As evidence of Jeffrey Epstein's extensive ties to Donald Trump and his associates accumulates, conservative supporters of the president have adopted a new strategy to minimize public outrage, according to an expert.
According to Marcella Szablewicz, professor of communication and media studies at Pace University, a coordinated campaign has emerged among Trump-friendly commentators to characterize Epstein revelations as nothing more than a "moral panic" that will pass.
Szablewicz notes that essays from Quillette editor Claire Lehmann, British commentator Brendan O'Neill, and National Review writer Noah Rothman have dismissed the Epstein files as examples of disproportionate societal reaction rather than legitimate concern.
Szablewicz said that "moral panic" typically refers to an exaggerated societal response to a perceived threat, characterized by sensational media coverage and authority figures diagnosing and addressing the problem.
She argued that applying this term in the Epstein context serves to defend "people in positions of power and privilege policing the status quo in the face of progress."
Szablewicz challenges the characterization, contending that public response to the Epstein files does not constitute panic. "The term 'panic' is supposed to convey a sense of false alarm. If you think the contents of the Epstein files prove that this is all much ado about nothing, I encourage you to take another look. The public revulsion at these emails is not a panic."
She acknowledges that individuals named in the files have not been tried in court, some FBI tips were not investigated, and innocent explanations may exist for certain communications.
However, Szablewicz concludes, "Let's not pretend that demanding more answers constitutes a moral panic. Moral, yes. Panic? No."
