A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic by Laura Dodsworth (feel good novels .TXT) 📕

2. RESPONSIBLE MEDIA

In one of the most unsurprising findings ever, a Dutch study4 found that exposure to media increased fear. One take-away from the study was that ‘stronger messages in the media may induce more fear and therefore more compliance with the social distancing and lockdown policies imposed. However, we caution against using media messages to induce more fear in the general public. There is evidence that suggests that such “fear appeals” do not work very well to promote behaviour change, particularly when people have little coping strategies. Under such circumstances, which may apply to the current COVID-19 crisis, it may not be very helpful to maximise fear, as this may only increase distress. Furthermore, a substantial proportion of respondents in our sample was concerned about the role of (social) media, mass panic, and hysteria. Hence, fear appeals in the media should be used carefully and whether fear appeals work for the current situation requires empirical evaluation.’

Where government and their advisors are using the media to convey policies, to leak news, or for advertising, this is a very important finding to consider. The ‘Fourth Estate’ has played an enormous role in the behaviour but also the mental health of the population and now in the slow advancement of post-pandemic recovery.

Sometimes the media created insecurities where there were none. We’ve been here before. Stefanie Grupp wrote in Political implications of a discourse of fear: the mass mediated discourse of fear in the aftermath of 9/11 that ‘fear is decreasingly experienced first-hand and increasingly experienced on a discursive and abstract level’. She also wrote that ‘there has been a general shift from a fearsome life towards a life with fearsome media’. It is incumbent on the traditional and social media platforms and outlets to consider their responsibility to their audience in terms of verifying information, and prioritising verified news over clickbait.

A public inquiry should consider: the effect of Ofcom’s strict guidance during the epidemic, which stifled essential debate; the incentives and remuneration of journalists to produce clickbait which stokes fear and hysteria; the nature of relationships between editorial and politicians, which is on a scale from uncritical reporting of a ministerial policy to the rumour that there is an MI5 operative in every newsroom; and whether the government’s advertising spend compromised editorial integrity.

Big Tech companies wield enormous power in defining the acceptable framework for debate. Their censorship of credible scientists and news articles needs close scrutiny. Also, the social media giants are permitting bad actors to run amok, covertly manipulating public opinion with the use of bot and troll Twitter campaigns and ‘fake’ grassroots campaigns. Just what are they doing about that? Even more disturbingly, these bad actors may even be UK government departments.

3. EXPERT PANELS

All science is inherently political, and the social sciences are thought to be particularly so. There is a natural tendency for those heading up panels to recruit those who think like them. Checks and balances are needed to make sure that panels include different academic disciplines, industry backgrounds, and political beliefs, and that group participation is structured to permit and encourage challenge and debate. Lucy Easthope recommends that panels ‘should also be made to operate adversarially so somebody could argue against their science.’

We can’t fix our basic psychological make-up but we can ameliorate it. I heard from different sources while I was investigating this book that ‘wild cards’ and dissenters were edged out of advisory panels. This is dangerous. MP Steve Baker said in the House of Commons that ‘we need to introduce competitive expert advice with red team challenge, because experts are only human and we have been asking the impossible of them in the context of the challenges that they face.’5

4. INDIVIDUAL ACTION

Asking you not to be frightened is futile. Fear is hardwired. In fact, to disregard fear would be to put ourselves in mortal danger. We feel fear for a reason. Our evolved psychology and physiology dispose us towards fearing actual and potential threats. To conclude this book by asking you never to feel fear again, to simply switch it off, would be impossible and harmful. But what action can you take to inoculate yourself from disproportionate fear?

My own investigation of fear in the last year has taught me that, regrettably, we must evaluate the claims of those in power, and be sceptical of information from even our most trusted sources. I don’t want to suggest you live life in a state of perpetual hyper-vigilance and scepticism; that would be exhausting. However, there are some simple actions you can take to help you achieve balance.

In an article about fear and politics, Leonie Huddy, Professor of Political Science at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, said, ‘some media outlets are more likely than others to carry highly emotional content which can exacerbate anxiety. There is evidence that highly emotional content is more likely to be shared on social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, and it may be better to avoid reading news on those platforms and consume less highly-charged coverage that is more common on mainstream news platforms’.6 Quite obviously, turning off the TV and internet news dams the river of doom. Some of the people I interviewed about fear were able to reach a happier place simply by turning off the news. Lockdown and self-isolation led to greater social atomisation, and people developed tunnel thinking. They were able to put their fears into perspective just by meeting up with others socially.

Taking action can also be helpful. It’s been inspiring to witness community support and outreach for the isolated during lockdown, and also the swelling of activism. Despite the restrictions on gatherings, political protest was not truly illegal, and people were able to express their political will and agency through demonstrations and protests.

The other way out of this is to start disregarding the ‘rituals of fear’ as soon as possible. Masks, dots on the floor