Talk:Moral panic

Cohen's stages

The National Institutes of Health have a paper about this worded as follows: [1]

1. An event, condition, episode or someone is defined as a threat to the values, safety and interest of the wider society.
2. The media then amplifies these apparent threats through inflammatory rhetoric These portrayals appeal to public prejudices, creating villains in need of social control (folk devils) and victims (the moral majority).
3. The publicity surrounding the threat creates a sense of social anxiety leading to a public outpouring of concern.
4. Government then responds to the public outcry and frames the alleged threat as being symptomatic of a wider social malaise that must be addressed.
5. The moral panic and the responses to it transform the regulation of economy and society with the aim of tempering public outrage.

Probably a little more descriptive and accurate view of the process.Progressingamerica (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

That is not an article of the United States National Institute of Health, but merely made accessible through PubMed, their database of public articles from medical journals. The affiliation of the two authors is Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, UK and Faculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, UK. It is more of an opinion piece than a scientific article. (Very evident from their critique of "neoliberal" policies already in the introduction.) I think they have interesting points, but it is obviously about specific health policy issues – when diseases are being over-exposed and turn into a moral panic. Obesity is their prime example. --Sasper (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know of the opinion-nature of this. Progressingamerica (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The list given leaves out moral entrepreneurs, which iirc are an important part of the development of the moral panic. As for the noted non-neutral language of that article, if so then it's better to skip that article entirely and stick with a good short summary of Cohen instead. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion to add section: "Reaction to Covid 19 restrictions".

Title: Reaction to Covid 19 restrictions (2019–present)

Fear of Covid-19 pandemic that was followed by governmental policy was postulated to result in global economic recession. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Infection Fatality Rate for Covid-19 is around 0.5-1%, describing the true severity of a disease. Accordingly, fear of losses, and potential burden on health system have lead governments around the world to impose policies (e.g., lockdowns, tests for Covid-19) that are likely to cause worldwide economic recession.--192.114.3.241 (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Explanation: According to definition of moral panic it does not have to be irrational. Accordingly, HIV, Islamic terror, Human traffic, sex offenders are described in this Wikipage. Thus, reaction of Covid-19 can be also a Moral panic. It would be great to read your thoughts about it. A. --192.114.3.241 (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hrm. I was gonna say I don't see sources making the connection, but there are some sources that do discuss how the theory of moral panic can be applied to studying reactions to infectuous diseases - eg. Toilet Paper Thrones and Heated Tweets: Applying Moral Panic and Social Network Theory to Responses Over Panic Buying during COVID-19 is one connecting it to panic buying specifically, and here is one talking about how it relates to panic over COVID in the Philippines. But I'd be cautious - these sources are more talking about how Cohen's framework can be repurposed to analyze other types of panic than saying that it is (or created) a moral panic, so it wouldn't make sense to put it in the list of moral panics directly. --Aquillion (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like there is some interesting similarity with "Cohen's stages of moral panic": 1. Perceived and defined as a threat to societal safety. 2. Amplified by the mass media. 3. Social anxiety(? not sure about this term but anxiety for sure). 4. Politicians respond to the threat. --192.114.3.241 (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I would say that such an addition would be an NPOV violation. There is little or no evidence from reliable sources that matches the responses of health agencies and governments to a moral panic definition. If anything, there is a sort of inverted moral panic, where legitimate responses are opposed and deprecated on ideological or propagandistic grounds. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Very interesting. It is not my field but googling it up I can see some publications supporting this claim (1, 2, 3, 4). If some of these were peer reviewed than they should be Neutral. Meaning, it is probably not a Neutral point of view (NPOV) violation. --192.114.3.241 (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, considering the fact that the great majority of Covid cases (confirmed by PCR) are simply healthy as they have no symptoms, it does seem like panic. Panic which is highly promoted by the media. This results in governmental regulations that violate freedom. Again, without being an expert in the field, reading the wikipage about moral panic, the Covid seems like moral panic to me. --192.114.3.241 (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

More researchers supporting the idea that reaction to Covid may have been a moral panic [see 1234] or an anxiety epidemic 5. The first is an opinion written by by John Scott, an honorable Professor of Sociology (Fellow of the British Academy, a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.). I dare say that article of such an "heavy weight" Sociologist is a case against the NPOV violation claim --192.114.3.241 (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

According to the definition, a moral panic demonizes an "other". What is the "other" being demonized in the case of Covid-19? Just because someone uses the words "moral panic" doesn't mean that it counts as a moral panic for the purpose of this article. This article is on a scholarly topic with a rigid definition. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Demonization is already here across the board. The "other" have been: children demonized for being the vector for transmission of Covid, Medical Doctors and scientist that dont agree with governmental regulations, those who did not take only the booster shot, people that don't put on facemask, those who don't take any of covid vaccinations; all of these groups have been terribly demonized by being accused to cause direct or/and indirect death to others. This was done by the the media, and democratic governments reacted by new laws and regulations. Again, I am not expert in the field, but seems very similar to stages of moral panic. Here are some examples: stop-demonizing-students-for-covid, hear-scientists-different-views-dont-attack-them, open-plea-for-dignity-and-respect-in-science, Don’t demonize parents who are hesitant to vaccinate, why-demonizing-the-unvaccinated-wont-work, unvaccinated-different-from-antivax, Stop demonizing one anothe, new-wave-of-covid-19-is-not-the-fault-of-the-unvac, medias-all-out-blitz-to-demonize-the-unvaccinated, millions-unvaccinated-risk-losing-civil-liberties, children_acused_fo_transmission_of_COVID.

Speaking of scholary rigid wiki-article- see article of expert in the field- Professor Scott (Fellow of the Royal Society of Art) Risk and Moral Panic: A Sociological View of Covid-19. --192.114.3.241 (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this example would be clearer if reframed as "reaction to Covid 19 restrictions". Recommendations from medical authorities changed rapidly during 2020 (e.g., usefulness of masks, which types were best, whether fake N-95 were proliferating), which might seem like panic but it was often simply urgent adaptation. IMO, the real *moral* panic is condemnation and censorship of dissenting voices, justified in moral terms as banning "dangerous" misinformation rather than supporting free speech and open scientific inquiry. The role of the media fits the classic definitions of moral panic given in this article. In particular, authoritative pronouncements have closely mimicked many of the exaggerations seen in the early years of the AIDS crisis. If the latter qualifies as moral panic, then it seems logical to include an aspect of Covid 19, which has more widespread political and economic implications than HIV did. Martindo (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Following your insightful suggestion: changed the Title of the suggested section into "Reaction to Covid 19 restrictions (2019–present)".

Suggesting to write this revised content instead of the content suggested on top:

Condemnation and censorship of dissenting voices during Covid 19 pandemic, justified in moral terms as banning "dangerous" misinformation rather than supporting free speech and open scientific inquiry. See examples: stop-demonizing-students-for-covid, hear-scientists-different-views-dont-attack-them, open-plea-for-dignity-and-respect-in-science, Don’t demonize parents who are hesitant to vaccinate, unvaccinated-different-from-antivax, Stop demonizing one another, new-wave-of-covid-19-is-not-the-fault-of-the-unvac, medias-all-out-blitz-to-demonize-the-unvaccinated, millions-unvaccinated-risk-losing-civil-liberties.--192.114.3.241 (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I reverted an addition related to this today. The sources I spot checked did not mention moral panic at all. I believe an addition of this type would need better sourcing to not be WP:OR. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The citations should only illustrate that Condemnation and censorship of dissenting voices were part of reaction to COVID. Since they play a role in moral panic it is enough to illustrate we have elements of moral panic (as discussed above), and therefore there is no need for these citations to contain the wordings moral panic. However, it is possible to add also citations correlating reaction to COVID-19 to moral panic if you think it will strengthen the suggestion above. See for example: 123456. We can add them to the suggested paragraph. A. --192.114.3.241--192.114.3.241 (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. In my opinion, the relevant policy is WP:SYNTH. do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. Sources used need to mention moral panic. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

But it is the opposite of synthesis: 1) There is enough scientific literature to call some aspects of reaction to Covid a moral panic; as given by sources 1 to 6 cited above (see also 7th example: 7). 2) Since condemnation and censorship of dissenting voices were part of reaction to COVID (as explained above) it is enough to show that reaction to COVID had this characteristic of moral panic.

Each one of these two is enough. They do not need each other to support the claim. Thus it is not a synthesis. Considering two independent evidences support the same claim, it only makes it stronger. A.--192.114.3.241 (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

A public health crisis isn't a moral panic. There may be instances of people promoting moral panic type that align with the framework, but those reactions happen to any sufficiently divisive political decision. The sources presented are then the media themselves, and then of the next 6 are all over the shop, and 7 is specifically about panic in and of itself (which is probably a broader response to the pandemic than specific "moral" issues). Koncorde (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Not true! A public health crisis could be certainly associated with moral panic. For example, AIDS was associated with Moral panic in current Wikipage. It appears because the reaction to this crises has some characteristics of moral panic. Similarly the reaction to COVID19 has characteristics of moral panic. A. --192.114.3.241 (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Politically-divisive issues are associated with moral panic in this wikipage, see for example Terrorism and islamic extremism and Gender and transgender panics. Thus, the only way wiki editors can agree that reactions to certain events (e.g., health crises) are considered a moral panic is by scientific literature supporting this claim. As previously mentioned in 123456 see also Meida framing moral panic and Covid. Since real case of moral panic is supported by the media and policy makers, it is very hard to recognize it for those which are involved. Some may argue in the future, that the difficulty to add "reaction to Covid as moral panic" to this wikipage was stemming from this argument. A. --192.114.3.241 (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Video nasties

There should be a section on the UK video nasties. JAF1970 (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion to add a section named "Infectious diseases" (under Historic examples).

Suggesting to add the following information: New section name Infectious diseases (Under Historic examples).

Content: Scholars have previously mentioned that Real infectious diseases have a powerful psychological effect. For example SARS quickly became a “moral panic”, which spread worldwide, being accompanied by a true sense of stigma. (see The Lancet at 2010). --192.114.3.241 (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This is practically a citation from a publication in highly respected peer reviewed journal. --192.114.3.241 (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Racism and White Supremacy Section

While I want to say that I am not against the idea of having this section per se, I do not think that this section currently comports to the rigor of the rest of this article. Currently the section is only 2 sentences long (although one is a run-on), and says "any statement, belief or action construed as going against the leftist/globalist narrative is labelled as white supremacy or racism."

This language is not only conclusory, but also rather conspiratorial. It premises itself on an Infowars-style cabal of 'globalists' who have a singular narrative and control over the media, which is characteristic of a different moral panic in the article. Finally, while there are citations all four are just to opinion articles, two of which are from explicitly conservative sources. While one of the articles is by an academic (John McWhorter), he is not an expert in the field of sociology, and more to the point he does not characterize anti-racism as a moral panic in the article cited.

As it currently stands I think the section should be heavily reworked to remove its conclusory and conspiratorial tone and to furnish it with reliable news and academic sources. Until then I think it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabirius (talk • contribs) 23:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to alter the specific wording as needed. I was attempting to summarize what the sources have to say on the topic, and while I was generally accurate, there are other means of getting the point across. It's also true that the sources were rather lacking in rigor, although I wasn't aware of any conservative bias. My idea was really just to get a start on the concept, and then develop it further. if you peruse the initial sources, they all agree on the basic point that opposition to racism and "white supremacy" have taken on the characteristics of a moral panic. Xcalibur (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It really wasn't accurate Dan/Xcal. Pretty much nothing summarised was in the sources, and actually conflicted entirely with the sources.

Concerns about racism and white supremacy have recently taken on the characteristics of a moral panic given the sources are 4 opinion pieces from people with no particular authority on these matters we really cannot attribute this in wikipedias voice.

in which any statement, belief or action construed as going against the leftist/globalist narrative is labelled as white supremacy or racism. this is completely absent from the sources, and also is irrelevant commentary and editorialising. It's also demonstrably false; for instance Charlottesville was full of White Supremacists - one even managed to kill people and be sent to jail - but they were not called White Supremacists or Nationlists or Racists because they opposed orthodox globalist narrative, but because they chanted "You will not replace us" and "Jews will not replace us"[2], walked around Charlottesville unironically waving Swastika and Confederacy flags (among a wide variety of other White Supremacist associated imagery and colours such as the League of the South[3]), had active KKK present, and so on. The moral panic isn't because they oppose the political status quo, but because they present a long rejected ideology.

Individuals or groups branded this way are then "cancelled" I am not aware of the Proud Boys being cancelled, and Fox News is still on the air among a variety of other mainstream media sources repeating / duplicating a lot of the same arguments.

that is, publicly denounced, persecuted, demonized, and attacked by the political establishment at least 50% of the political establishment stood by. They stood by so long that on January 6th 2021 they assaulted the Capitol in order to overthrow the government.

In short there may be some content to write about, it's going to need actual authoritative sources to make bold claims like that, and we would need to attribute to those people, and it would need to reflect something like the actual weight of coverage. Koncorde (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I beg to differ. For example: This White Scare occurs against the backdrop of challenges to the liberal order expressed in different ways in different places — Brexit in Britain, the Gilets Jaunes in France, and of course Donald Trump in America. These phenomena have inflicted psychological wounds on those who man the moral barricades in our societies and have helped to propel them into panic territory that they could well pull us all into. which seems pretty consistent. That article refers to a book, The New Class War by Michael Lind, and the summary says: In this controversial and groundbreaking analysis, Michael Lind, one of America's leading thinkers, debunks the idea that the insurgencies are primarily the result of bigotry and reveals the real battle lines. this book may be useful as a source, though I'd have to check through first. I am not aware of the Proud Boys being cancelled the Proud Boys were labelled as a terrorist group in Canada, which I think qualifies. Fox News may be on the air, and there may be insurgent groups openly representing fringe ideas, and even rioting at the Capitol, but the existence of opposition doesn't negate the mainstream trends I've observed.

Overall, it's true that the sources are rather inadequate. As I said, this was meant as a start, a kind of brainstorming, and I'll have to dig further. Finally, I'm not denying that racist/supremacist ideologies are an issue, just as in the McCarthy era, there undoubtedly were a few Soviet spies. What sets apart a moral panic is the disproportionate response that ends up targeting ppl who are largely innocent. Xcalibur (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

To criticise the source: Brexit has nothing to do with White Supremacy - racism was has been referenced very specifically about immigrants - but the moral panic is ABOUT the immigrants (much as it is in the US with regards to The Wall), neither does Gilets Jaunes (a largely successful popular movement in a country with a long history of protest, which has been accused of being exploited by fringe elements), which leaves Trump - who pretty much ticks the nationalist demagogue box that Lind talks about[4] and echoes Achieving Our Country.

Linds book in particular talks about how an urbanite elite has controlled politics, a "technocratic neoliberalism", a political viewpoint associated with Thatcher and Reagan, that later became the default of most Western governments (under Gingrich in the US, and Howard / IDS / Hague in the UK, the whole Neoconservative pushback took place). To quote Lind “greatest threat to Western democracy is the gradual decay of North America and Europe under well-educated, well-mannered, and well-funded centrist neoliberal politicians.” There's no way to interpret that as "leftist". Globalist meanwhile comes with the inherent dog whistle that is Globalism, but again this is refuted by Lind himself who argues "We’re all arguing about globalization, when it never really happened"[5] and goes on to present the different aspects of globalisation - to quote If your diagnosis is wrong, your prescription is likely to be ineffectual or worse. By exaggerating the extent of globalization, free-market neoliberals and skeptical populists of both left and right tend to prescribe the wrong medicine for an imaginary condition.

As for the Proud Boys - Canada is Canada. If there is a moral panic in Canada about American Proud Boys then we need a source for that - but after attacking the Capitol on January 6th you're going to struggle to find any weight to the idea that the panic is somehow "moral".

To that point, moral panics are traditionally conservative and regressive but there is a growing new moral panic structure being discussed regarding race and exploitation of racial animus and so on.[6][7][8][9] However we also need to be cognizant that the "Real World Examples" conforms to the following tag for that section.This section is only for "moral panics" that have been found by researchers to meet the criteria set out by Stanley Cohen, as noted above Something that has not been identified as a moral panic in a reliable source to meet Cohens criteria shouldn't be included without consensus. Koncorde (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a distinction between economic globalization (free trade, outsourcing, international currency reserves, etc) vs the political shift towards international institutions, corporations, technocracy, etc. thanks for the links, I'll take a look at those. overall, better sources are needed for this, even though it seems apparent to me that when racism/white supremacy is declared a public health crisis, that is definitely in the territory of a moral panic. there's also the concern that for highly controversial topics, the sources can be a bit muddled, but I'll see what comes up. Xcalibur (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The standard for adding something to the page has generally been academic - not opinion - coverage using the term "moral panic" in reference to Cohen's theories specifically, since the theories are academic and highly specific in nature. (ie. sourcing should directly mention Cohen or one of the other major figures in the theory, not just use the word in passing.) If we cited every time any opinion piece or columnist used the term "moral panic", the page would be massively sized and inevitably arbitrary, since covering every single use of the term by anyone isn't reasonably possible. As the size of the section already shows, finding academic sourcing that references core scholarship on the topic is actually not that difficult, which further increases the WP:DUE burden on rando thinkpieces using the term (since adding them would be weighing some random thinkpieces by columnists equal to the high-quality scholarship cited in the rest of the section.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)