Manufactured Media Outrage

[Michael]

This is a good example of the games the media plays and the effects they have.

Rather much a 'tempest in a teapot' here (doubly so since it is a British example) but it is very illustrative of a basic fact. People don't get 'outraged' until someone tells them they should be outraged. On their own, they just don't see it.

Half a million people were listening to this. The reaction was....nothing. Literally. Apparently there were a grand total of two complaints after the show aired.

In other words, the public had spoken, and they couldn't have cared less. So what happened next? Answer: a Mail on Sunday reporter alerted Sachs' agent, who asked for an apology from Brand and got it a week after the initial broadcast. Still, no one cared. The next day, though, the Mail splashed Brand all over its front page and has been giving him front page treatment ever since. It's sort of like the Fox News 24/7 loop whenever they get their hands on something useful to rile up the rubes.
Source (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2008/10/a_media_fable.html)

I find this phenomena very interesting - not just as an exercise in media manipulation (as that's what it is) but the implications for public morality as well.

The idea that 'moral outrage' is more often than not, merely manufactured rather than spontaneous is interesting - and the 'stock and trade' of the media itself (and our politicians).

So what does that say about 'morality' and/or society? Looks like more evidence of the old 'people are sheep' argument.

[Helene]

The idea that 'moral outrage' is more often than not, merely manufactured rather than spontaneous is interesting - and the 'stock and trade' of the media itself (and our politicians).

So what does that say about 'morality' and/or society? Looks like more evidence of the old 'people are sheep' argument.

People are sheep. In order to function in and survive as a group, they are wired to mimick and mirror the behavior of the people around them. We are highly contextual beings; what we think and/or feel depends on what the people around us think and feel, and to what extent we identify with them.

Combine that with the fact that psychologically, loss is experienced far more deeply than gain (gain is nice, but deterioration must be avoided at all costs). And you begin to realize that it's very easy to get a group to do think/feel anything as long as you manage to portray an occurance as a loss. Such as getting them to buy your newspaper...

[Michael]

People are sheep. In order to function in and survive as a group, they are wired to mimick and mirror the behavior of the people around them. We are highly contextual beings; what we think and/or feel depends on what the people around us think and feel, and to what extent we identify with them.
Yes, I agree with this. The 'relative poverty' issue illustrates this as well. People are not driven to 'get ahead' in itself, they are driven to 'keep up' with others.

Combine that with the fact that psychologically, loss is experienced far more deeply than gain (gain is nice, but deterioration must be avoided at all costs). And you begin to realize that it's very easy to get a group to do think/feel anything as long as you manage to portray an occurance as a loss. Such as getting them to buy your newspaper...
Yes, again, a very good point. Religious and political groups are particularly adept at this game of framing issues as a 'loss' of something in order to motivate the followers to do something.