Gunmen attack Fort Hood, Texas

[MikeF]

Since most Americans are reportedly conservative in their views, how did we as a people let these unethical wackos take over our media?

My point is why don't see public backlash against bad reporting (liberal or conservative?). Seems to be a disconnect there.

Bill

Here's some interesting articles sent from a group that conducts micro-conflict resolution with Jews and Palestinians that address your questions. This research is important for small wars as well. It shows that the people rising up is not solely based on the perception of security.

Why do good people do nothing, in the presence of that which breaks their hearts, violates their souls, threatens the planet and our children's children? And why do some people step forward to dazzle us with awesome vision and heroism? Weakness in numbers
DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY

October 29, 2009, National Public Radio hosted Harvard's Professor Mahzarin Banaji to explain why good people have bystander behavior -- passively observing unspeakable violence and other tragedies.
What Bystanders Do When They Witness Violence
STORY
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=114287592
AUDIO
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/...92&m=114287588

DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY occurs in larger groups of people when responsibility is not explicitly assigned. With more people present -- caught in group-think -- one is less likely to identify that there is a problem or feel a sense of responsibility to respond. With more people in a group, the individual becomes less responsiblle. Women and men are equally passive or brave in responding to emergencies, showed researchers Latane and Darley.

Their study revealed a 75% chance one observer would respond to a crisis dropping to a 10% likelihood of intervening with six onlookers gathered around.

Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility B. Latane and J.M Darley
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377–383. 1968.
http://www.wadsworth.com/psychology_...s/ps/ps19.html


ILLUSION OF COURAGE

People falsely imagine that others have more courage and are less vulnerable to social embarrassment. This ILLUSION OF COURAGE in others strongly diminishes individual social responsibility. Also related fear of embarrassment is a potent determinant of in non-intervention in emergency situations. Sadly, inaction is often perceived as the safer personal choice of bystanders to tragedy.

THE ILLUSION OF COURAGE IN SOCIAL PREDICTIONS:
Underestimating the impact of fear of embarrassment on other people
Leaf Van Boven a,¤, George Loewenstein b, David Dunning c
Published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 96 (2005) 130–141
http://sds.hss.cmu.edu/media/pdfs/lo...nOfCourage.pdf



We are learning about our human fears and courage.
1. In large groups, individuals are less likely to feel responsible.
2. Smaller groups encourage individual participation and creative initiative.
3. People who are bystanders project onto others exaggerated courage and less fear of social embarrassment.

Great courage is required for a person to step forward from the group -- beyond embarrassment and old, collective thinking. Beneath embarrassment is terrifying fear of exclusion -- social or even physical death. This begins to explain why good people do nothing, and why people find it easier to disengage, blame, and kill -- including risking their physical lives in battle -- than to step out of their clan to engage an adversary face to face. Let us each overcome the "diffusion of responsibility."