A bit long for me to go through right now, but from the opening statements I get the gist of where it's going. One thing I'd like to point out is in the time of FDR there was no satellite news, instant communication, internet, nor computerized stock exchanges with instant transactions and the threat of instant stock and currency devaluation. There weren't even computers yet. The change in technology, and the rapid spread of news and (mis)information is what feeds fear more than what any one person says. Sure, a president, a spokesman - take any public figure who says one thing, and you have 150 or more commentators who expand, expound, and explain (supposedly) what the person just said. Instead of helping calm the public, they excell on agitation, shock, and disturbance. That's what gets ratings, so the culture of fear is really self-sustaining by its very nature.
Let's take a recent example. How many people are terrified to drive the highways in Los Angeles because the nightly news is reporting on some nut with a gun taking potshots at cars? And is it any wonder this copycat of the Ohio highway shooter is doing his thing while the Ohio shooter's trial was in session? Again, instant information, instant fear - and the copycat shooter knows it. That's why they do this sort of thing. Just think, would Al Qaida be so scarry to some people if it weren't for the instant TV broadcast worldwide of the 9/11 attack? 60 years ago there would have been some newspaper photos, and radio and some TV traffic, but not the lengthy global coverage that was present in 2001. In a world where people live surrounded by TV's and computers, where you can know what's going on halfway around the planet before you can walk to the end of your street, is any of this really unexpected at this point?
|
