User4/draft/Controlling the flow of information

Notes on media-fostered public panics.

What does one know about what happens in the world?

One knows, for the most part, only what is reported in the media.

The public's perception of the prevalence of a certain "crime" (and of crime in general) depends almost exclusively on the crime which is reported by the media, and not on the number of crimes which actually occur.

The media is controlled by wealthy businessmen, those who have a vested interest in pandering to the government authorities (who license the media), and therefore of furthering the government "party line".

The government has a vested interest in terrorizing the public in order to seize more power by passing more draconian laws. (See "The War on Terrorism," and laws passed subsequently which erode personal liberties.)

The news concerning the number of arrests for "drug crimes" may (falsely) give the public the impression that a majority of drug users are being apprehended and prosecuted (which is, to say the least, a very misleading perception!).

This is true as well of BoyLovers--the number of BoyLovers who are actively engaged in sexual relationships with minor boys is certainly much much higher than the number of BoyLovers who are apprehended and prosecuted. The so far unanswered question is: for each BoyLover prosecuted, how many hundreds/thousands are never discovered? What is the real risk of being arrested for engaging in a sexual relationship with a minor? Is the risk one in a hundred, one in a thousand, one in ten thousand, one in a hundred thousand?

By making certain "perpetrators" the subject of frequent news stories, the government hopes to discourage whatever "criminal activity" is being reported, and to provide justification for new laws to "fight that crime".

While a "free press" is traditionally a check on government abuse of power, this function has been eroded. Too-aggressive investigative reporting may subject a media outlet to subtle coercion by the government.

When media outlets become too critical of the government policy or activity, the media may be "cut out of the loop" and denied access to government sources of information. (Ex: excluded from attending government news-release functions.)

The media tends to report:

• pre-packaged government "press releases" which further the goals of the government authorities
• "shock jock" stories which increase consumption of the media's product.

Consumers of the media's products become eventually become inured to "shocking news," and so the media must "ramp up the volume" to try to keep the audience's attention. When one type of "shocking news" becomes cliché, then those topics are dropped, to be substituted by a new line of "shocking news".

The ability of a certain topic to "shock" is cyclical. When one type of news story loses its ability to shock (due to the numbing effects of overexposure of the consumers) then that topic is put to rest for a generation (20 to 30 years or so) until a new generation of media news consumers (and news reporters) "comes of age".

There have been "waves" of pervert/homosexual/pedophile panics, occurring at around 30-year intervals. Further "panics" about "homosexuals" are now tacitly forbidden, as "homosexuality" has become more mainstream.

While "homosexual crimes" no longer are in the media, other "perverted" (read "pedophile") crimes have taken center stage.

In the U.S., the "pedophile panic/pedophile sex crime"-type shock-news stories seem to be reaching the saturation point in the "shock" cycle--they have exhausted their ability to shock.

The media has been turning away from "sex crimes" perpetrated by BoyLovers, and instead to "sex crimes" which are "perpetrated" by children and young people. These new stories, which include "child sex rings" and "sexting," are the new "shock" news stories you read about.

(NOTE: These comments are just rough notes, perhaps to later be expanded later into one or more articles.)