Beyond Media Panics – Reconceptualising Public Debates About Children And Media

Beyond “Media Panics”

Introduction

This paper critically reviews the use of "moral panics" theory, specifically "media panics," in understanding public debates about children and media.
It identifies six key issues at stake, questioning the epistemology of media panics theory, its account of intentionality, and its claim to rationality.
The paper argues that media panics theory presents a "presentist" view of history, oversimplifies cultural and generational politics, and neglects positive aspects of public debate.
It suggests social constructionism and new cultural history as productive alternatives.

Origins, History and Functions

The term "moral panic" originates from Stanley Cohen’s 1972 book Folk Devils and Moral Panics.
Cohen's concept was influenced by early studies of the social construction of deviance from the Chicago School of sociology.
Cohen emphasized the role of media in labeling behavior as deviant.
The concept of moral panic is now a key term in sociology and other disciplines.
Scholars investigating children and media find the term relevant, particularly in sociological or cultural perspectives.
Examples include Martin Barker’s analysis of Britain’s “horror comics” debate, John Springhall’s historical narrative of moral panics, and Ulf Boethius’s analysis of the Swedish “Nick Carter” debates.
Kirsten Drotner coined “media panics” to refer to panics specifically about the influence of media.
The popularity of media panic theory coincides with disciplinary shifts in Media and Cultural Studies and the emergence of the “new sociology of childhood.”
It challenges mainstream psychological and “mass communication” approaches, as well as the dominance of simplistic media effects approaches.
Moral panics theory legitimizes a particular theoretical approach and research agenda while delegitimizing others.
There is a danger of dismissing popular concerns about the media as irrational while also risking the disavowal of any notion of media “effects.”
The media are seen to play a major role in provoking panic among adults, creating a paradox.

Definitions

Cohen’s definition of moral panic:
Societies appear to be subject, every now and then, to periods of moral panic. A condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media; the moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops, politicians and other right-thinking people; socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnoses and solutions; ways of coping are evolved or (more often) resorted to; the condition then disappears, submerges or deteriorates and becomes more visible. (1972, p. 1)
Stuart Hall and others align moral panic with Gramscian hegemony theory, where moral panics are used by the state to persuade people to accept authoritarian measures to deal with threats to social order.
Hall’s approach involves a “signification spiral” where the problem is identified, those responsible are named, links to deeper issues are established, and solutions are proposed.
Goode and Ben-Yehuda propose a less overtly political analysis focusing on a wider range of claims-makers and interest groups seeking to define the problem.
Goode and Ben-Yehuda's criteria for identifying a moral panic:
- A level of measurable concern about the problem.
- A degree of hostility against those seen as to blame ("folk devils").
- A certain consensus among the public about the nature of the problem.
- An element of disproportionality, where concern exceeds objective threat.
- A form of volatility, as the panic can only be sustained briefly.
Moral panics are symptoms of anxieties from rapid social change and often involve displacement, focusing on specific issues to mobilize support.
Jenkins suggests the figure of the child-as-victim is frequently invoked.
This displacement detracts attention from broader underlying concerns.
The concept of moral panic entails ideological mystification.

Moral Panics, Media, and Childhood

Panics over new media recur across time and cultural contexts, from ancient Greece to contemporary concerns about the internet.
Each new medium or cultural form elicits similar anxieties.
Critcher identifies four key characteristics of a “media panic”:
- Reworks the theme of the innocent corrupted by culture.
- The debate is about something else than it appears to be.
- Campaigners often have ulterior motives.
- It is bound up with anxieties about the state of social order.
Panics are typically seen as involving a form of displacement, “really” about broader concerns about “social change,” technological and commercial innovation, or modernity.
The “ulterior motives” of debaters are seen as preserving the hegemony of their own values and the generational order.
Debates are seen as struggles over social and cultural power.
Drotner argues media panics are “ideological safety valves” restoring social equilibrium.
Springhall states moral panics “attempt to re-establish the generational status quo” and prevent the undermining of cultural elites.

Epistemology

Panics are recognized as something exceptional, displaying an “explosive” character distinct from protracted moral campaigns.
Panics involve displacement and disproportionality, implying a reality to compare claims against.
There are questions about how we access this reality, especially historically.
There is a danger of contrasting misleading claims with an objective account of “the facts.”
Defining dis/proportionality requires a standard against which to judge.
Goode and Ben-Yehuda argue that in moral panics, evidence is often fabricated or based on “urban legends.”
Deliberate fabrication is unusual, and there has to be a core of plausibility for the panic to be believed.

Structure and Intentionality

Moral panic theories do not necessarily imply intentionality or conscious manipulation.
Drotner argues that media panics mask “real” struggles over social and cultural problems.
Panics can be seen as manifestations of underlying structural problems that participants are trying to solve, even unwittingly.
Drotner, Springhall, and others describe media panics as reactions to “modernity” and cultural democratization.
The media themselves, with commercial interests, and “moral entrepreneurs” are active in creating media panics.
The claimed intentionality of these actors is seen in their deliberate choice of children as a victim group.
There is an implicit distinction between people’s declared motives and their real motives, which the analyst must identify.
Moral panics theory appears to dismiss concerns rather than seeking to understand them.

Rationality

The term “panic” implies that reactions are emotional or irrational, contrasted with rational objectivity.
This is a form of “us-and-them” talk, dismissing those who don’t share our views as irrational.
Proponents of panic are psychologized, and panic discourses cannot be countered discursively.
Media panic theory is used to challenge media effects notions, yet the news media are seen to have substantial effects on public perceptions.
There is a difficulty in accounting for media panic arguments in ordinary audience members’ views.
There is a need for more research on ordinary people’s “lay theories” of media influence.

History

Part of the attraction of moral panic theory is based on retrospective condescension towards the past.
It deals with phenomena that, with hindsight, seem ludicrous.
The process is cyclical and unchanging: old media become respectable, while new media are scapegoated.
Comparison with past errors identifies disproportionate behavior in the present.
This approach is “presentist,” projecting present-day values onto past events.
Texts from the past are read through the lens of contemporary concerns.
There is historical oversimplification in the narrative of recurrence.
What is often lacking is the historical context in which claims were made.
Continuity is emphasized at the expense of change, and the past is judged from the perspective of the present.

Politics

Theories of moral panics regard them as instruments of ideological hegemony.
Panics about children and media are seen as reasserting adult hegemony.
Those who create panics are constructed as anti-modernist, reactionary, or conservative.
Drotner argues that media panics attempt to re-establish a generational status quo.
Recent accounts describe moral panics as more contested and less monolithic.
“Folk devils” can organize and fight back, challenging stereotypes.
The media represent a broader range of perspectives, and audiences are more skeptical.
Outcomes of moral panics may prove more contradictory.
There is a need for a more nuanced analysis of the politics of moral panics.

Beyond the Binaries

Moral panics focus on threats and dangers, leading to an exaggerated emphasis on potential harm to children.
This leads to a neglect of positive accounts of the role of media in children’s lives.
Positive accounts coexist with negative ones in public debate.
Positive accounts are also socially and historically produced and reflect power relationships.
New media technologies are accompanied by utopian claims about benefits.
Public debate is criss-crossed by competing discourses or constructions of the child audience.
There is often an unresolved contest between different views of what is appropriate for children.
The complexity of these debates is something that media panics theory appears ill-equipped to understand.
Rejecting disproportionate claims leaves us in a binary debate about whether media are good or bad for children.

Social Constructionism

Social constructionism focuses on how social problems are defined within the public arena.
It takes account of different ways problems are defined in different settings.
There is less consensus about right and wrong in contemporary societies.
The construction of social problems is often a contested process.
Key claims-makers work to define a social problem and increase public visibility.
Moral/media panics might be seen as one variety of this process.
Social problems are not merely illusory, but the focus is on how the problem is socially defined.
The construction and framing of problems may divert attention from more complex issues.
There is a continuing imputation of manipulation.
Social constructionism struggles with relativism and accounting for historical change.

New Cultural History

New cultural history permits a more nuanced account of historical and socio-cultural contexts.
It helps to explain why people make arguments at a certain time.
It considers how power struggles have shifted over time.
Views of children and childhood that lay behind rejections of media were different across time.
This approach analyzes the meaning attributed to a medium as part of specific social processes.
Positions in debates can be understood as reasonable in light of participants’ backgrounds.
Debates about children and media could be seen as part of a broader “politics of consumption.”
This refers to the reasoning behind recommending or avoiding certain commodities.
This is based on assumptions about children’s consumption based on everyday practices.
Understanding debates means viewing them in the context of contemporary developments and struggles over cultural reproduction.
Consumption practices are part of the subversion or enforcement of social order.

Conclusion

Uncertainty remains about whether to jettison the notion of moral panic entirely, particularly in discussions of children and media.
The term may be over-extended and misapplied.
Spectacular outbursts of anxiety do occur but are special cases.
Focusing on moral panics may lead to neglecting the complexity of public debates.
A more radical response would be to dispense with the notion entirely.
The distinction between media panics and everyday debates may be misguided.
The notion of media panics is laden with theoretical baggage.
Epistemological problems translate into empirical challenges for researchers.
Loose claims about “panic” will not help us to move beyond the polarization of public debates.
Researchers have a responsibility to participate in debates and ensure they are better informed by the available evidence.

References

List of references provided in the original document.