For starters, Steve, I don't fully subscribe to your definition of "fear monger." Wikipedia is a useful and handy place to look to get an understanding of some things, but I don't consider it to be the "be all and end all" of every subject it explains. To the contrary, it is often as wrong and biased as the author(s) of its articles.
Here's what the American Heritage Dictionary has to say about the term "monger:"
mon·ger (m¾ng“g…r, m¼ng“-) n. 1. A dealer in a specific commodity. Often used in combination: an ironmonger. 2. A person promoting something undesirable or discreditable. Often used in combination: a scandalmonger; a warmonger. --mon·ger tr.v. mon·gered, mon·ger·ing, mon·gers. To peddle. [Middle English mongere, from Old English mangere, from Latin mang½, probably of Greek origin.]
As you can see from the number 2 definition, the term is intended to be disparaging, so its use as a useful term is suspect right from the get-go.
To answer your question, then, I'm disagreeing with the premises being used. I find the threat of terrorism to be quite real; we may differ in the likelihood of specific incidents and how to avoid or minimize their impact. If one has a stronger position to defend against such threats, I wouldn't necessarily call that "fear mongering." At least, not until it goes to some extreme. Global Warming comes to mind as a perfect example. |
