Moral panics Essay

The term ‘moral panic’ suggests a dramatic and rapid overreaction to forms of deviance or wrongdoing believed to be a direct threat to society. The most common definition of a moral panic is the opening paragraph of ‘Folk Devils and Moral Panics’ by Stanley Cohen: Societies appear to be subject, every now and then, to periods of moral panic. (1) A condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; (2) its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media; (3) the moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops, politicians and other right-thinking people; (4) socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnoses and solutions; (5) ways of coping are evolved or (more often) resorted to; (6) the condition then disappears, submerges or deteriorates and becomes more visible. Sometimes the object of panic is quite novel and at other times it is something which has been in existence long enough, but suddenly appears in the limelight. Sometimes the panic passes over and is forgotten, except in folk lore and collective memory; at other times it has more serious and long-lasting repercussions and might produce such changes as those in legal and social policy or even in the way the society conceives itself. Although in Cohen’s original work the numbers did not appear, but they can be said to represent the six stages in the development of a moral panic. One such moral panic was the ‘video nasties’ case after the James Bulger murder in 1993. Robert Thompson and Jon Venebles, who were both ten years old at the time, abducted James from the Strand shopping centre in Bootle, Liverpool. They walked him two miles to a railway line where they inflicted massive injuries on him, which resulted in his death. This deviant act dominated the newspaper headlines and created a panic. This murder was portrayed as a horrific act in the press and symbolized the degeneration of modern British society. The Bulger case was used, by the media, to symbolise all what was wrong with Britain. They focused on the difference between innocence and evil and why we as a society let this happen, it suggested the increase of public indifference, lowering family values and increasing isolation, generating massive public guilt and predicting a breakdown in society itself. Fuelled by the press reports, reasons were sought why the murder of James Bulger may have happened. This prompted demands for tighter controls, curfews for young people and stricter laws. One of these laws was for stricter controls on violent films, or ‘video nasties’, as the press called them. This was because the trial judge, who sentenced Venebles and Thompson to be â€Å"detained at Her Majesty’s Pleasure†, unusually made a statement in open court claiming that he believed violent videos may in part be an explanation to why the boys committed murder. He in particular singled out the film ‘Child’s Play 3’, which he stated â€Å"had some striking similarities to the manner of the attack on James Bulger†. The police officer in charge of the case told The Guardian newspaper that he â€Å"had no evidence to suggest that the boys had access to any videos worse than might be found in many households†. This comment didn’t matter, the scapegoat had been found and this was the starting point for the second moral panic about ‘video nasties’. The first such panic occurred between 1982-1984 during the influx of video cassette recorders (VCR), one-third of households owned or rented a VCR. Coincidentally, Hollywood produced a crop of gruesome horror films which prompted many complaints, due to the extreme violence of such films, including sadism, mutilation and cannibalism. Laws were set up to prevent children from renting or buying 18 certificate films, and The Daily Mail’s ‘Ban The Sadist Videos’ campaign was set up. During the course of this first ‘video nasty’ moral panic, the term ‘video nasty’ was unmistakably synonymous simply with horror films and by 1984 the Video Recordings Act had been set up and became law. During the Bulger trial the press used emotive language to create a moral panic about the influences of video nasties. The press wanted to blame the moral decline on liberal permissiveness, the collapse of family life and the failings of schools, but the real culprit in the Bulger case was the arguments about the effects of the media. Every newspaper focused in detail on the alleged influence of ‘video nasties’. The Sun declared that â€Å"An x-rated video may have sown the seeds of murder in the mind of one of James Bulger’s killers† and the Daily Mirror ran the headline â€Å"Judge Blames Violent Videos†. ‘Child’s Play 3’, a film about a doll which comes to life and commits a series of murders, had been rented by one of the parents of one of the boys shortly before the murder. However, the police did not introduce the film as evidence in court as there was no evidence that either Venebles or Thompson had actually watched it. Whether or not the film had played a part in inciting the boys to commit murder, the video became the scapegoat. The press simplified the moral issues by concentrating on the video to the exclusion of virtually all other possible influences on the killers. The day after the judge’s summing up the Daily Mirror printed sensational coverage of the ‘evil’ and ‘sick’ video in the first few pages of the paper. Later Mirror coverage included an interview with the film’s director, David Kirschner, quoting him as saying that ‘Child’s Play 3’ was â€Å"never intended for kids† and that he wouldn’t let his own children watch it. The Sun’s coverage was more graphic than that of the Mirror. The front page of an issue led with the headline â€Å"For the sake of ALL our kids†¦ BURN YOUR VIDEO NASTY†, launching a campaign to destroy all copies of ‘Child’s Play3’ by asking readers and video shop outlets to burn them. In the same issue a graph was also printed showing the heart rate of a Sun journalist who watched ‘Child’s Play 3’ whilst wired to a heart monitor, her heart rate increased during the most violent parts of the film. The Sun used this experiment to prove that the video was indeed an incitement to murder, trying to prove that the furore over the so-called video nasties was a valid one. The case of the Bulger murder was seen to encompass every negative aspect of society which is evident in today’s world. The Times described this as a â€Å"reminder of humanity’s most ancient and bestial instincts†. Comments like this gave the press the opportunity to preach to society about modern social values and the need to return to a vigilant network of neighbours looking out for one another. The Times also used the word â€Å"alarm† to sensationalise the more accurate term â€Å"concern†, this use of language brings a new urgency to the debate about the video nasty moral panic. The press, using sensational media scaremongering, as they do to sell more papers, focused entirely on how violent films and in particular ‘Child’s Play 3†² incited the two boys to commit murder. Describing the film using words such as â€Å"sick† and â€Å"evil†, and even drawing parallels between the killings in the film and how James Bulger was murdered, of which none were proved in court. Moral panics tap into the public’s fears for their safety and the safety of their society around them. In many instances the press coverage of such events doesn’t help in alleviating the public’s fears, more often than not the press heighten these fears. They do this through sensationalism reporting. As tragic as it was that a young toddler was killed it allowed the people who hold power in this country to enforce their ideas and rules – more CCTV cameras were installed in the country because of how essential they were in identifying James’ murderers. Many panics result in official change and have long-lasting repercussions, as was the case of the video nasties moral panic. The Video Recording Act 1984 was set up introducing the regulations of videos through the British Board of Film Classification. The debates upon the lack of parental control in monitoring children’s viewing and the dangers of young children watching films intended for a mature audience led to further regulations in 1994. Bibliography Bell A, Joyce M, Rivers D, Advanced Level Media. Hodder & Stoughton, UK, 1999 Bowker, Julian, Looking at Media Studies, Hodder and Stoughton, UK, 2003 Cohen, Stanley, Folk Devils and Moral Panics, Macgibbon and Kee, London, 1972 Critcher, Chas, Moral Panics and the Media, Open University Press, UK, 2003 Price, Stuart, Media Studies (2nd Edition), Longman, UK, 1999