Mass Media and Ontological Security Despite the

Mass Media and Ontological Security "Despite the fact that crime rates in most U.S. cities have been in steady decline for a decade, local newscasts still operate under the mantra, 'If it bleeds, it leads'." Gross, et al., 2003, p. 411. Does the mass media threaten society's sense of ontological security more than it contributes to society's ontological security? This paper delves into and analyzes this question from the perspective of peer-reviewed, scholarly articles.

From the literature available it is clear to an objective observer that indeed today's mass media presents constant and disturbing images, beyond what the community's actual social dynamics present as far as danger to individuals. And hence, the ontological security of millions of citizens is both threatened and disturbed. Introduction Ontological security: a stable, steady, consistent personal emotional state that results from a sense of comfort and continuity regarding the events on one's daily life.

When people have confidence and trust in the world around them -- and generally enjoy life without fear or emotional conflict -- they are said to have ontological security. Besides the need and strong desire for physical security, individuals have been seeking ontological security for generations. However, in the 21st Century ontological security is harder to achieve than ever before because of the constant bombardment of bad -- even frightening -- news delivered by television, newspapers, radio, the Internet and magazines, in particular television cable news.

How does one find ontological security when the drumbeat of negative, scary news is constant? According to professor Jennifer Mitzen at Ohio State University, ontological security is achieved by "routinizing relationships" with family, friends, associates and significant others (Mitzen, 2005, p. 1). But it goes much deeper and farther than just getting into a comfortable routine around one's community of friends.

Ontological security in fact is a very difficult task for any person who observes televised news programs on a frequent basis, hoping to stay abreast of the world's shifting, surprising and dangerous events. Risk of Terrorism Of course governments and news media professionals are obliged to keep citizens informed of potential danger vis-a-vis terrorism, war, and other potential hazards. This is true even though some media present information in a way that creates fear and disrupts daily life -- and, unfortunately, disallows ontological security in the process.

As to the possibility of new terrorist threats in the United Kingdom following the terrorists attacks in New York, Washington, Madrid and London, a peer-reviewed research paper in the journal Crime Media Culture points out that keeping the public informed is tricky. Not only is it tricky to approach new terrorism in a calm, professional way, in the UK "…communication of the terrorist threat has been ambiguous, patchy, and ill conceived" (Mythen, et al., 2006, p. 124).

The author explains that the "risk theory" -- a theme that has come into play subsequent to terrorism's increasingly significant role -- emphasizes both the "destructive impacts of risk on the lived environment" as well as the "transformatory potential of risk within the public sphere," Mythen explains (p. 124).

What that basically means is that the UK society is leaning away from "positive problems" (like acquiring goods, earning a good paycheck, keeping health and education at the top of the agenda) and focusing more and more on "negative issues of avoiding 'bads'" (terrorism, AIDS, environmental destruction and crime in general) (Mythen, 2006, p. 1214). This dynamic of abandoning the examination of "positive problems" and zeroing in more often on "negative issues" is the product of "the intensification of media interest in risk conflicts," Mythen goes on.

In fact the language of today's politics (generated by the media) "increasingly taps into individualized insecurities and fears," the author continues, and it is the thesis of this paper that those insecurities and fears combine to prevent ontological security in the hearts and homes in the UK, elsewhere in Europe and certainly in the United States as well. Mythen (p. 127) writes that the UK government has tried to win the trust of the public back through "effective communications" regarding the threats of terrorism.

However, that attempt to build public trust has backfired for the UK government since a number of national security issues (involving the public safety and trust) have been "leaked" by the government. Those leaks are unconscionable, Mythen implies, given the serious nature of the leaks.

For example, how can citizens in England be expected to feel safe when the following alleged potential terrorist plots have been allowed to leak out through government sources? Due to leaks from the UK government the fundamentalist Islamic terrorists have been linked to: a) the crashing of a commercial jetliner into Canary Wharf Tower; b) the launching of surface-to-air missiles at Heathrow Airport; c) "explosive strikes on the Houses of Parliament"; and d) setting of a bomb at the Old Trafford football stadium (Mythen, 2006, p. 128).

Leaks like those mentioned above "…contradict the espoused policy of reassuring the public" as to real terrorist threats, Mythen explains (p. 128). Moreover, the very fact that the UK government allowed leaks to get out -- given that the government can stop those leaks by using D-notes -- makes it seem "…probable that…inaction in countering erroneous information…has served to amplify rather than attenuate public anxiety" (Mythen, 2006, p. 128). And amplifying the anxiety of the public is in fact the wrong way to promote ontological security. Davie L.

Altheide writes that the mass media became fond of presenting propaganda regarding the fear of terrorism since the U.S. "discovered' international terrorism on 11 September, 2001" (Altheide, 2007, p. 287). Certainly any responsible news organization is going to cover terrorism more thoroughly following a devastating attack on its important financial and military facilities. But according to Altheide, the media -- along with politicians and other high visibility leaders -- jumped on the bandwagon against the Muslim faith and against "a vast number of non-western nations to strategically promote fear," Altheide writes (p. 287).

Beside feat the media and politicians used common beliefs "and assumptions about danger, risk, and fear in order to achieve certain goals"; those goals, Altheide believes, included "expanding domestic social control" (p. 287). Altheide takes no prisoners when he recounts the media's behavior following the September 11 attacks. The "war on terror" was "grounded in a discourse of fear," he writes (p.

288); the idea was to present the theme that danger and risk "are a central feature of everyday life" and after all, the media and the Bush Administration proclaimed "…the moral and social superiority of the United States." The world had changed, Bush and the media put forward to the citizens after 9/11, and as a result survival of the society in the future would be dependant on "giving up many basic civil liberties, particularly 'privacy,'" Altheide explains, somewhat cryptically on page 288).

What was also interesting, Altheide continues, is that the news media defined the 9/11 attacks as an assault on "American culture, if not civilization itself" which was a way of using a broad context and "…a preexisting discourse of fear" (p. 288). His bottom line (p. 292) is that after 9/11 the mass media "promoted the war on terrorism" by stressing "fear and an uncertain future"; and moreover, the media helped create stereotypes and "extreme ethnocentrism that is very close to the images many westerners had of Vietnamese adversaries" in the Vietnam War.

Bringing those bitter images into homes on TV reduces the possibility of ontological security. Promotion of Fear by TV Media Do television news department seek to increase their viewer ship by using stories that cause viewers to be fearful? Jason R.

Young writes in the journal American Behavioral Scientist that research shows TV news directors use "fearful news" to attract a wider audience; this is not a great revelation because any lay person who objectively observes the TV news programs night after night can see the heavy coverage of crime and violence; one can only assume that ratings are more important to most TV news outlets (Young, 2003, p. 1675).

However, empirical research conducted by communications specialists and presented by Young, a social psychologist, shows that while vivid images on TV are "intensely negative" (prompting the view to be fearful) "viewers continue to be captivated by these images" (p. 1675). And if viewers are truly captivated, and the TV programmers know this, the policy logically will be to give the viewers what they want and need to keep them "captivated." The perceptions that people have of how much crime there really is in any given community are "distorted," Young writes (p. 1675).

The viewers' perception is distorted because of "…the high percentage of media coverage dedicated to crime, especially violent crime" juxtaposed with the actual "per capita rates of criminal activity" which is far lower than most TV viewers would believe, Young continues (p. 1675). To verify his assumptions Young launched a research project using thirty-six undergraduates from Hunter College in New York; it was thoughtfully created in the psychology department of the college. The participants viewed 23 TV teasers that had been gleaned from local news programs in New York City.

The participants were only told that they were evaluating the teasers, since news teasers play an important role in drawing viewers for the nightly news. The participants all had English as a first language; they ranged in age from 18 to 47; 8 were male and 28 were female; on average participants reported that they watch "some form on TV news" about 4 days per week.

A carefully prepared strategy was employed: after viewing the 4-minute videotape (containing 10 teasers) the participants were asked to "…imagine being a news editor 'responsible for deciding what teasers will be aired to get people to watch tonight's evening news broadcast'" (Young, 2003, p. 1678). The results showed that "…generally, a pattern emerged suggesting that fear was, indeed, associated with perceptions of greater issue importance," Young reports (p. 1687).

And "one clear conclusion" emerged when all the research was organized and finalized: "…increased unpleasantness and feat beget increased attention, as well as an increased perception of importance," Young explains (p. 1690). Four years before September 11, 2001 -- and ten years before his article presented earlier in this paper -- professor David L. Altheide of Arizona State University wrote that "According to numerous public opinion polls, American society is a very fearful society -- some believe 'the most anxious, frightened society in history" (Altheide, 1997, p. 649).

Altheide based that assertion on his own research plus the poll he referenced (in the Los Angeles Times on September 11, 1994) that showed 78% of Americans believe "…they are subjected to more risk today than their parents were twenty years ago" (p. 649). A large source that led to this perception by Americans "…is crime news coverage," Altheide explains. Interestingly, in that same poll those interviewed said their fearful attitudes toward crime are "based 65% on what they read and see in the media and 21% on experience," Altheide continues (p. 649).

It seems at this date perhaps a bit conspiratorial (and even paranoid) on the part of Barry Gunter, mass communications professor at Leicester University, to have claimed that TV news is full of violence and crime in order to keep people indoors. But the professor is quoted saying that "Greater fear of potential danger in the social environment may encourage people to stay indoors, where they watch more television, and are exposed to programmes which tell them things which in turn reinforce their anxieties" (Altheide, 1997, p. 650).

Altheide brings in the fact that TV news is really as much about entertainment as it is "news" -- and so, like any story-telling task, TV news asks the question, "How can we make real problems seem interesting?" (p. 653). One often-used strategy is to provide "new information" to get the viewer more interested in the report; for example, a talking head on TV will say something like "Here's what's happening now…" and will transition into "…another killing in the valley today" (Altheide, 1997, p. 653). An article by Dennis T.

Lowry and associates criticizes television news programming; Lowry uses verifiable crime statistics compared with the number of crime stories shown on TV and dramatically shows through his narrative that TV is using crime stories to instill fear, either purposefully or inadvertently. Lowry reports that in March of 1992, 5% of those U.S. citizens polled said crime was "the most important problem" (MIP) in the country (Lowry, 2003, p. 61). However, by August 1994 that 5% had amazingly jumped to 52% of those polled.

It turned out that the television news programs accounted for "almost four times more variance in public perceptions of crime as the MIP than did actual crime rates, Lowry explained (p. 61). Meantime, was there a huge increase in the "actual number of crimes" between 1992 and 1994? Lowry asks. Looking at the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for the U.S. 1997 shows Lowry that the answer is "no" there was no huge increase in crime in that 2-year period.

The author dug deeper and discovered that during the 1990s, crime stories were produced more often than any other theme by ABC, CBS, and NBC evening newscasts (p. 62). When many if not a majority of citizens watch evening news and the news consistently and dramatically portrays crime as much more serious than it really is statistically, ontological security is going to be hard to obtain.

Crime stories are of great interest to viewers, Lowry admits, and crime stories have a beginning, middle, and an end, so they are easy to report. However, "news value" (i.e., what keeps people tuned to that particular channel) does not signal news importance albeit "criminals are always interesting to the ordinary man," Lowry continues.

Crime "runs rampant in the American press," Lowry quotes from Lotz (1991) on page 63, but even though there may not have been as many reported crimes as the media suggests, "newspapers need to fill their news holes." Lowry researched the amount of time that the three major networks in 1991 -- compared with what they covered in 1994 -- had given to crime stories; the networks' evening news crime coverage in 1991 was "an aggregate of 956 minutes" but by 1994 the time showing crime stories on the major networks' evening news jumped to 2,058 minutes.

And not surprisingly, Lowry's research shows a "…positive relationship between newspaper coverage of violent crimes and people's perceptions of the amount of violent crime" (p. 64). When people perceive there is more violent crime than there really is, it is a situation in which they will certainly have.