Blog #12: Everybody PANIC!
Due: Sunday, May 16
HEY! THERE ARE ABOUT A DOZEN LINKS IN THE TEXT. I KNOW THEY’RE HARD TO SEE, BUT PUT YOUR MOUSE OVER THINGS, AND YOU’LL FIND THE LINKS.
A good source for this week comes fro Sam Mailhot‘s blog. PanicWatch tracks current issues with media and panic as they happen. Take a look back to see some more recent issues with the media selling panic.
- From XKCD.
Last semester, Cody Smallwood brought in a very interesting source in his entry on the subject of media-induced panic. He brought in the issue of Moral Panic and writes:According to Goode and Ben-Yehuda, moral panic consists of the following characteristics:
- Concern
- Hostility
- Consensus
- Disproportionality
- Volatility
Have you seen examples of this progression? What happens when news organizations dwell on potentially alarming or concerning news too long or if a person chooses to immerse himself or herself in that news? Can you think of more modern examples than the Swine Flu panic to bring into your writing?
For your blog this week, challenge yourself to find examples of the media dealing with panic and information. Look at the balance between writing too much about a topic and not covering a topic thoroughly enough.
You can also look at examples where media sources allow bias to taint their coverage of a topic or event. Look for liberal and conservative biases, or simply biases where a publication is protecting itself from scrutiny.
Jon Stewart can even come back into the picture here. There are examples of him talking about Media panic recently, but the most famous example is his confrontations with Jim Cramer about using panic to his advantage and manipulating the stock market through his nature and reports.
Here’s the link to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP3YyJz3HsU
You’ll find a lot of examples on your own, and I really encourage you to go looking right away so you have more time to make sense of things.
For research’s sake, here’s what we used to write about regarding the Swine Flu Panic in the last few years:
We’ve been seeing and hearing an awful lot in the news about the H1N1 virus (also known as Swine Flu). We’ve also been talking about it plenty, too. Just a few days after the outbreak, a full 2% of all comments posted on Twitter referenced the Swine Flu. We’re even talking about the virus more than people talked about our favorite frumpy songstress Susan Boyle.
The Center for Disease Control has even created a Twitter site to get out information in real-time about the virus.
As of last night, the total cases of Swine Flu in the US is at 226 with just 1 laboratory-confirmed case in Minnesota. Experts are also saying that this is a relatively weak strain of the flu.
So, it’s all over the TV, Radio, and Internet, but it’s also dominating what we’re talking about. A person can’t even sneeze without being accused of having the swine flu. Schools are shutting down due to suspisions. Just today, Osseo has closed its doors.
Now, there’s a problem. As the virus spreads, it’s becoming harder and harder to get new, accurate information out in a way that is clear and avoids causing a widespread panic.
So, basically, is the spread of information proper or unnecessarily panic-inducing?The CDC says Twitter chatter is helpful. However, the attention seems to say that we’re in the middle of an all-out crisis, and is that really the case? Also,misinformation is running rampant on Twitter.
What kind of information should be released? When the media is everywhere, how much should we talk about it?
Is the Swine Flu showing a flaw in new media and online journalism or showcasing how powerful the Internet can be?
What are your thoughts on coverage of events like this in the future?
What questions do you have about what’s going on and what thoughts do you have on the affect of an overabundance of information on the country?
McCallum
Secured by