Moral Panic. The short of it is that the media creates a panic over something, usually something so insane that you have to wonder what the big deal is, and turns that issue/event into the worst thing to ever happen in the history of ever. For example, the Satanic Panic of the 1980's where people playing Dungeons and Dragons were summoning REAL DEMONS. Satanists were eating babies and sacrificing humans to Luicfer and they were coming for you and your family next. This went on in Southern California for years, yes, Satanists were used to make people afraid for YEARS. Pedophilia is also a moral panic. Yes, there are pedophiles and yes they exist and yes they abuse children. But this behavior is extremely rare. The most likely source of child abuse is family members, not strangers, teachers, priests etc. But the extremely rare thing get the media's attention and they hype those rare events because they can wrap advertising around the stories and generate viewers. Video games are a moral panic. they make kids into murders only they don't. People who play video games are no more or less violent than the rest of the public. But since the parents don't play games, the media can sell them a story that their kids are turning into junkies. Oh yea that happened Trans people using the 'wrong' bathroom to abuse your kids is a moral panic. Stranger danger is a moral panic. (Most abducted children are taken by family members as a part of custody battles) "Moral Panic" is a hard term to give a real definition to. But If I had to try? A Moral Panic is a media event where fear and concern are hyped up into a 'panic' where laws are demanded to fix a situation. The situation itself probably is not real, is a hoax or represents a very minor percent of the population. the whipping up of public fear and in extreme cases terror, is usually linked to a demand from elected leaders to change laws. I've included a few articles that might help you understand the term better. Hope it helps. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-british-studies/article/grave-doubts-victorian-medicine-moral-panic-and-the-signs-of-death/ACF7DC9BD4954C0979339557D14EE7C5 https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201507/moral-panic-who-benefits-public-fear
Dude you missed the most en pointe one. James Woods got yer back.
Do you have a cite for this? I did a quick search and found this information from the Dept. of Justice website . Based on that information, your assertion is incorrect. These are slightly old statistics from 2010-2012. About 30% of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are family members. Only about 10% of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are strangers to the child. According to this site, of the 1.8 million adolescents who are the victims of child sexual abuse, the vast majority (60%) of child sexual abuse comes from people who are not family members but are in positions of authority in the child's life, like teachers, scout leaders, care providers, etc. The numbers are not negligible. Putting aside the hype in the media, the problem is substantial enough to warrant attention. Do you disagree?Pedophilia is also a moral panic. Yes, there are pedophiles and yes they exist and yes they abuse children. But this behavior is extremely rare. The most likely source of child abuse is family members, not strangers, teachers, priests etc.
Approximately 1.8 million adolescents in the United States have been the victims of sexual assault.
An estimated 60% of perpetrators of sexual abuse are known to the child but are not family members, e.g., family friends, babysitters, child care providers, neighbors.
Looking online through my older search history you are more correct than I am. Most child harm is done by "persons know to the child and or family" and not the family proper. Still, the whole concept of "Stranger Danger" is overblown and turns the focus off of teaching a sense of self and the ability to fight grooming by trusted individuals. Thanks for the correction.According to this site, of the 1.8 million adolescents who are the victims of child sexual abuse, the vast majority (60%) of child sexual abuse comes from people who are not family members but are in positions of authority in the child's life, like teachers, scout leaders, care providers, etc.
You linked to endnote 8 instead of 9. That report is for sexual assault in general, not to juveniles. Endnote 9 goes to this pdf. bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf The table is on page 13 of 17 in Table 6. The numbers in that table are 34.2% for family members, 58.7% for acquaintances and 7% for strangers in the juvenile categories. There's a slight bit of difference from the round numbers on the website, but they're in the ballpark. There's still an overwhelming percentage of acquaintances. The breakdown for gender is on Table 7. The males are closer to the general statistic. The females are more likely to be abused by strangers. The data from that report is pretty old, from the early nineties.Go to page 9, to the "Table 9. Victim and offender relationship, 2004" in Criminal Victimization, 2004 report which I can only presume was used as the source. You will see that while the quoted statistic does apply to females (age 12 or older) when considering the problem of rape or sexual assault… it's actually committed 100% by strangers to the victim when it comes to males from the same age group.
Thank you for defining it. Seems like the act-of-terror craze in Russia is a moral panic. The government insists on people being utterly careful and prepared in case the terrorists strike. Given that every such act gets reported and propagated by word of mouth and I hear nothing but of the latest one in Saint-Petersburg, sounds like the threat is wildly exaggerated.