Terrorism utilizes premeditated violence to communicate the discontent of a subversive subcategory of individuals. Not only does the group exhibit itself as seditious, in addition, “by actions which compel general attention” (Schmid 205) the aggressive violence raises general fear among possible targets. This fear stems from a perception of weakness in the capabilities of the government to properly control society. By attacking the potency of the government the opposition tenaciously asserts itself, and a larger scope of coverage of this behaviour allows for greater dissemination of rebellious viewpoint. Nevertheless, the treatment of deeds performed by such individuals necessarily leads to identifications. (Schmid 207) The acts may be intended as political expression, but the extent to which the coverage is objective and thorough are vital determinants for full appreciation of the subject. This paper will elaborate upon the roles and relationships between the government, the media, and their public in fostering dialogue and comprehension of threats of terrorism.
John Stuart Mill poignantly avers the exigency that liberal democracies requisite liberty of the press to fully legitimize. (Dyzenhaus 272) The fundamental conception of liberty of expression and dissemination is an ordinary directive; the justification being that increased press allows for richer discussions and better comprehension for the whole of society. Nevertheless, for a great period of time the predominant issues covered by the press were of domestic concerns. In this way, the issues addressed were within the general consciousness of the nation and were identifiable with greater ease by the audience. National and international reporting require strikingly different approaches. With regard to terrorism and terrorist cells, the issues are foreign to much of the public who have no viable means of conceiving of these indistinct facets they represent, nor the distant societies from which they emerge. The pictures strewn across front pages and television sets require captions and elaborations to make any sense to the audience. In assigning victims, culprits, and rationales, journalists construct every aspect of the issue. Thus, with regard to foreign issues, the major problem for a determined society might in fact be that there is too much “liberty of the press”. (Dyhenhaus 272) Perhaps the media are too instrumental for creating social perceptions in a world of vacillating political environments.
Mill elaborates the fundamental tenet that governments should not hamper the liberty of the press. Mill may not have conceived of a societal structure in which the government, without blatant effort, successfully employs a sous-entendu appropriation of the communiqués of the press media. In a society where the major communication of political events between the governing bodies and citizens occurs through the media, does the government unintentionally appropriate the trusted public forum?
As Johnson states, “cultural industries are simply vehicles by which the expressions of a nation’s culture are published”. (351) The government discerns the language of the subject, establishes the context of the threat, as well as the manner in which the “other” will be addressed, for example determining whether to name the opposition “insurgent, guerrilla, combatant”. Reporters are often from the same locales as the audience, with strong links to the community. Thus, cultural socialization[1] occurs naturally within the nation to create personas with similar values who can transmit and relay the news with the farthest reach and credibility. Thus, society inherently possesses mechanisms for steering the manner in which press begets manoeuvred expression and cultural renewal. The government, through its economic and political policies, determines the manner in which media personnel interpret international situations. There may exist freedom of the press, in that no member of society is blatantly constrained; nevertheless, the abilities of the press to relay the facts with not only objective factual representation, but in a thorough manner that does not succumb to cultural subjectivity may be questioned.
The public is an avid desire for information. The role of purveyor is performed by both the media and government; Lemyre’s survey demonstrates the manner in which citizens view the media as better accomplishing this task (763). Does this make the entire citizenry a mere audience? Are civic duties to engage with legislators, and legislative responsibilities to converse with constituents, demeaned to such an extent that no real interaction unfolds? While respondents “thought most frequently about a lowered sense of security and safety... they reported having thought least frequently about ... increased political involvement.” (Lemyre 763) This response to the issue appears diametrically against reason. Yet, it is comprehensible in the Canadian case which requires the media to maintain the position of primary source for citizens to assess global phenomenon. Consistently, governments are unable to ascertain what citizens deem the necessary laws to handle the possibility of threat. How must the government deal with the press, when it is seen as the most credible source? Certainly, the role of government as knowledgeable interlocutor declines in importance to the public. This is disconcerting as scrutiny of the media is placed on factual accuracy as opposed to the creation of public discourse. This may perpetuate the vague insecurity and lack of confidence felt by citizens, while also lending to why citizens viewed governments as ill prepared for possible terrorist threats. (Leymre 767) With international terrorist events, Canadians are shocked by the events, but as they are not directly implicated in the affair, continuing information is presented in a nominal manner. Canadian sentiments towards terrorist threats are not only shaped by recent political activity, nor the lack of an attack upon Canadian soil, but also by Canada’s longstanding foreign policy history. Canada’s international reputation was greatly shaped by past policies of peace-keeping and humanitarian work, such as Axsworthy’s campaign against the use of land mines. These conceptions retain a certain degree of value across Canada, despite currents foreign policy trends.
Schmid outlines three pivotal domains of reality that information passes across, from the real objective world, through the symbolic world, to the final subjective reality of the audience (208). How does the consciousness and awareness of the society develop when the media and government maintain partial control of the subject, with neither at the helm? Due to the recent emergence of terrorist threats as a global medium of communication, the formality of governmental interaction with citizens leaves legislators ill-poised to properly engage with the issues. As a result of this deficiency, the task seems to have been relegated to the sphere of the speedy sensory stimulating press media. It may be argued that terrorists activate, direct, and manipulate the media for propagandistic effect, while governments remain disadvantaged (Schmid 208). Nevertheless, reporters and correspondents are shaped by government policies, such as national education systems, and thus, report according to these values. The media necessarily portray all news events and terrorist occurrences in a manner which is not only relevant to Canada, but that also promotes nationally defined values and ideals.
Bibliography
Dyzenhaus, David and Arthur Ripstein. Law and Morality. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001.
Johnson, A.W. “Culture and Cultural Industries”, in Trade-Offs on Free Trade. Toronto.
Louise Lemyre, Michelle C. Turner, Jennifer E. C. Lee, and Daniel Krewski, “Public Perception of Terrorism Threats and Related Information Sources in Canada: Implications for the Management of Terrorism Risks,” Journal of Risk Research, vol.9, no. 7 (2006), pp. 755-74.
Schmid Alex. “Frameworks for Conceptualising Terrorism,” Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 16, no. 2 (2004), pp.197-221.
[1] “the culture of a society is the whole complex of knowledge and beliefs and attitudes and practices which are embodied in the society, and in its political and economic arrangements” (Johnson 351)
No comments:
Post a Comment