysing the real reason for the unrest. It may be the alleged folk devil’s discontent with the government, a psychological dysfunction that needs to be addressed, or even an act of vengeance for transgression done to him in the past. This does not mean that they should not be punished for their misdeed. It just needs more careful consideration of the case and not resort to blind judgment just because media said so. Everyone should do their share in preventing further social disorder. References Burney, E. (2005) Making People Behave, Collumpton, Willan. Cohen, S. (1973) Folk Devils and Moral Panics, London, Paladin. Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J. and Roberts, B. (1978) Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order, London and Basingstoke, Macmillan. Huesmann, R., Moise-Titus, J., Pdolski, C-L. and Eron, L. (2003) ‘Longitudinal relations between children’s exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behaviour in young adulthood: 1977–1992’, Developmental Psychology, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 201–23. Kelly, B. & Toynbee, J. (2009) ‘Making disorder on the street’, in Taylor, S., Hinchliffe, S., Clarke, J. & Bromley, S. (eds.) Making Social Lives, Milton Keynes: The Open University Read More