The Fear Industrial Complex

[Dakota435]

Right now the FIC is going all out over AGW... tomorrow it will be over something like cancer causing shoe lace nibs.



Worry About the Right Things
by John Stossel (More by this author)
Posted: 04/04/2007

For the past two weeks I've written about how the media -- part of the Fear Industrial Complex -- profit by scaring us to death about things that rarely happen, like terrorism, child abductions, and shark attacks.

We do it because we get caught up in the excitement of the story. And for ratings.

Worse, because many reporters are statistically illiterate, personal-injury lawyers get us to hype risks that barely threaten people, like secondhand smoke, or getting cancer from trace amounts of chemicals. Sometimes they even con us into scaring you about risks that don't exist at all, like contracting anti-immune disease from breast implants.

Newsrooms are full of English majors who acknowledge that they are not good at math, but still rush to make confident ****ouncements about a global-warming "crisis" and the coming of bird flu.

Bird flu was called the No. 1 threat to the world. But bird flu has killed no one in America, while regular flu -- the boring kind -- kills tens of thousands. New York City internist Marc Siegel says that after the media hype, his patients didn't want to hear that.
"I say, 'You need a flu shot.' You know the regular flu is killing 36,000 per year. They say, 'Don't talk to me about regular flu. What about bird flu?'"

Here's another example. What do you think is more dangerous, a house with a pool or a house with a gun? When, for "20/20," I asked some kids, all said the house with the gun is more dangerous. I'm sure their parents would agree. Yet a child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool than in a gun accident.

Parents don't know that partly because the media hate guns and gun accidents make bigger headlines. Ask yourself which incident would be more likely to be covered on TV.

Media exposure clouds our judgment about real-life odds. Of course, it doesn't help that viewers are as ignorant about probability as reporters are.

To demonstrate that, "20/20" ran an experiment. We asked people to put on blindfolds and then to pick up a red jellybean from one of two plates that held a mixture of red and white jellybeans. We offered $1 to anyone who could pick up a red bean.

Here's the catch: While one plate held 20 jellybeans and the other 100, the plate with 20 beans had a higher percentage of red ones. We put up signs that told people this clearly: "10 percent red" of the small plate and just "7 percent red" of the big plate.

Surprisingly, even with the percentage signs in front of them, a third of the people picked the plate with 100 beans.

What people saw overwhelmed their ability to think abstractly about probability. They saw more red on the big plate. It's one reason people obsess about things that have a small chance of hurting them but ignore real threats.

Another is the illusion of control. People who fear flying are comfortable driving because they think they're "in control." Yet driving is probably the riskiest thing most of us do. Think about it: We drive at 65 mph, a few feet from other cars -- some of which are driven by 16-year olds! And our cameras have caught people curling their eyelashes and reading while driving.

A hundred people die on the road every day. But the media are much more likely to do scare stories about plane crashes than car accidents.

So take our reporting with heavy skepticism. Ignore us when we hyperventilate about mad cow disease and the danger of asbestos hidden behind a wall.

Instead, worry about what's worth worrying about: driving, acting reckless, smoking cigarettes, drinking too much, and eating too much. "What is your blood pressure, what are you eating; are you exercising?" is what patients should think about, says internist Marc Siegel. "But obesity is boring. Heart disease is boring. So we tend to not think of the things that can really get us."

The media make it worse. Instead of educating people to real dangers, we scare them about things that hardly matter.

[Hellfish]

Very true. I've been saying this stuff for years. There's lots of money and power to be had for people who can scare other people. I stopped watching the local news because they're the absolute worst offenders. Every day its something like "New study suggests your kids may get cancer from their textbooks" while failing to mention that it was a study from a backwater community college in Alabama that wasn't offered for peer review.

[PPSH41]

This article is spot on. I almost can't believe how gullable people are.

[afreu]

Totally agree about how media uses fear. Although I believe global warming (man made or not) is there and problem we'll have to deal with. I recommend "The Power of Nightmares", an excellent documentary about how politicians use fear to implement their agenda.

[PPSH41]

The mainstream media should really be ashamed of themselves as they have increasingly become a simple propaganda machine for anyone pushing an agenda. Investigative reporting has been all but abandoned. And their failure to verify/investigate most of their stories before reporting them is increasingly a problem.

[Firetxmi]

I believe the media does it. But I am positive our politicians do it as well!

[Dakota435]

I believe the media does it. But I am positive our politicians do it as well!

Probably more accurate to say that the media sets up the perception of a certain public mood at which point politicians jump on the bandwagon to be on message with their voters.

[afreu]

With most print, tv and internet media owned by a handful of companies it's easy for the people in charge to spread only those opinions which conform with their interests.

Which is pretty bad since the media, an institution you could easily call the fourth power in a democracy, isn't independent anymore but subject to the interests of a few big companies.

[Dakota435]

With most print, tv and internet media owned by a handful of companies it's easy for the people in charge to spread only those opinions which conform with their interests.

Which is pretty bad since the media, an institution you could easily call the fourth power in a democracy, isn't independent anymore but subject to the interests of a few big companies.

That's less of a problem than the fact that journalists and editors and producers are overwhelmingly of a certain social/political bent so that the basis of "normality" that they report from is skewed. This is why the major media outlets like the NY Times, Wa Po, LA Times, the three public nets and the Associated Press all come across as cheerleaders for the Democratic Party.

The simple fact is that most of them are Democrats themselves.

[Firetxmi]

Probably more accurate to say that the media sets up the perception of a certain public mood at which point politicians jump on the bandwagon to be on message with their voters.

Lest you forget the '04 elections when the Republicans based their campaign on "If you vote for the Dems. you will surely die of a terrorist attack!"

Our politicians are good at this game as well. You cannot blame the media for EVERYTHING, although they certainly help it along.

[AgentX]

And yet they laugh everytime Chomsky opens his mouth. Too much freedom of mass media has brought some ugly and nasty things on the table.

[PPSH41]

And yet they laugh everytime Chomsky opens his mouth. Too much freedom of mass media has brought some ugly and nasty things on the table.

Yet whether they realize it or not they further his ideals. I'll just say you can compare it to that if the US actually was in the middle east JUST for oil, they would never say it, in fact they ridicule people that say it.

[Dakota435]

Lest you forget the '04 elections when the Republicans based their campaign on "If you vote for the Dems. you will surely die of a terrorist attack!"

Our politicians are good at this game as well. You cannot blame the media for EVERYTHING, although they certainly help it along.

They based their campaign on the theme that the Dems are unserious about national defense, with Kerry's "global test" bulls**t. That is a perfectly obvious fact.

[Dakota435]

And yet they laugh everytime Chomsky opens his mouth. Too much freedom of mass media has brought some ugly and nasty things on the table.

I laugh every time Chomsky opens his mouth because I know that anybody who was/is a supporter of:

A. Pol Pot
B. Hezbollah (appearing at a Hezb news conference as a supporter only last year)

...has a mind that is so obviously out of kilter that nothing he says can be taken seriously.

Amazing how easy it is to pick the Chomsky readers out from posts on this forum.

[Firetxmi]

They based their campaign on the theme that the Dems are unserious about national defense, with Kerry's "global test" bulls**t. That is a perfectly obvious fact.

LOL. Ok. :lol:

Crank up the fear another notch.

[vryhpyammoadded]

Of course the politicos do it; everyone looking to make money does it. And, ask anyone experienced on the Hill what it’s all about and he’ll reply “MONEY”. If he doesn’t, he’s either an idealist with a short career or yanking your chain.

Marketing science that targets a desired aspect of about any human psychological quirk has been so refined that for the right amount anyone can hire a swarm of professionals to crunch the numbers to predict the take within +-3%. Add to this mix savvy player’s with big connections and plenty of access to sell and you get near instant money. There are plenty of other factors too like money invested in the push to obtain the desired effect. Just look at that dead blond bimbo that nobody cared about and, how they sold her so hard for an example. The same can be done for the lamest political issue or the driest political hack. It all depends on how good your spin team is and how gullible people are feeling that determines payback.

When I left my internship on the hill way back when, I went to a demographics firm to survey and analyze the numbers. There’s so much power (money) in statistics and marketing, that is, leveraging it, it’s insane. That was twenty years ago too. I can’t imagine how powerful it is today what with modern computing and the Internet. Sometimes I wonder if we border on something akin to Asimov’s “Psychohistory”

Oh, and expect any form of communication to be leverage to get you to think you want to give someone else your power (money).

[PPSH41]

Of course the politicos do it; everyone looking to make money does it. And, ask anyone experienced on the Hill what it’s all about and he’ll reply “MONEY”. If he doesn’t, he’s either an idealist with a short career or yanking your chain.

Marketing science that targets a desired aspect of about any human psychological quirk has been so refined that for the right amount anyone can hire a swarm of professionals to crunch the numbers to predict the take within +-3%. Add to this mix savvy player’s with big connections and plenty of access to sell and you get near instant money. There are plenty of other factors too like money invested in the push to obtain the desired effect. Just look at that dead blond bimbo that nobody cared about and, how they sold her so hard for an example. The same can be done for the lamest political issue or the driest political hack. It all depends on how good your spin team is and how gullible people are feeling that determines payback.

When I left my internship on the hill way back when, I went to a demographics firm to survey and analyze the numbers. There’s so much power (money) in statistics and marketing, that is, leveraging it, it’s insane. That was twenty years ago too. I can’t imagine how powerful it is today what with modern computing and the Internet. Sometimes I wonder if we border on something akin to Asimov’s “Psychohistory”

Oh, and expect any form of communication to be leverage to get you to think you want to give someone else your power (money).

Good post, and pretty much the plain and simple truth.

[Firetxmi]

They based their campaign on the theme that the Dems are unserious about national defense, with Kerry's "global test" bulls**t. That is a perfectly obvious fact.

Is it an orange threat level today or is it yellow? Maybe it will be red tomorrow, or maybe they won't change it for a week.

Better go buy your water and plastic sheeting for your house- because plastic sheeting will save you from a radiological or chemical attack!

[Hellfish]

I remember around 2002, I had just finished college and was living with my parents while looking for a job that paid minumum wage. My local newspaper in suburban Chicago ran a week long feature about people in the area who followed the advice of the DHS and covered their windows in plastic, stockpiled years of food and water, and had all kinds of escape plans in the event of a terrorist attack on their subdivision.

I remember at the time how totally amused I was at these people, but now I think of them and wonder how successful the media and politicos were at convincing people that we were under threat on every street corner.

[PPSH41]

I remember around 2002, I had just finished college and was living with my parents while looking for a job that paid minumum wage. My local newspaper in suburban Chicago ran a week long feature about people in the area who followed the advice of the DHS and covered their windows in plastic, stockpiled years of food and water, and had all kinds of escape plans in the event of a terrorist attack on their subdivision.

I remember at the time how totally amused I was at these people, but now I think of them and wonder how successful the media and politicos were at convincing people that we were under threat on every street corner.

Yeah, its that kind of fear mongering we need to worry about. Be it from polititions, scientists, activists or whomever.

[Dasein]

So can we agree that the media, especially Fox News, has manufactured much of the fear of terrorism?

[PPSH41]

So can we agree that the media, especially Fox News, has manufactured much of the fear of terrorism?

They don't "manufacture" anything. Put a right spin on it at times? sure.
Hype it up a bit more than needs be? sure. But compared to what most of the other media outlets do, they arent so bad.

[Firetxmi]

But compared to what most of the other media outlets do, they arent so bad.

It all depends on what you underlying political opinions (biases) are.

[Beowulf]

So can we agree that the media, especially Fox News, has manufactured much of the fear of terrorism?

Once you actually begin to look closely at terrorist organizations, their funding and membership, you may be surprised at how far reaching some of these organizations are.

There are some very legitimate threats. I think that people are actually underinformed about the realities of terrorism/crime. The media focuses on a couple of buzzwords here and there, but fails to give any sort of in depth analysis.

I don't think that the average american (perhaps even the average western european) really wants to have an in-depth understanding of current threats, as this may hinder their enjoyment of "American Idol" or whatever anti-culture crap is being spewed out these days.

A common comment I get from friends and relatives is "I'm glad you're doing it so I don't have to" I think this is indicative of the attitude of most people.

BTW, the SITE institute is a good place to start if you don't have access to FOUO or above information. : http://www.siteinstitute.org/

[Dakota435]

Is it an orange threat level today or is it yellow? Maybe it will be red tomorrow, or maybe they won't change it for a week.

Better go buy your water and plastic sheeting for your house- because plastic sheeting will save you from a radiological or chemical attack!

Hey man it was the Dems who pushed for the Dept of Homeland Security...

Are you saying that there haven't been any terror plots uncovered over the last 5 years? That the fact that there have been no major attacks in the US is solely because none were ever planned? Are you on planet earth dude?

[Dakota435]

So can we agree that the media, especially Fox News, has manufactured much of the fear of terrorism?

No I'd say much of the fear of terrorism was manufactured by the sight of the WTC coming down.

Jeeez

[Firetxmi]

Hey man it was the Dems who pushed for the Dept of Homeland Security...


So in a previous post you say that if a Dem was elected we (being the U.S.) would be "soft on terror", now you say that they pushed for the DHS? Which one is it man? If they pushed for the DHS then wouldn't that indicate that they are not "soft on terror"?

Who's "Flip-floppin'" now? :D

[Dakota435]

So in a previous post you say that if a Dem was elected we would be "soft on terror", now you say that they pushed for the DHS? Which one is it man? If they pushed for the DHS then wouldn't that indicate that they are not "soft on terror"?

Who's "Flip-floppin'" now? :D

Ahhhh Firetx Firetx Firetx...

The formation of the DHS has nothing to do with being soft or hard on terror. This was a departmental reorganization which was in fact opposed by most conservatives because it created a new super bureaucracy. The Dems pushed for it because they LOVE big bureaucracies, and Bush went along, being a go along kinda guy (it's why he left so many Clinton appointees in place, to his detriment).

Soft on terror is when the Dems try to gut the Patriot Act, or peddle the line that the US should not act without global support, or when Dems go visit terrorist supporting states giving them legitmacy, or push for specific deadlines to skedaddle out of Iraq so that the terrorists and Baathists can plan for how long they have to hunker down.

Aren't you just a TEEENY bit unnerved by the fact that all the bad apples, the terrorist organizations, the Iranians, the Baathists, are all enthusiastic supporters of the Dems??

Aren't you just a LITTLE embarrassed that all the world's psychos are rooting for YOUR team???

I sure would be.

[Firetxmi]

The Dems pushed for it because they LOVE big bureaucracies, and Bush went along, being a go along kinda guy (it's why he left so many Clinton appointees in place, to his detriment).

The bolded text gave me the biggest laugh out of the whole post. Anyway, this group of "Republicans" has been more in favor of expanded government role than any other group of Republicans lately.


Soft on terror is when the Dems try to gut the Patriot Act,

Doesn't the Patriot Act expand big gov.? Many Republicans were against it as well.


or peddle the line that the US should not act without global support,

When a good portion of the world tells you you might be wrong about something, shouldn't that set off some warning signals?


or when Dems go visit terrorist supporting states giving them legitmacy,

Uh, a Republican also went to visit the same state in question.


or push for specific deadlines to skedaddle out of Iraq so that the terrorists and Baathists can plan for how long they have to hunker down.

I'll say something my dad used to say when I was a kid:
When you've dug yourself into a hole, whats the first thing you have to do? STOP DIGGING!


Aren't you just a TEEENY bit unnerved by the fact that all the bad apples, the terrorist organizations, the Iranians, the Baathists, are all enthusiastic supporters of the Dems??

Could it be because they realize that if they support one party that most Americans will vote for the other? Afterall, Bush and party has yet to catch Bin Laden....

Some food for thought.

[Dakota435]

Could it be because they realize that if they support one party that most Americans will vote for the other? Afterall, Bush and party has yet to catch Bin Laden....

Some food for thought.

That's a stretch man. Admit it. You ARE embarrassed by the Dem position.

[Firetxmi]

That's a stretch man. Admit it. You ARE embarrassed by the Dem position.

I am embarrassed for the Dems (I am more a libertarian- and I vote a split ticket since no libertarians have a hope right now). I do not think it is a stretch, it would be a stretch to think our enemies do not have forethought as to their actions and words.

[Dakota435]

I am embarrassed for the Dems (I am more a libertarian- and I vote a split ticket since no libertarians have a hope right now). I do not think it is a stretch, it would be a stretch to think our enemies do not have forethought as to their actions and words.

I kinda figured that out, which is why I kinda like ya dude.

[sferrin]

They based their campaign on the theme that the Dems are unserious about national defense, with Kerry's "global test" bulls**t. That is a perfectly obvious fact.

"sensitive war". That one almost made me spew.

[sferrin]

So in a previous post you say that if a Dem was elected we (being the U.S.) would be "soft on terror", now you say that they pushed for the DHS? Which one is it man? If they pushed for the DHS then wouldn't that indicate that they are not "soft on terror"?

Who's "Flip-floppin'" now? :D

DHS is a nice cozy way to pretend you're doing something without having to address the problem at the source.