A (macro) Sociology of Fear and Problem frames

     "A new threat facing the nation... could you be at risk?  Find out at eleven when the news does a special on this new and potentially lethal threat."  Unfortunately claims like this are all too common in our media.  This blog will be dedicated to examining subjects which the media uses to create a Culture of Fear and the tools they use to do so.  I will use Andrew Tudor's paper, A (macro) Sociology of Fear, to explain the reasons why we fear and then attempt to show how the media uses this knowledge in order to capitalize on it.  According to Barbalet, "the object of fear is an expectation of negative outcome" (Tudor, 2003).  Tudor (2003) explains how this is based on our "fight of flight" mechanism but can also be triggered by a perceived risk that is not immediate.  According to Furedi, "the perception of being at risk expresses a pervasive mood in society... one that influences action in general" (Tudor, 2003)  This inaction described by Furedi could potentially lead to more fear.  This fear is an example of the "sustained anticipation of negative outcomes across time and space" which, according to Tudor (2003), is the cause of anxiety and terror.

          Tudor (2003) explains that fear is caused by three types of macro and three types of micro variables and the interactions between them.  These variables are
Macro

• Environment- the perceived threat of crime, accidents, disease, etc.
• Culture- attitudes, values presumptions, stereo types, routines, memories, ideas, and beliefs
• Social Structures- fear created by the changing of relationships, patterns or isolation
• Bodies- fear created by the potential physical weaknesses of the individual
• Personality- psychological factors which are specific to individuals
• Social Subjects- a reflection of the social circumstances one finds themselves in.

Tudor (2003) also says that a culture of fear will use specific things which should be feared, classes of  things which should be feared, and an overall fearfulness which is caused by our cultures "predisposing us to be frightened but without any necessary focus on specific phenomena."

Another explanation for a culture of fear is the problem frame.  The problem frame creates communication about, awareness of, and an expectation of danger (Altheide, 1997).  According to Altheide (1997) “Frames focus on what will be discussed, how it will be discussed, and above all, how it will not be discussed.”  The problem frame tells a story with moral undertones which is specific and detailed (Altheide, 1997).  They also focus on a problem that will resonate with the majority of viewers (Altheide, 1997).  This fear created by the media may encourage more people to stay at home more often and consume more media, creating a cycle which generates more and more fear (Altheide, 1997).  The news uses actual people to make their stories seem more relevant to a greater number of people.  They present this information in a way which simplifies the overall story, focusing on a moral message instead of details(Altheide, 1997).  With repeated exposure to similar stories, the viewer “learns” that such incidents are common (even if they aren’t) (Altheide, 1997).  The purpose of the problem frame is to suggest that a problem exists which effects a large number of people (Altheide, 1997).  These people can easily identify this problem and feel it can be fixed.  According to Altheide, “When certain problems can be cast within TV formats as arenas for disputes, disagreements, or conflicts and struggle, and when these can be visually illustrated, one has the formula for good entertainment, good audience ratings, constant awareness of problems, and a sense of a very troubled world.”  With increased public awareness (limited usually to how the media portrays the subject), politicians step in to enact more policies to keep us “safe” (Altheide, 1997).

 Altheide, D.L. 1997. The news media, the problem frame, and the production of fear. The Sociological Quarterly 38:647-68.


Tudor A. 2003. A (macro) sociology of rear? The Sociological Review 51: 238–256.