The Culture Of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid Of The Wrong Things (2000) - Plot & Excerpts
This book focuses on the sort of public media scares that have, and continue to, grip the American public. It argues that not only are these episodes of mass hysteria completely unfounded, they are actively detrimental to the American population. From fears of car-jacking and plane crashes to those of silicone breast implants and unwed teenage mothers, Glassner uncovers significant evidence that these threats were grossly overblown, even in the face of hard countervailing evidence. So, that raises the question of how these non-issues become the basis for widespread fear. On this Glassner is clear. He places the blame squarely on the media and lobby groups. The frequency and the tone with which the media presents scare stories leads to their power and proliferation. Glassner certainly shows the existence of significant scares, and offers compelling evidence that many of these were overblown. As for Glassner's second contention, that these fears are actively hurting Americans, his claims are not uniformly sound. One of the strongest parts of this book is Glassner's discussion of the ways in which unreasonable fears perpetuate racism against young black men. Many are well aware of the failures of the heavily-funded war on drugs, and how the conditions of poverty, hunger, and lack of opportunity are completely ignored. But some of Glassner's claims are just as far-fetched as the media events he studies. Claiming that airline crash hysteria is dangerous because people who might fly would otherwise engage in the more dangerous activity of driving is specious at best. The bulk of this book is a series of topical chapters on various hysterias. In his conclusion Glassner addresses the question of why Americans are so susceptible to these scares. Here, Glassner points to one of the phenomena that has defined the lives of Americans in the second half of the twentieth century: celebration of the culture of experts. Each of these scare campaigns gained legitimacy through public pronouncements made by those who appear to be knowledgeable experts. Each of these campaigns has loud, publicly-oriented experts of its own. And experts seem reliable. Herein lies the danger. Professionalization began in the United States in the 19th c., as practitioners in certain fields sought the hallmarks of professionalism: standards, limited entry, national organizations, and peer review. In the wake of WWII, as American culture celebrated higher education, especially science, Americans came to respect, even celebrate the culture of experts. They sought experts to analyze and improve all areas of their lives. The very standards of education and professionalization suggested that expert opinion was trustworthy, that it was best. This very trust has allowed for the manipulation of the American public. In a culture in which expert opinion is revered, and the very fact of expert status suggests qualification, it becomes difficult to determine what is reasonable trust and what is not. In seeing Glassner's conclusions, it becomes clear that one of the problems is surely too much news. With 24-hour news channels, programs like Dateline on television every night of the week, all of this airtime has to be filled with something. This creates an atmosphere ripe for exploitation. This book certainly made me think, however, I suspect Glassner might be preaching to the choir. People who are reading academic sociology are likely not the same people who drink up hours of sensationalist news without a second thought.Read full review @ www.reeb-thinks.blogspot.in
The book builds a case that the media (and politicians) tend to make mountains out of particular types of molehills, then keeps jumping up & down pointing to the molehill for extended periods of time. I'm sympathetic to the idea the media focuses on somethings and gives too little attention to others. Yet there were times the author made disparaging comments that might have put off less sympathetic readers, and even I felt a sense of relentless pounding at the media's chosen molehills. Some readers might also be less receptive as the book was written a while ago, so its examples are from the 1980s and 1990s. The book does put a number of examples of media molehills together and explanations why it was more like a molehill than a mountain, so there's a good case that this is a tendency of the media rather than a couple of oddities. And it's all in a book a little over 200 pages.The first example he gives is road rage. He presents a case that the number of people affected by enraged drivers is far smaller than the innumerable media stories would have suggested. He also suggests that overcrowded roads (inadequate road construction and mass transit) could be an important factor in what does occur, but the media doesn't make this a part of the story. That's the general way the media handles these various molehills.I felt the author didn't do enough to examine why the media does this and what can be done to fix it. The last example of media molehills was plane crashes (vastly more people die in car accidents, etc.) At the end of that, the author tells us a journalist suggested the reason for the media fixation on plane crashes is partly because media editors and managers fly on planes more than most people. There's some sense in that, but it doesn't seem to explain why the media placed an emphasis on crashes of low-fare airline planes. And most of the examples in the book (road rage, vaccinations, "granny dumping," "Gulf War Syndrome"...) don't seem linked to those in cushy jobs.His main idea for fixing the problem is electing candidates who will act on underlying problems (building roads & transit to ease crowded roads, etc.) If there's no reason why the media & politicians keep pointing to molehills and ignoring real mountains, that might work. But that's not the feeling I was left with. There's also a part of me that says, "Why should we wait until politicians fix all the problems for the media to stop inundating us with these kinds of misleading stories?"Concerns such as these prevented me from giving the book a higher rating.
What do You think about The Culture Of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid Of The Wrong Things (2000)?
I give this 4 stars not because it was necessarily super well-written, though it was clear and concise, but because I thought the subject matter was remarkable. I would have never, ever picked this up as my own volition. Ever. Ever, ever, ever. These types of books never appeal to me. However, my older brother is very into economics, social studies, etc. etc. and he wanted me to read this. I found the abridged audio version, which is what I am reviewing and figured I could handle dedicating 4 days of my commute to listening to this book and make my brother happy. Turns out, I was completely enthralled and a little freaked out. I always assume the media is manipulating me but I didn't realize how much fear sells. I really enjoyed the audiobook and I will probably check out the other book my brother recommended Risk: the Science and Politics of Fear since he said he liked that one even more.
—Sara
The book itself hasn't dated as much as I expected. While the discussion is still sketchy and simplistic it's true these same topics are still being fearmongered: child abduction, the medicalisation of life, race, youth. However what I really wanted to read was the new chapter on the post 9/11 world. Sadly this is as shallow as the original book. There's a great quote from Dan Rather on page 234, regarding how, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, to question government became tantamount to treason:"One finds oneself saying, 'I know the right questions [to ask the Bush administration], but you know what? This is not exactly the right time to ask it.'"Glassner doesn't discuss this any further, and yet the defining characteristic of the 2000s was how consumers being parted from their dollars by media-highlighted fears segued into citizens being parted from their rights by government-highlighted fears. Our Prime Minister just pulled this exact crap on Kiwis this week. He's trying to get a bill passed to allow greater surveillance over NZ citizens, and now claims that New Zealanders are being trained by al-Quaeda in Yemen. To which Kiwis universally say, "Hahahahahahahaha," while we still sit and watch this legislation get passed.So, I think the book (as always) raises interesting ideas,but doesn't take them anywhere. An introduction to the topic, rather than a discussion on it.
—Emma Sea
Barry Glassner's "The Culture of Fear" is a great wake-up call to a society who allows the media and special-interest groups to dictate what it is we spend our time worrying about. At times, illuminating - Always, common sense. I think anyone who allows the nightly news to dictate our lives and concerns would do well to read this thorough bit of journalistic research. Of course, with any statistics, the question becomes, "Whose do you believe?" And while I feel Glassner does a stellar job of citing reliable sources, I'm sure critics could easily argue the opposite view on a number of issues discussed.Also disappointing, at no fault to Glassner, is the fact that I read this book 14-15 years after it's publication. There are, at least, a couple of sections where I know the terrorist attacks on 9-11 could potentially (and most likely would) affect some of Glassner's conclusions. This is not to say that reaction to 9-11 wasn't, much like many of the scares in this book, used to perpetuate a greater fear of the potential dangers around every corner than there was. I'm only saying that I would be interested in reading an updated version of Glassner's book with the knowledge we have today.
—Richie
