John Goekler: The Most Dangerous Person in the World?
http://www.counterpunch.org/goekler03242009.html

I'm not sure if the argument is right; many people die from heart disease, but I don't think we can say that better diet and exercise would have prevented 100% of these deaths.

They forgot the 2 Aug 82 "Scarlet H" Herpes cover (but, then, Reason would, wouldn't it?) http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19820802,00.html

From William Randolph Hearst's ginned up hysterical stories about marijuana to the "10-cent plague" comic book scare of the 1950s to The New York Times warning of "cocaine-crazed Negroes" raping white women across the Southern countryside, the media has always whipped up anxiety and increased readership via thinly sourced exposes of the next great threat to the American way of life.

As a service to future historians of the long, slow death of the newsweekly, Reason offers this Top 10 list of the most horrifying, silly, irresponsible, or downright ridiculous Time cover panics from the past 40 years.

"...no publication has done a better (by which we mean worse) job of scaring the crap out of post-baby boomer America than Time.." 10. June 19, 1972: The Occult Revival \ 9. April 5, 1976: The Porno Plague \ 8. August 6, 1984: The Population Curse \ 7. September 15, 1986: Drugs: The Enemy Within \ 6. May 7, 1990: Dirty Words \ 5. May 13, 1991: Crack Kids \ 4. July 3, 1995: Cyberporn: On a Screen Near You \ 3. Nov 22, 1999: Pokemon! \ 2. March 19, 2001: The Columbine Effect \ 1. June 7, 2004: Overcoming Obesity in America \

Scientific studies have shown that you can destroy a child by calling them "smart." Even when they're very young, little kids know that being "smart" is what makes them special - and so, the first time they encounter something they don't understand immediately, it's a threat. Their specialness is in danger of being stripped away. And if they lose that smartness, then what are they?

You're going to live in fear, smarty. The question is, which fear?---------As long as they were in the drawer, they could be good. And I could be a good writer. If I worked at it. Which I wasn't, but that potential gave me all the glory of feeling like I might be a great writer some day without all of that icky negative feedback. Sure, I had this constant underlying fear that maybe I wasn't good enough - but I had a moderately popular journal, some folks who liked me, and wasn't that enough?

the

Not to make too much of it, but this struck a chord with me. I can identify with this.

"In 1936, the music magazine the Gramophone reported that children had "developed the habit of dividing attention between the humdrum preparation of their school assignments and the compelling excitement of the loudspeaker" and described how the radio programs were disturbing the balance of their excitable minds."

Slate Magazine

A useful historical look at the anxiety of technology and information overload.

This article from the Slate looks at a "history of media technology scares, from the printing press to Facebook." It gives a fine perspective on how whilst the technology evolves, the essence of prophets of doom railing against the technology remain basically the same.

I love that the Wall Street Journal writes this but never complained about Bush using fear mongering. Also I don't think he has fear mongered, I think Obama has presented evidence that backs up what he is saying.

the Great Depression are not only historically inaccurate, they're also dangerous. Repeated warnings from the White House about a coming economic apocalypse aren't likely to raise consumer and investor expectations for the future. In fact, they have contributed to the continuing decline in consumer confidence

Mr. Obama's analogies to the Great Depression are not only historically inaccurate, they're also dangerous. Repeated warnings from the White House about a coming economic apocalypse aren't likely to raise consumer and investor expectations for the future. In fact, they have contributed to the continuing decline in consumer confidence that is restraining a spending pickup.