Talk:Culture of fear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Previous Untitled Discussions 2 The introduction is confusing 3 First paragraph, last sentence? 4 This article is a mess 5 Chomsky != Liberal? 6 George W. Bush and Dick Cheney 7 these theses

[edit] Previous Untitled Discussions

This page should be locked - it is being vandalized. A wiki editor should remove all the referencese to "an article like this one." Example are at the beginning of the list under "constructed fear" and at the end of the paragraph under "Lack of fear."

I changed "Examples" to "Potential Examples". Not all of them are universally agreed on. --24.118.206.25 02:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page has an extreme, egregious left-wing bias. One could argue that the concerns liberals have raised about civil liberties are part of a "culture of fear" designed to distract the public from the threat of terrorism, but somehow that view is not presented as an example of a "culture of fear". It is also elitist for an article to tell people what they should and shouldn't consider to be real issues and threats facing society and their own well-being.--[jrwilheim@yahoo.com]

• Perhaps your example of a "culture of fear" isn't presented because there's no logical motive for liberals to shift focus from a legitimate threat of terrorism. However, this is merely conjecture, and maybe the liberals are all just crazy people exaggerating the weight of certain laws and policies in a huge conspiracy. (Other stuff: I added a note at the beginning of the "potential examples" section and changed the defenition of WMDs from "mythical objects" to "weapons, not found as of yet")

• • A desire to get the public's attention onto other topics and issues they consider "more important," for the purpose of political gain, would be such a motive. In any event, the overall tone of this article needs to be addressed. I'm not sure that obesity, carbohydrates, and secondhand smoking have anything to do with a "culture of fear" but are reasonable topics of public concern. The fact that this article references only extreme left-wing figures like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky hardly points to a neutral point of view. Moreover, the article contains no section like "Criticism of the Culture of Fear Concept" exhibiting another point of view. This should be remedied. [jrwilheim@yahoo.com]

• • • Well, anybody is quite free to write up a section on how the culture of fear is considered by many to be in itself blown out of propertion by the political left in order to reduce trust in the current government. Personally, I'm pretty lousy at writing political encyclopedic entries, so I'll leave that part to whosoever wishes to do so. Although, I do agree that a "criticism" section is probably necessary to make this article NPOV proper.

• • • • I'm pretty lousy at writing political encyclopedic entries - May I ...? Adhib 20:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You Michael Moore. Just kidding, but seriously, although mass media is flawed in its need to scare in order to generate viewers and thus revenue, don't say that news organizations purposely try to divert attention from other issues. In the extreme example, all the news organization would care about is profit, not what issues the viewer cares about. This is encyclopedia, not a blog. Plus, your logic is essential flawed and comes almost word for word from the poorly made propaganda film "Bowling for Columbine". Michael Moore is actually creating fear in his leftist audience in order to generate a profit for himself, maybe you should write an artcicle called "cinema of fear".

• the "election" of disqualified people as experts or "renowned" specialists; What does that mean?
  • Media selecting ?crackpots? that claim themselfs as experts on the current issue -Zarutian

• I believe that "disqualified" is likely supposed to be "underqualified" or just "unqualified". I'm not certain though, so I'll allow someone else to make the call on this edit.

• I'm just wondering why rock music and gangsta rap not included on the list of case studies. Both musical genres have constantly been blamed for causing teenage angst and/or violence along with video games. Would anyone mind if I added those two in?--Grifter tm 06:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• The last secion of this article fairly reeks of US-centric left/right, War monger/Liberal language. Sophistifunk 00:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

American Phenomenon. Although every country can be said to have an element of culture of fear, it nevertheless seems to be an American phenomenon. Perhaps this should be made explicit in the article. PJ 20:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

American Phenomenon? Thats right, more unfounded sweeping generalizations about something someone doesn't understand. America neither invented the system/perfected the system/or has used it to greatest affect. personally, i think the system is inately human, and just manipulative people use it. and the award goes to hitler for perfection of the system and using it to greatest affect. we don't need an explicit part of the article with title "American Phenomenon?"

"Constructed fear Among those tending to argue that a Culture of Fear is being deliberately manufactured might be counted linguist Noam Chomsky, sociologist Barry Glassner, political filmmakers such as Adam Curtis and Michael Moore or reporters such as Judith Miller." -- This does not make sense with the inclusion of Judith Miller. She does not "argue that a Culture of Fear is being deliberately manufactured", she is in fact one of those manufacturing the Culture of Fear with her highly melodramitic reportage on WMD, including her hyped appearances on PBS specials regarding chemical and biological weapons. The reference to Judith Miller does not belong in that sentence. She certainly deserves mention in the article though, as one of the most prominent scare mongers.

[edit] The introduction is confusing

In it's current form, the intro seems way too wordy. Can someone clarify? --P-Chan 05:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Heheh... take a look at the first entry for this idiom. I'm not sure the article has improved since then. (yes, I am taking my own edits into account). Root⁴(one) 03:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First paragraph, last sentence?

"Many commentators who endorse this view are found on the political left, and some make more specific allegations about cultural manipulation by opponents on the political right."

Is this true? Are lefties the only ones who make specific allegations at their opponents? Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity aren't guilty of this as well?

I consider myself in the middle and I see fear mongering on both sides of the isle. Should this sentence be re-written to apply to the tactic as it is used by both sides? Something like...

"Media commentators who endorse these views are found on the both sides of the political isle, periodically making specific allegations about cultural manipulation by their opponents."

or delete altogether...???

Johnny Smoke

[edit] This article is a mess

I think we should just delete the Case Studies section. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. It looks like the list at Moral panic except with a ton of typos in the descriptions. Onsmelly 20:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chomsky != Liberal?

Chomsky isn't quite liberal, more democratic socialist. Should that be tweaked on the page?

He's not a democratic socialist, he's an anarchist. --Kgaughan 18:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush and Dick Cheney

The article states in one sentence: "Among those tending to argue that a Culture of Fear is being deliberately manufactured might be counted linguist Noam Chomsky, sociologist Barry Glassner or political filmmakers such as Adam Curtis or politicians such as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney."

I'm just curious: was it actually meant to suggest that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney allegedly recognize that a Culture of Fear is being deliberately manufactured? I'm just surprised because I was under the impression that some people view the Bush administration as being the initiators of a Culture of Fear with the whole "War on Terror".

--lmcgign 22:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I really must agree. That bit baffles me as well. Seems like vandalism, after looking at previous edit from 00:04, 22 May 2006 by 68.219.3.239. I have reverted it to the previous wording, more or less.

--Some guy 19:31, 25 August 2006

[edit] these theses

confusing to the eye, and confusing to my brain. I don't see multiple theses in the first sentence, if there are, they should be sepperated out more clearly, and of course a word other than "theses" should be used. A very odd sentence. Another very odd sentence. fnord —Memotype::T 20:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)