THE MONKEY-MAN OF DELHI AND SUMMER OF THE SHARK: MEDIA, MASS HYSTERIA AND THE UNCRITICAL PUBLIC
The spring and summer of 2001 saw two cases of mass hysteria take hold of two countries, halfway around the world from each other. But both in India and the United States, the press jumped on the frenzy, evidence, rationality and integrity be damned. Exploitative media is, of course, still very much alive more than twenty years later but the two cases of 2001 are an intriguing window into a world still unfamiliar, much less preoccupied, with the term 9/11. In a matter of months the world, and the media, would change.
Mass
hysteria was nothing new in the spring of 2001. In December of 1997 a number of
children in Japan became dizzy after watching an episode of Pokémon
featuring the use of strobe lighting. Hospitals later revealed that while a few
kids did suffer mild epileptic seizures after viewing the episode most were the
result of mass hysteria.
Still,
it baffles the mind how easily the press in India turned the story of the
Monkey-Man of Delhi into national panic without even the crudest of tangible
evidence. It began in May of 2001 when rumors began circulating around New
Delhi that a creature resembling an ape was attacking locals. Descriptions
varied with the animal ranging in size from four to eight feet and some even
claimed in wore armor, though the simian features remained consistent. Nothing,
not even the usual rudimentary tracks, fuzzy photos or obscure sounds, however,
was brought forth. At most some attack victims demonstrates bite marks and
scratches but they looked no worse or different from the bite marks of any
number of small animals.
Of
course, this was all the press needed to stir a city into a panic that caught
global attention. The New Delhi police had no choice but to take the hysteria
stirred by the case if not the substance of it, seriously, setting up hotlines
for witnesses which soon became favorite venues for practical jokers and
hoaxers.
Undoubtedly
a portion of the public truly did believe a strange creature was running amuck
in the village, with two locals dying trying to pursue what they believed was
the animal (one jumped off a roof and another fell down a staircase).
By
the end of May the panic of the Delhi’s Monkey-Man had died as quickly as it
had began. To calm the public’s fears, city officials rescinded a power-out
mandate began earlier in the season to conserve energy as a heat-wave was
striking the city. Tellingly, the panic started just as the power-out mandate
took effect and ended just as it was rescinded.
All it took was one unsubstantiated rumor for the masses to believe that
any creature or sound they could not identify in the darkness must have been
the Monkey-Man.
By
comparison, the Summer of the Shark which terrorized beachgoers a month later
and for the rest of the summer of 2001 in the United States was a far more
rational and understandable concern. Nonetheless, it remains in many ways one
of the all-time test cases of how both the media and the uncritical public can
take facts that are not untrue unto themselves and turn them into an undue
cause for alarm.
Indeed,
the Summer of the Shark was launched by an incredible story of survival. On
July 6 of that year, eight-year-old Jesse Arbogast was bitten by a bull shark
while wading in the shallow waters of Gulf Island’s National Seashore. Arbogast
would lose his arm in the attack before a bystander pulled him out of the
water. The ease with which Arbogast’s uncle was able to kill the shark and drag
it to shore indicates it was a sick or older. Miraculously, the Arbogast’s arm
was recovered from the shark’s mouth and surgically reattached. Despite the
loss of blood, Jesse Arbogast recovered.
A
number of attacks followed in the ensuing weeks. Not far from where Arbogast
was attacked 48-year-old surfer Michael Waters suffered a bite from what he and
doctors presume to have been a shark. Two other victims survived shark attacks
in Florida that week with a few fatalities occurring by the end of summer.
The
sensationalist nature of the media’s coverage of the ensuing shark attacks
during the summer of 2001 (likely inspired once it had whetted its appetite
with the Jesse Arbogast story) created a frenzy culminating in TIME magazine
dubbing it (as the cover story) “The Summer of the Shark”. The Summer of the
Shark is a particularly interesting study case because throughout it facts were
never fabricated. Nothing necessarily untrue was said, numbers were not
manipulated. But they were, however, released without perspective or
explanation. It is this kind of case that is harder to deconstruct for a
terrorized public (since the facts are not wrong in the obvious sense) and
therefore far more harmful.
For
instance, in mid-August various news outlets released helicopter footage of
“hundreds” of sharks swimming up the Florida coast, painting the phenomenon as
a “shark epidemic” but, as Loren Coleman said in The Copycat Effect: How the
Media and Popular Culture Trigger Mayhem in Tomorrow’s Headlines,
“Television news people categorized it as a major scare for life and limb, but
shark migrations occur annually and are as natural as birds flying south for
the winter.”
About
decontextualized numbers? The summer of 2001 saw 76 shark attacks and so was
dubbed “Summer of the Shark”, but the 85 shark attacks of the summer of 2000
caused little stir. Further, the attacks of 2001 resulted in five fatalities,
the attacks of 2000 in twelve.
How,
then, to account for the attacks of 2001 creating such a stir? John Stossel
perhaps explained the phenomenon best. “Instead of putting risks in proportion,
we hype interesting ones. Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric, and countless others called
2001 the "summer of the shark." In truth, there wasn't a remarkable
surge in shark attacks in 2001. There were about as many in 1995 and 2000, but
1995 was the year of the O.J. Simpson trial, and 2000 was an election year. The
summer of 2001 was a little dull, so reporters focused on sharks.”
Comments
Post a Comment