Society's moral panic attacks - all grist for the media mill

They come out of nowhere, rise rapidly to an outraged crescendo, then die out just as quickly.

Moral panics are a phenomenon of modern Western cultures and reflect changes sweeping through those societies, people's mixed experience with new technologies and the collapse of confidence in established institutions. We can define a moral panic as a mini-controversy that temporarily outrages sections of the general public and exaggerates fears over the potential misuse of some technology or practice.

Whether the moral panic involves the accessibility of Internet pornography to children, clergy that are habitual sexual abusers of children, mobile phones that take and transmit digital photographs or cloning and stem cell research, the fears all have a basis in reality. Characterised by exaggerated fears, high media profile and outrage from some elements of the public, moral panics are perpetuated and sustained by the sensationalist reporting on the part of some sections of the media and by self-serving politicians and self-appointed guardians of public morals.

It should not be surprising that, in a technological society, it is new technologies that figure prominently as the focus of moral panics.

Internet pornography and its accessibility to children has been perhaps the longest-running moral panic of recent times. The fear is justified; however there is a certain irony in the fact that the same industry that made the panic possible has produced the tools to deal with it. Concerned parents can now download software to block offending websites and protect their children.

But not all such technologies have technical fixes. One of the more recent moral panics in Australia stemmed from the realisation that the new mobile phones which could take and transmit digital photographs could be misused to invade privacy.

The example used to demonstrate the invasive potential of such communications technology was the use of picture phones in the changing rooms of public swimming pools. Whether it was based on real or exaggerated fear remains unknown, however the example gained significant public exposure in the media at the expense of discussion of the valid use of such phones. Swimming pool management spoke of banning such phones in change rooms, however just how this could be accomplished remained largely unexplored. For the media, the concern was ironic because, as the photographic quality of mobile phone cameras improves, they are likely to find their way into reporting - some mobile phones already make photographs that are of sufficient quality for publishing on the websites of media organisations.

New technologies are often used in ways unforeseen by their designers and manufacturers. Moral panics involving new communications technologies are sometimes the unanticipated result of technological convergence - the amalgamation of different technologies, such as mobile phones and digital cameras - into a single device. Such technologies are more than the sum of their parts; mix photography and mobile telephony and you have a powerful tool for professional reporters and for public-minded citizens who come upon misdoing, such as the amateur videographer who exposed the King assault in the US some years ago. You also have a powerful tool for the few misusers out there.

The argument lends credibility to those who claim that technology is socially neutral - that it is simply the intention of the user of the technology which makes it good or bad. It is not so simple, however. Critics and technophobes say that the very existence of the technology makes misuse inevitable and that technology is far from a neutral force in society.

There have been other moral panics based on technology - outrage at the spread of computer viruses and the seeking of retribution for the perpetrators, computer hacking and the exaggerated penalties exacted, the cloning of animal life and stem cell research. Interestingly, the federal government took its time in addressing one of the major threats to email as a communications media for business and individuals - spam - said to constitute at least a third of all email messages. Legislation has fortunately now been passed, however legislation is national and the problem international, so hopes that new laws would stem the spread of spam are stillborn and the moral panic continues in modified form.

Technology based moral panics are not the only type. Some have to do with the collapse of the authority of social institutions. It is the revelation of misdoing that accelerates the declining authority of such institutions.

The continuing story of clergy who sexually abuse children has been prominent in the media for the past three years. That it has enjoyed such a run is in no small way due to the ineptitude and possible corruption of some churches in dealing effectively with it. Instead of confronting what was the obvious problem with habitual abusers in their ranks, to their discredit, they tried to sweep the issue under the ecclesiastical carpet. That failed, and the prestige of the churches has suffered badly.

The problem is that when the misdoings of the guilty few and the incompetence of their governing bodies was revealed, suspicion fell on all clergy - the innocent as well as the guilty – and the good work the churches were doing suffered. This is characteristic of moral panics - the actual incidents of misuse and abuse are comparatively few, yet the perception is that all are under suspicion. Responsibility for this lies with reporting that provides little by way of context, unscrupulous politicians and a public that is largely media-illiterate.

So, if new technology and malfunctioning social institutions can offend, who are the offended?

With technology-based moral panic it is often the technophobes - those that fear new technology - who panic at the release of yet more powerful tools into the hands of individuals, business and government. These may be people uncomfortable in a world where services are accessed, goods purchased and transactions increasingly mediated
via  keyboard and screen. They are people left behind by the technological revolution of the past 30 years, whether through poor education, lack of opportunity or through choice.

Others take an Orwellian attitude to technology - especially the new media technologies of compact video camera or picture phone. The horse, however, can be said to have bolted. Government and business already hold extensive information about individuals, despite privacy legislation, and security cameras record the movement of people in public places. While the use of information recorded by security cameras is regulated by law, similar use of information documented by individuals with video and still cameras and picture phones is not. Anyone can take pictures in public places and place them on their website. Such a freedom is obviously critical to the media in a democratic society. Any restriction on individual rather than media rights would bring criticism of government and from the photography industry fearing a decline in the sales of imaging devices.

Others experience moral panic because the world is changing too fast for them and because they do not understand the process of social and economic change. The challenge may be to the religious beliefs that give meaning to life and that guide individual behaviour. The moral panic about cloning and stem cell research are two recent examples of how the potential benefits brought by biological science can be interpreted as something fearful.

The religious critique of modern technology is as valid as any other, however the risk is that those experiencing moral panic could fall prey to the self-appointed moral guardians of society, some of whom inhabit the outer limits of contemporary Christendom - the evangelical faiths that occupy the political far right, whose social attitudes might
appear little different from those held by the Taliban.

Moral panics normally have a short life, however when opportunistic politicians and some elements of the media intervene they can be prolonged. The question of whether moral panics are solely the creation of sensationalist reporting or whether reporting deepens or prolongs moral panics is debatable and would have to be considered on a case by case basis. Certainly, the relationship of the media to a surge of concern, fear or panic in society is complex, and easy explanations are best avoided in all but the simplest, most obvious and superficial instances.

Moral panic sells television time and newspapers and it should not come as a surprise that it is the so-called early evening 'current affairs' programs on commercial networks and elements of the tabloid press that play on the fears. As social phenomena, moral panics must be reported - they are valid media material, involving classic media themes such as 'the victim' and 'the hero'. They elicit emotions like fear, loathing and outrage - all good news for media products that set out to exploit such emotions.

Television and the press personalise issues by reporting how individuals are affected. Commonly, these are stories of victims or of spokespeople articulating the fear of those feeling panic. This is proper, of course, because issues affect individuals and reporting how this happens can demonstrate their potential.

But the media has to go further if it is to fulfill its public duty to report and explain. In the case of the quality press and the more investigative and responsible television and radio programming, it accomplishes this by disclosing the origin and history of moral panics; how the controversy has developed; the veracity of claims about the source of the panic and by putting the fears in context to gain a proper perspective.

That is the stuff that informed decisions by regulators should be based on.