While terrorism is often perceived as a modern phenomenon, it has roots that predate modernity. Increased media coverage on terrorist acts especially following the events of 9/11 have served to garner individual awareness and nation-wide perceptions of this issue which in turn, have undeniable affects on both personal views and public policy. In his article “Frameworks for Conceptualizing Terrorism,” Schmid sees terrorism as a form of communication and it is through this lens that I would like to investigate the media’s role in this issue. The association between terrorism and the media is one that is unique and complex. The media is used by public consumers to gain information regarding terrorism but it can also be said that the media is used by terrorist organizations to further their damaging influence on a given nation. The irony in this relationship is that while meaning to serve as a reliable information source or a reassuring warning to the public, the mass-media inadvertently acts as a tool which serves to promulgate terrorist propaganda and in turn furthers their debilitating effects on society. The mass media is also used by government agencies to garner support for public policies that may not be entirely rational or warranted given the actual threat of terrorism on a given country. Consequently, it is important to recognize the influence of the media with regards to terrorism in light of Canada’s anti-terrorism law. Increased coverage by media sources create terrorist “legends” that construct the nation’s perception of reality and as a result have a large impact on what its people fear and largely govern their future dispositions and risk management proposals.
According to a study done by Louise Lemyre et al., the Canadian media is amongst the top information sources for credible information about terrorism as suggested by respondents. The public’s reliance on the media as a reliable source for terrorism information only serves to underline the influential role that the mass-media plays in this situation. Accordingly, it is important to recognize and perhaps reform the media’s role in the dissemination of information regarding terrorist acts. The core of the conflict lies between the media’s duty to report events accurately and the very real possibility that in doing so, the media can often end up aiding the terrorists depending on the amount and type of coverage of a given terrorist act. “More often than not, the media’s preoccupation with dramatic, exceptional and negative aspects of events has been deemed responsible for the public’s elevated concern over risk issues.” (Lemyre et al. 2006: 770) While no one can deny the traumatizing global effects of an act of terrorism, it is important to note that the over-sensationalization of terrorism in the media has served only to stimulate and contribute to an unnecessary moral panic in society.
There is a fine line which has yet to be fully investigated that lies between the “division of labor between the terrorist as a fear generator and the unwitting editor as a fear amplifier and transmitter.” (Schmid 2004:208) While aiming to provide accurate yet gripping news stories, the media has become a pawn in the hands of terrorists. By seeking to improve ratings by having fascinating news coverage of various angles and stories relating to terrorism, the media has played into the hand of those who were willing to create bad news through terrorist acts of violence by unknowingly glorifying their behavior through constant coverage. Consequently, the commercial aspect of news may need to be re-evaluated with regards to terrorism. While sensational “insider” stories about terrorist plots and breaking “discoveries” about the whereabouts of certain leaders may boost ratings, the detrimental effect on society’s well-being may not be worth it. The depth of influence and responsibility on the part of the mass media with regards to the issue of terrorism needs to be acknowledged as disregarding this relationship can have adverse effects on society’s psychological and economic well-being and policy decisions.
However, as stated earlier, the public consumers are not the only ones who use the mass media. While society uses the media to glean information about terrorist occurrences, terrorist organizations themselves use the very same media sources to disseminate information. It is a very clever tactic as the publicity costs the terrorists little but its crippling effects are widespread and great a great return. “The purposeful creation of bad events by means of terroristic violence can assure them free access to the news system.” (Schmid 2004: 208) A single terrorist act which takes seconds is tirelessly reported on by the media for years following the event and thus its effects are felt even generations after the incident. A climate of fear emerges as a result of increased news coverage on a given terrorist act which allows terrorist organizations to manipulate their audience on an emotional level for years to come. This well-orchestrated tactic gives terrorists psychological power over a nation which they would not have otherwise been able to obtain without the help of the media. Thus, by using mass-media sources to cover terrorist events, terrorists are in effect, using a nation’s own resources against their own people which allow us to conclude that terrorist acts are an extremely effective form of propaganda.
Schmid makes the statement that by using the media, terrorist “actions which compel general attention, the new idea seeps into people’s minds and […] one such act may, in a few days, make more propaganda than thousand pamphlets.” (Schmid 2004: 205) The terror and fear that is instilled in a nation following a terrorist act is only magnified by consistent media coverage on the weeks, months and even years following a single terrorist act. The temporary presence of a terrorist through a single destructive act then “perpetuates itself through media cover, rumors and speculation and gains a longevity it could not generate by itself.” (Schmid 2004: 207) It can be said that the strength and success of a terrorist movement is largely dependent on the amount of publicity it receives through the mass media. Essentially, terrorist organizations cleverly use the (unknowing) media to publicize their existence, demands and goals. By continuously reinforcing fear in a nation, the mass media becomes an accessory in the furthering of terrorist movements.
It is important to recognize the influence of the media with regards to terrorism in light of Canada’s anti-terrorism law. With regards to terrorism, threat perceptions alone (whether they be accurate or not) can lead to adverse effects on psychological well-being reinforcing fear in society. This has a debilitating effect on a nation’s ability to make rational, informed decisions. Research has demonstrated that the news media affects people’s emotions which in turn influence risk judgments and policy preferences. Lemyre believes that given the increasing convenience and rapid availability of information they afford, the media is only likely to play an evermore important role in providing information on terrorism to the public. In recognition of this, it is imperative that we explore the possibility of legally regulating the media’s response terrorism and truly reflect and perhaps redefine the definition of terrorism as portrayed by media sources. Marsden and Attia (2005) propose guidelines to be established for media reporting in order to diminish such issues. They feel that the risk management process would be best served by improving relationships between the media and government. This two-way engagement and recognition of the mass media as powerful stakeholders in this issue is necessary if rational and sound policy decisions are to be endorsed by the public. However, if a legal governing body was to be put in charge of reviewing and regulating media coverage on terrorism it is imperative that this system be non-partisan or many other controversies will arise. If sensational media stories regarding the threat of terrorism are allowed to be broadcast daily, various governments could use this coverage to their advantage. The public consumers who are influenced by the media are already feeling weak and vulnerable at the hand of terrorists who have demonstrated to the citizens “the state’s impotence of protecting them all the time.” (Schmid 2004: 207) Over-representation and increase hype over terrorist threats will no doubt affect the citizens and cause them to endorse politic policies which they might not otherwise have supported if they were simply given the rational facts surrounding terrorism. A nation may be more likely to disregard liberties and embrace security measures in light of their highly emotional state. Intrusive, unethical policies regarding suspected terrorist plots seem necessary when the threat of terrorism is perceived as more eminent by the population. Thus, the government itself can use the media as a tool to further their own goals and garner support for various public policies and risk management procedures that may not necessarily be warranted. Consequently, it is necessary to not only explore the possibility of legally regulating the media’s response to terrorism but it is imperative we also define the nature of this governing body or system. This will ensure that accurate, factual media reporting provide non-partisan representation of the real issue of terrorism which will allow public consumers to make rational and informed decisions when it comes to policy and risk management.
In conclusion, it is apparent that the mass media plays a complex role with regards to the issue of terrorism. It has been uncovered that terrorist movements cleverly use the mass-media to perpetuate fear in a nation and further their goals long after a single terrorist act has taken place. It is important to recognize that a nation’s media can provide an effective stage from which terrorist leaders can deliver their message and continue to emotionally and psychologically cripple a society. As a primary source of information for the general public, the media needs to be aware of its influential role in mediating the dispositions of its consumers who in turn affect the shaping of public policies and risk management. Perhaps governing bodies or the implementation of legal regulations surrounding media coverage of terrorism are a step in the right direction.
_______________________________
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. [
P. Schmid Alex, "Frameworks for Conceptualising Terrorism," Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 16, no. 2 (2004), pp.197-221.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Make note, the truth about security falls victim to a problem: we all want truth but not enough to protect it from those who gain by its distortion. The media has three reasons for this proliferation. One, they depend on government sources for stories and quotes, and so have little choice but to pass on their biases. Two, because of psychology, danger sells more than safety—if it bleeds it leads (Glassner 2000). And, three, the research needed to challenge official characterizations of danger adds work and cost. Where there is debate within government about a danger, the media will reflect it. As Schmid notes: “The media’s news value system puts a premium on anything that is different, new, change-inducing, unexpected, disruptive, dramatic, surprising and full of what is termed ‘human interest’. If violent and terrorist events qualify to a significant extent for these criteria, they have a chance of being reported.” (Schmid 2004: 207 as per note 28)
That said, to address the argument for the possibility of legally regulating the media’s response to terrorism, a point of contention is in the institutional effect of such a regulation. Legally entrenching regulations upon media reports on terrorism employs more at stake. Due to unintended consequences, actions that prevent one peril can create new ones.
Grave doubts and reservations could be harbored about the way that such an approach tended to be one of non- and selective disclosure of information at the behest of such regulations prescribed by the anointed governing body. There is also the risk that the regulation could have such a wide scope that it limits the ability of the media to investigate into and report on matters that are not related to terrorism. Clearly, there are also questions of free speech.
Paramount is the importance to not forget the media’s role as a legitimate and valuable part of the body politic that enhances democratic political process. The tension between claims to freedom of the press and the tendencies by governments to restrict the scope of that freedom is perhaps the quintessential conflict between citizens and the state in liberal democracies.
Media also have a vital role to play as a watchdog to monitor the activities of government officials. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, free press is essential to a functioning democracy. Arguably, there is no government agency auditing the fairness or accuracy of journalistic institutions. However, readers must also engage in the active role as watchdog over the media. “The importance placed on friends and relatives as sources of information as well as support systems following terrorism attacks should not be underestimated, and may further help to engage the public in terrorism risk management processes.” (Lemyre et al. 2006: 771)
In the absence of government control, independent groups have emerged to offer their own criticisms of the news. Stanford University encourages consumers of the San Francisco Bay Area media to "Grade the News" (http://www.gradethenews.org/). The project, part of the Stanford communication department, critically analyzes broadcast, print and electronic media, and awards media outlets by standards of good journalism—including newsworthiness, context, explanation, local relevance, fairness and civic contribution. Other media tracking sites include Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (fair.org) and Accuracy in Media (aim.org).
Indeed, research exploring how democratic commitments to media freedom might best be balanced against contemporary demands of risk management must be addressed in a way that will enhance and enrich the way public discussion of matters of public interest takes place.
Glassner, B. (2000). The Culture Of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid Of The Wrong Things. New York: Perseus Books. Excerpt from Culture of Fear. Retrieved Feb. 19, 2008, from http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/fear/03.php and Professor Barry Glassner, The Man Who Knows About Fear in American Culture. (2003, April 10). Retrieved Feb. 19, 2008, from http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/04/10_glassner.html
Lemyre, Louise, 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.
Retrieved Feb. 19, 2008, from www.stanford.edu/group/gradethenews
Post a Comment