This post is a follow-up to the one I published yesterday. As I explained in that particular post, authorities had come to the conclusion that the tip of an imminent terrorist attack in Amsterdam, which resulted in the arrests of seven Dutchmen from Moroccan heritage, was a hoax.

Earlier that day, however, Dutch news outlets jumped all over the news, resulting in frightening headlines such as “Amsterdam saved from bomb!” and “Terror is back!” The newspapers that published these headlines didn’t even take the possibility of a hoax into account.

The above led me to conclude that terrorism isn’t frightening to most news outlets, nor is it a serious problem we have to analyze and destroy. No, it’s simply a terrific way to get more readers, more hits, more subscriptions, more viewers. Terrorism frightens people, thus it sells. And selling is all that matters to the fourth branch of government.

The above reminded me of an article Scholars and Rogues‘ Russ Wellen wrote a year ago. In it, Wellen takes a closer look at crime, the role it plays in society, in government, and in the economy. From it:

But a reduced crime rate may not be in the best interests of the US. After dot.com and housing, do we really want another bubble to burst?

It’s true that streets that are no longer mean might result in the criminal justice system being drawn down, like an army after a war. But how does the criminal justice system qualify as a “bubble?”

As crime reporter Art Montague wrote in 2006, “policing is big business.” In fact it’s almost criminal how many Americans are employed by the criminal justice system. “The uniformed cop on the street is the tip of the human resource iceberg.”…

Namely:

Just below the water line are detectives and crime scene investigators. Beneath them are criminalists, who study biological, trace, and impression evidence (fingerprints, footwear impressions, and tire tracks), as well as ballistics.

They coexist with the denizens of a veritable kelp forest of forensics: anthropology, archaeology, entomology, geology, meteorology, odontology, psychology, and toxicology.

Next, Montague writes, is “civilian staff ranging from technicians and auto mechanics to bean counters and file clerks.” Multiply that by “levels of jurisdiction — local, state/provincial [he's Canadian –- Ed.], national.” Not to mention by-law enforcement: “Meter maids, dog catchers, anti-smoking and anti-noise sleuths.”

Then, after a suspect is arraigned, come the “phalanxes of lawyers and judges, plus their support staff.” If a defendant gets off with probation, “More workers and infrastructure are needed to fill this niche in the supply chain.”…

All this adds up to a ballpark figure of $100 billion a year. Remember, since we aren’t dealing with terrorism, just good, old domestic crime, we’re not taking into account the $45 billion budget of the Department of Homeland Security (a whole ‘nother bubble).

And then there are the media who use crime whenever they can – the more crime the better – movies that deal with real or invented crime and, of course, crime novels. Crime and terrorism have become major business. Not just for criminals (and terrorists), but also for everyone else.

Money comes for social responsibility, it seems. Media and popular culture use crime and terrorism in order to earn a quick buck and completely ignore their own influence on society. ‘Society,’ for instance, feels increasingly insecure. Civilians everywhere complain about it. This while crime figures may have fallen. So why the feeling of insecurity? Because some politicians, media and popular culture constantly tell people to be afraid, be very afraid. That’s why.

Obviously, crime and terrorism are problems that have to be dealt with as effectively as we possibly can. But both should be put in context. Making a quick buck shouldn’t trump realism, it shouldn’t trump the truth.

Perhaps this is the lesson we should learn from the bomb hoax in Amsterdam: crime and terrorism are serious problems, serious threats, but the aforementioned groups and individuals have to stop magnifying the threat as if life’s completely insecure and unsafe, as if we could become victims every minute now. Terrorists exist, we should be aware of that, but we shouldn’t let them paralyze us either.

Above all, journalists should live up to their responsibilities: virtually no details were known yet. We knew there was a threat, that’s it. At that moment you’ve got the obligation to at least point out that it could be a joke, a test, w/e; that, in other words, a bomb attack isn’t imminent. That’s common sense, of course, but most of our media forgot all about it.

Lastly, there’s another problem. The more often media play up the danger while there was no real threat, the more likely it is people won’t react when an imminent threat does exist.