[vox_mundi]

Does Media Coverage of Manmade Disasters Contribute to Consumer Complacency?

http://www.jcr-admin.org/files/pressrel ... lease1.pdf

According to a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research, news coverage of environmental disasters serves to calm our immediate anxieties instead of catalyzing changes in the way fossil fuels are used.

The authors identified four distinct narratives in the news coverage that create what they term the disaster myth, or the act of directing consumer attention toward the company responsible for the disaster, and then providing a dramatic closure to the crisis. The narratives include: segregation (separating oil from nature), exception (the disaster was unforeseeable), punishment (how the responsible company is penalized), and restoration (describing how the damage will be undone).

While news coverage of an environmental disaster may negatively impact the bottom line of the company responsible for the disaster for some time, it also diverts the general public's attention away from the risks involved in fossil fuel extraction. This research helps us understand the cultural inertia that follows an environmental disaster and the role of the news media in shaping consumer behavior and perceptions of risk.

"Consumers seldom think about systemic risks that are inherent to many aspects of everyday life. Instead, they exhibit a tacit trust that these threats are being sufficiently monitored and controlled.

Mr. Hand: Sleep, now. ... Dark City (1998).

[GHung]

Toss in a bunch of disaster movies, zombies, superheros, and feelgood Hollywood endings even after half the population gets wiped out, the masses get pretty well innoculated to the idea of real risk. Get'em scared of something then show them how they'll (personally) be saved in the end. It's always someone else that gets it.