Rating: 
Summary: Things your Grandmother fears most...
Review: Excellent book...a useful knife for cutting through all of the BS that often masquerades as news. The book helped me to understand my grandmothers's often erratic assumptions about the world we live in. (Heavy Metal=Brain Damage, Car-Jacking,Heavy Metal causing my cousin to be such a weirdo,Locking the car doors when dropping me off in my relatively nice Chicago neighborhood) ALthough, I did find it a valid critique that Glassner often gives in to the temptation of inserting his political beliefs. (It is not hard to discern his policies on Guns, for instance). While I wholeheartedly agree with his views (being a lefty myself) I did find it somewhat inappropriate that he stress objectivity in the media while slyly inserting his beliefs. This however is a minor critique and one that happens very rarely. For the vast majority of the book, Glassner is as objective, calm and logical as any writer can be, and the book is far more than just eye opening, it will make you want to shut off your tv for good, cancel your subscriptions to Newsweek, Time, and cancel your subscriptions to your city newspaper. Even the infallible New York Time's name was called out, though far less than its brethren.The book even made me laugh numerous times as I realized how ridiculous (and irresponsible) respected journalists can be. On the whole, read this book...its like a compass in the giant sea of media fog and BS> p.s. the connection between Old people's irrational fears and TV is dead on.
Rating: 
Summary: Vehicle for Mr. Glassner's political views
Review: I agree with Mr Glassner's general points in the book that the media creates unnecessary hysteria about interesting, but exceedingly rare, occurrences such as flesh-eating bacteria and that we, as a society, are afraid to talk about the more prevalent problems of heart disease and poverty, for example. Viewers/readers are also assured that they indeed are good people when they hear about drug-addicted mothers killing their babies, so we are attracted to this type of media. Scapegoating drug addicts, gays, blacks, and teen moms offers a simple way to determine who's to blame, when, in fact, many social problems have complex caues. HOWEVER, this book failed when Mr Glassner offered up his own solutions to his pet "important" topics. On SEVERAL occaisions, he mentions that gun control could have kept guns out of the hands of killer children and road rage perpetrators; therefore, we should be more tough on guns for all Americans. In my view, if the female victim of road rage shooting had been allowed to carry a weapon, she could have defended herself against a random act of violence (but that wasn't mentioned). Instead, he says, it is imperative that everyone be denied gun access, not just felons, perchance an angry or suicidal youth should get ahold of a gun. Of course, access to guns is correlated with a greater chance of succeeding at suicide (vs. people who try and fail), but access to cars is also correlated with a higher rate of automobile crashes, too? There are also well-researched stats correlating gun DEregulation (e.g. concealed carry permits) with a reduction in crime, and he never "debunks" nor mentions those.
There is also a blaring logical inconsistency when he criticizes (rightly) politicians for capitalizing on famous child-abduction cases to get feel-good laws passed to boost their popularity, but he championed Scotland who passed a reactionary law banning .22 calibre weapons (in addition to their already-restrictive gun policies) in response to a rare man who used one to shoot children at school. That's he old "are you for the kids or are you for the criminal?" vote in both cases, but it's only applied to the first case. In another shocking paragraph, he criticized the media for having the gall to ask Hillary Clinton about Whitewater et al. instead of focusing on her favorite topic of helping children via increased social spending, and he further ripped on the media for mentioning that increased social spending would increase government and taxes (as if that weren't pertinent to the discussion). The theme of increased need for social spending is prevalent throughout the book. He ever implies that Barbara Walters is a tool of the vast right-wing conspiracy (HARDLY!). As a Republican (not a right-wing Christian fundamentalist who wants everyone to be forced to pray at school and give kickbacks to "corporate America" -- by the way, who are a culprit in poverty acc. to him -- as he portrays all Republicans), I had a hard time stomaching his political views, but some of the general arguments--the more "academic" one such as the availability heuristic--are interesting.
Rating:
Summary: Should be required reading...
Review: Barry Glassner's "The Culture of Fear" is a timely examination of the gluttonous Misinformation Age. Every day we are saturated with stories of freak accidents, diseases, and gruesome crimes, all of which are statistical anomalies. I'm reminded of the Newsweek cover that came out about ten years ago proclaiming that a woman over 35 had a better chance of being killed by a terrorist than of getting married. That article, and others like it, lead Susan Faludi to write "Backlash", a groundbreaking look at how the media and institutions in power distort information. "The Culture of Fear" is just as groundbreaking and fascinating as Faludi's book. I'm sure sociology classes across the country are reading both of them. One need only look at recent news reportage to see that Glassner has a vital point to be made. The child kidnappings over the recent summer dominated headlines and sensationalized news programs. Yet, as Glassner points out, of the 64 million kids in the US (1999 statistics) only about 200 a year are kidnapped by nonfamily members. The vast majority -- still only .001 of all children -- are kidnapped in custody disputes. None of this minimizes the pain of the families involved, but why do these stories tie up the news for months on end? Consider the following contrast: on the day that Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped from her home, 30,000 children in the Third World died because they lacked the items of necessity that most US kids take for granted. Where is the coverage on this? Where is the outrage? Glassner seems to believe that it is precisely the staggering state of crisis we live in that has lead to trivial and sensationalized news. The real ills of society -- corporate malfeasance, massive job insecurity, abusive families, addiction, imbalances of power both at home and abroad -- are simply too overwealming for an emotionally taxed culture to handle. Just as we grab for junk food because it's easier than preparing something better for us, we grab for junk news. And, just as junk food is bad for us in the long run, so, says Glassner, is the state of the news. Our collective fears over the crime rates have lead to tougher penalties and more prisons, including tough sentences for comparitively minor crimes. The prevelence of guns, along with irrational fears about the likelihood of finding ourselves in peril, have made us the First World nation with the highest rates of handgun death, both homicide and suicide. And meanwhile, real outrages like the Enron scandal barely rate a mention in the voting booths. By feeding our irrational fears, we are ignoring the real problems that plague us. "The Culture of Fear" is a fascinating and important book. It would be an excellent choice for book clubs and high school ethics classes.
Rating: 
Summary: Lots of footnotes don't make a work scholarly
Review: The topic of this book is very important. Many of the things that we fear so much pose small risk when compared to other things that we fear less but pose greater risk. For example, in the recent sniper scare in the Washington area, people drove many miles outside the area to purchase gasoline. They thus incurred a far greater risk on the roads than they would have from the sniper. To explore this important topic in a scholarly manner we need, first of all, to come to terms with the existing data on risk, mainly data relating to crime, accident, illness, and mortality. Second, we need a social-psychological consideration of how people weigh relative risks -- why it is that spectacular and rare occurrences seem more frightening than the familiar hazards of crime, accident, and sickness. Unfortunately, the author of this book does not present such materials objectively. Social statistics, when they are mentioned at all, are treated loosely and impressionistically. For example, the reader is not given the information that would enable him to check on the primary sources. And when it comes to interpretation of data, the author generally substitutes his political and moral preferences for hard-nosed inquiry. This book was written before 9/11 and also before the new revelations concerning the extent of Catholic priests' sexual misconduct. While he could not have known about these developments, what he did say on related matters can now be very clearly seen as wrong-headed. Referring to the Oklahoma bombings, he suggests that any fear of Middle Eastern terrorists is irrational. Regarding the Catholic Church's problems that were already surfacing when he wrote, he takes the opportunity of bashing the respected Catholic scholar (and priest) Andrew Greeley, who had warned his church at a time when more could have been done by the hierarchy. The book has some of the external appurtenances of scholarship, mainly footnotes, but these only hide the fact that it is a subjective, unscientific treatment of a subject that really deserves better.
Rating:
Summary: Some goods sections, others full of rant...
Review: Having had to read this book for my college sociology class, I admit this would not have been the first book I would have picked up on my own. It has several good points, such as how the media tends to perpetuate fears. However, several sections left me with the feeling that the purpose of this book was to unleash some pent up frustration by the author, consequently making this book full of rant. As the line, Its the Guns, stupid...well, by characterizing the issues of suicide or teen school shooters, as a problem with our gun policy, trivilizes the issues- there is something clearly wrong with an individual who would go shooting around some of his classmates-and to blame it on the guns, negates this fact. And remember Columbine, they didn't just use guns. Maybe school shootings aren't likely, but tell that to the parents who have lost their children's due to these random acts of violence.
Rating:
Summary: Like stars on a clear night.
Review: The Culture of Fear ranks with New World New Mind (Robert Ornstein & Paul Erlich) on my list of books that will change your persective forever. Some of what sociologist Barry Glassner writes will validate what you already suspected and even more will show you how you have been falling for the hype just like everyone else. The best books and the best teachers guide us not to believe one particular thing or another, but instead to think for ourselves. The Culture of Fear will inspire you to independent thought. - Thom Rutledge, author of Embracing Fear (HarperSanFrancisco)
Rating: 
Summary: Well researched and even more relevent now
Review: In the course of reading Barry Glassner's "The Culture of Fear," I was surprised that Glassner took a more balanced view than I had at first expected. After being featured in left-wing muckracker, Michael Moore's latest film, "Bowling for Columbine," I had assumed Glassner, too, had produced a one-sided liberal rant about the corporate-controlled media interests. I was wrong. While some of Glassner's conclusions may be questionable, like his statements without clear evidence that the availability of guns are almost entirely to blame for the nation's violence, much of his book is filled with example-after-example of familiar media-propagated scares of the 1990s along with well-researched statistics to debunk the myths. After reading the book, the pattern became clear of how the media spins its stories to make them deliberately misleading in order to sell fear and keep viewers and readers plugged in. I believe this educational experience has made me a more savvy and skeptical consumer of the news. While Glassner's primary target in "The Culture of Fear" is the media, other groups are also shamed along the way (and they aren't all conservatives, either!) For instance, he spends a fair amount of time accusing feminists of propagating the silicone breast implant scares for symbolic gains even as study-after-study, some very large, involving tens of thousands of women showed no increased evidence of medical problems due to the implants. One trend that I found amusing in many of the scares is that genuine experts are often ignored in the propagation of the fears. When genuine experts are consulted and disagree with the media's spin, their rational hard-facts explanations are often dismissed with a brush of the hand from the interviewer and followed by a, "but what about all the children?" or "but you can't deny people are suffering?" when there may be no connection between the suffering and the purported cause or the chances of the threat occurring being several times less likely than being struck by lightning. Instead, for airline safety stories, we rely on "seasoned traveler" Joe Blow, as if by riding an airplane a couple times a month Joe is an expert or we rely on college student and self-proclaimed researcher, Marty Rimm, for all that is known about Cyberporn and our children's exposure to it. (Rimm achieved earlier fame by manipulating the media in high school with a trumped-up scare of teenagers spending time in New Jersey casinos. Later debunked, you'd think the media would be more skeptical of him when he applied his manipulation tactics again.) The pattern is similar: when reporters are trying to propagate a scare, they find whomever they can to agree with their pre-decided point-of-view, not matter their dubious qualifications, and ignore anyone who casts doubt on the sensationalized arguments, regardless of their authority. Yes, I am sure there are conclusions within the book that will make conservatives irate, like the observation that it is poverty that causes crime, not race or crack, but it is interesting to find out that in an era when crime rates were dropping, coverage of crime increased 600%, thus creating an impression on the public that crime is out of control. And, no, things aren't any worse now than they were before...a lot of bad things happened in the past, too, like kids killing kids, but it is the media coverage, not the trend that is growing. Overall, it is a good read and well-documented. Most of the spin is transparent enough to separate it from the interesting factual data contained within it. If you are living in fear of terrorism or any of the other scare-du-jour, this book is definitely worth a read.
Rating:
Summary: Buy This Book
Review: If you approach this book with the notion that some Liberal or Conservative wrote this book with bad intentions, don't bother reading it because you won't get it. The fact is, fear is used to sell, scare, and drive up ratings on CNN AND Fox News. Everthing in this book is true about us as a society. Check it out.
Rating:
Summary: well researched, eye-opening
Review: Glassner takes the time to objectively evaluate the fears of our society. He shows that many of the dangers that are commonly accepted as fact have little or no supporting evidence. The book contains detailed explanations of how these scares are developed and perpetuated; it also devotes some attention to why people are so susceptible to these "fear mongers," although those arguments are more speculative than the rest of the book's contents. Glassner is clearly not without an agenda; he repeatedly makes the point that the attention, time, and money devoted to these false dangers could be much better spend on actually useful social services and policies. But I think that even if you disagree with his politics, it is still hard to find flaws in his research and reasoning showing that these scares are unreasonable, overplayed, and in some sense destructive. And I think that almost anyone will find something in the book that they held as true being thoroughly debunked. It's the wealth of surprising yet well-supported facts that makes this book one of my favorites.
Rating:
Summary: Learning how to read the media
Review: This is an in-depth examination of how our politicians and our news media use the stimulus of fear to achieve certain ends, and it stands as an invaluable work of media criticism, in an accessible style that is marred in a just few instances by prose that is broken by errors, or just weird. Glassner explores the use of experts and secondary scholars, or people presenting themselves as such; specious ways of using statistics; non-scientific "studies"; using anecdotal and emotional material to trump scientific and statistical perspectives; and other ways of dramatizing the news so that broader and more challenging societal issues are pre-empted and other fears are overblown. Hence, we are very afraid of someone tampering with halloween candy, which is an exceedingly rare event; but we don't look at the fact that families abuse their own children in surprising numbers. Our attention is drawn away from systemic issues. Perhaps our country is not as scary as it appears on the evening news. However, there are people who profit from that perception. Charging Glassner with a liberal bias (as several of the reviews here do) is a bit of a cheap shot, especially considering the fact that he frequently comes to the defense of major corporations, including commercial airlines and even the notorious Dow Corning, who were unjustly demonized because, well, that just made a better story. The charge in one of these reviews that Glassner indicts the media for its conservative bias is off the wall. Glassner makes no mention of it, other than an acknowledgement that some reporters belonging to corporate-owned news outlets MIGHT think twice about reporting on stories reflecting badly on parent companies. That's not much of an indictment. The scholarship is solid, and documented in copious footnotes using primary and reputable sources. It is, however, written for the general reader in a style that is warm and humorous. Recommended.
|
