J I B B E R - J A B B E R

Moral Panic. A term coined Stanley Cohen in the study of criminology and defined it as disjointed episode, whereby society is subjected to moral panics in which the values and principles within society are potentially jeopardized. He elaborates on this concept by stating that these episodes are amplified by the mass media, exaggerating the facts and turning them into a bigger issue than what it may actually be.

So why am I bringing this up?

In my recent criminology classes, we were discussing the effects of moral panics and their effects on society including the stereotypes they introduced and were implemented into society. We discussed different types of moral panics that have occurred in the past, including the mods vs. the rockers in the 70's and the HIV/AIDs threat in the 80's. Then we were asked to think about modern examples.

And after seeing a news report on the London riots earlier that morning, I thought of social media.


Of course, this definition of moral panics was written 40 years ago, a long time before the introduction of the internet and the www and definitely a long time before the social media sites. However, a contemporary moral panic that is occurring currently, and that has been a moral panic is social media itself. The definition has been expanded to include not only 'a condition, episode, person or group of persons' but also to include social media. I guess that's what you would call it right?

Yeah sure, Facebook and the likes have very little to do with crime. However, the hype that has surrounded the whole social networking phenomena has been controversial, with the younger generation embracing it and most of the older generations unable to comprehend it (a characteristic of moral panic, the youths of society embrace it, whilst the older people worry over it).

When I was watching the report on the London riots, I had next to no knowledge that it was happening, and it shocked me when I realized that it was entering it's 4th day. What amazed me in the report was that there was no mention of the alleged cause (which I discovered later having to Google it that an alleged police shooting had occurred which led to the youths rioting), merely stating that there was unsatisfied minors within the community and that social media was the real cause.



And I thought, how? The Daily Mail claims that the violence was fuelled when photos of a burning police cars were re-Tweeted 100 times on Twitter, and The Sun writes about how Twitter was used to increase their numbers. However, it turns out that Twitter did not fuel this riot, it was the Blackberry Messenger.

Another case of mass media targeting social media? Most likely.

You see, there are a lot of older people out there who are scared of the unknown, and social media is one of them. I think it is hard for them to comprehend the size of it, the ability for one to simply post something up and have everyone see it and to be able to engage with hundreds of people in front of a computer screen.

I also think that traditional forms of media are scared of this new media, as discussed in a recent Electronic Marketing seminar. These older forms are going out of business and in an attempt to save themselves, they have resorted to tarnishing the name of social media sites so as to decrease their popularity.

Such examples are children under 13 being allowed to gamble on Facebook and paedophiles preying on children through MySpacce and Facebook, just to name a couple of the more recent examples.

Then I sit on the other side (in front of the computer screen), and I think to myself, it is really not that bad.
Sure, there may be some paedophiles using Facebook or MySpace as a route for their disgusting behaviour, but how many?
Sure there are some children who may have seen an advertisement on Facebook for a gambling game, but how many have actually played?