sometimes it's African Americans, and sometimes it's "inner-city kids." The threat posed by the other makes far more attractive news than the reality that the others—or minorities—are far more likely toface threats:

Many more black men are casualties of crime than are perpetrators, but their victimization does not attract the media spotlight the way their crimes do.

Glassner's hypothesis can be used to unpack many fears. For example, fears about the Ebola virus spreading in the US during the 2014 outbreak in West Africa were found to be greatly exaggerated. Yet such was the media's fear-mongering and the public's anxiety that in one incident parents of a Mississippi school pulled out their kids from class because the principal had visited Zambia, a country 3,000 miles away from the outbreak site! No doubt Ebola's "foreignness" and "African-ness" contributed to the fear. Thus, united in their dread of the other, populations lose sight of the actual issues that fuel ill-health and crime: economic inequality and the prevalent gun culture in the United States. Glassner especially turns our attention to the easy availability of guns in America:

We have more guns stolen from their owners—about 30,000 annually—than many countries have gun owners. In Great Britain, Australia, and Japan, where gun ownership is severely restricted, no more than a few dozen people are killed each year by handguns. In the United States, where private citizens own a quarter-billion guns, around 15,000 people are killed, 18,000 commit suicide, and another 15,000 are accidentally killed by firearms.

Thus, whenever there is an instance of a school shooting, the headlines are about "Children without Souls," says Glassner. The real question—why did a child have access to a gun in the first place—gets buried under the debris of demonizing the other. Glassner follows the "money trail" to explain this phenomenon. Because the gun lobby is so financially powerful and tied up with media and government funding, it is left undisturbed:

The short answer to why Americans harbor so many misbegotten fears is that immense power and money await those who tap into our moral insecurities and supply us with symbolic substitutes.

Glassner also argues that bad headlines make big money. The 24-hour news cycle is hungry for disasters, proving true the old adage that "bad news is good news." Thus, the rash of sensational headlines that ratchet up fears. For instance, Glassner quotes headlines such as "It's not Guns, It's Killer Kids" (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) that arose in the wake of the school shootings of 1997–98. Further, he notes that tags like "road-rage" and "monster moms" sell far better than feel-good stories. I think it's interesting to note here that though Glassner's book was written in 1999, it is prescient about the age of social media trending labels:

In TV newsrooms, if it bleeds it leads remains the watchword. A study of 559 newscasts in twenty television markets across the United States compared the crimes covered by local news to the number and types of crimes actually committed. Although crime had fallen for eight years prior to the 2004 study, in all twenty markets "audiences were told essentially the same story—that random, violent crime was a persistent and structural feature of American society," the researchers found.

One of the most sinister ways the media twists facts into fear is using statistics without context. For instance, many statistics about diseases are based on studies funded by organizations with vested interests. By refusing to question the politics behind the statistics, the media colonizes public thought to further the enterprise of fear.

Finally, as discussed before, Glassner does not dismiss all fear-mongering. He explicitly states that some of the fears raised by the media are very valid, such as around rampant gun abuse and the widening gap between society's haves and have-nots. In fact, he stresses that media coverage is never all-bad. Several news organizations and advocacy groups do very good work in weeding out "false" fear from real ones. What's more, sensitive reportage can actually make a real difference to social problems and in getting victims justice. For example he notes:

...when a neighborhood's crime victims are portrayed as victims-sympathetically and without blame, as humans rather than as statistics, people living in other parts of the city are more inclined to support social services for the area, which in turn can reduce the crime rate.

Well, first it is important to realize that the full title of Glassner’s book can tell us a lot about the subject at hand.  It is an incredibly long title: The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things: Crime, Drugs, Minorities, Teen Moms, Killer Kids, Mutant Microbes, Plane Crashes, Road Rage, & So Much More.  Glassner’s book is an especially poignant look at current events happening around the world.

Glassner writes about how our fear is not based on reality, but rather is molded and constructed through various media.  The actual level of risk in our lives has not increased, however our perception of the risk of danger is much greater.  Glassner asserts that three out of four Americans feel more fearful today than 20 years ago.  This is the case even when statistics show a decrease in crime rates.

Glassner later talks about different political groups or political action committees that create fear by increasing attention on subjects such as crime, drug use, and terrorism.  Companies who have a vested interest in creating fear around a certain disease (such as a pharmaceutical company) may increase our perception of danger though advertising.

Exaggeration surrounds the culture of fear in our society, especially through media. Because of the way we are manipulated by various organizations or political groups or candidates, the increased sense of danger creates the perception that the world is a much more dangerous place than in actuality.  Glassner succeeds in making this clear in his book The Culture of Fear.