We shall always look over our shoulders and take care of the kids in this fast-evolving era, but we should be more worried now about the two media, which seem to be collaborating well with each other. It borders on hypocrisy when a newspaper takes up porn-like video clips involving children and splashes them across the front page without even knowing for sure whether they are real. Sometimes the same newspaper will decry those responsible for the clips, or condemn those involved in the acts shown. But its own act of sensationalism can produce copycats or, arguably less damaging, lead to a "moral panic".

The concept of "moral panic", coined by British sociologist Stanley Cohen in his 1972 study "Folk Devils and Moral Panics", is useful in analysing the present situation. It helps put into perspective the role of the press, the public, law enforcers, politicians and action groups in this kind of situation. Cohen named a few factors that could cause society to have a misperception of certain groups - the media's portrayal of deteriorating moral standards, the knee-jerk reaction of the public and the knee-jerk solutions that policy-makers and law enforcers come up with. He wrote that every society is subject, now and then, to periods of moral panic, where a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; it is presented in a stylised and stereotypical fashion by the mass media; moral barricades are thus set up by "right-thinking" people.

It can happen to any society, be it ill educated or advanced. A good example is the so-called "video nasties" case in which a toddler was murdered by two juveniles who had allegedly watched the movie "Child's Play 3", which led to the Video Recording Act of 1984 in Britain. Another instance was the social reaction to the drugs culture and rock 'n' roll music in the 1960s, which resulted in the condemnation of many rock stars who were perceived as having a corrupting influence upon the youth.

It will only get harder being news consumers nowadays. The Internet has further blurred the line between privacy and news and created a greater moral dilemma. Some young people whose private video clips have ended up being circulated in cyberspace have committed suicide. Those in the entertainment business have been dealt career blows. They have partly themselves to blame for carelessness, but this could not hide the truth that conventional media and new media are becoming a very dangerous double-edged sword, and the two media will be demanding society pay a heavier and heavier price for freedom and swiftness of information.

It boils down to the social responsibility of the mainstream media. Newspapers, commentators, columnists, website editors and TV news hosts can unknowingly become deviance amplifiers. If they continue to portray exceptions as the norm, then someday that's what will happen.

Irresponsibility will court state attention, intervention and, in the worst case, control. The culture minister has invited 5,000 people from all sections of society to join a voluntary committee to rate television programmes on the Internet. The Media Evaluation (ME) System Project is being launched following a Cabinet resolution last October to create a ratings system for television, radio, films, the Internet and computer games. The project apparently has nothing to do with news and looks harmless where freedom of information is concerned, but the government's leaning toward having online voters control media content has generated unease. It might turn out to be a good idea, but it could also mean that there will be more "panic buttons" to hit.