DE FACTO ALLIES TO AMPLIFYING TERRORISTS' IMPACT?
ABSTRACT
Some
eminent writers and scholars argue that too often the media helps promote
terrorists' agenda. Others disagree. I tend to go with the former,
and in this short Paper, will show how terrorism can be seen from at least two
perspectives, those of the victim and the perpetrator. Using three examples, I
will prove that the media would not mind terrorist acts coming up on their own
on the agenda, however distasteful and disagreeable they may seem, as much as
the terrorists want the media, as it suits the interests of both these parties. Noel Moitra
FIRST POSTED 16 FEB 2013
THE STORY
The
horrific events of 9/11 brought terrorism centre stage. Terrorism had existed
well before that date, but remained largely underplayed, till Uncle Sam got
bearded in his own den. Without attempting to add to the plethora of definitions
of terrorism, let me just say that there is a fundamental difference in the way
it is seen, related purely to perspective. The victim and the perpetrator
portray an incident affecting them quite differently.
For example, US media might say, “Terrorists
detonated a bomb near the camp of the U.S. peacekeeping forces, causing
numerous U.S. military casualties.” Arab media would report it as: “Freedom
fighters detonated a bomb near the base of the crusaders. The tremendous blast
killed and severely injured many infidels.”(n.p.)
A free press is a mandate in a democracy. If
the content available was not salutary, the media would still report it.
Terrorism uses this mandate to further its own aim by spreading fear. A
terrorist organization actually needs the media to spread information about
localized attacks as widely as possible. In the cause of reporting, or at
times, hogging the limelight, the media does exactly what the terrorist wants. Paradoxically,
terrorism has become a boon for the media, because such attacks make television
ratings surge. “Terrorist acts are well calculated, always played to an
audience and specific tactics employed to maximize impact” (Bozarth, 2005).
There
are people who feel that the media brings the world up to date and educates
people about the ills of terrorism and how it is crucial to lend a hand against
this ugly monster. I do not agree and believe that the media is only interested
in its ratings, ‘damn the consequences’ (n.p.).
I will use three examples to support my argument.
Since 1960, advancement in technology had
affected the media greatly, giving it a face and voice, not just events
reported on black and white paper. The nature of terrorism reporting had also
evolved simultaneously. While aimed to promote terror in a larger target
audience, terrorism often aims to recruit more supporters. The media is the
conduit to both these aims. Terrorism ‘relies almost exclusively on
psychological “warfare” for its intended impact. Victims of an attack are the
signal that is amplified
and broadcast, terrorizing the target audience into capitulating to the
terrorists demands’ (Bozarth, 2005). “Terrorists are not interested in three,
or thirty – or even three thousand - deaths. They allow the imagination of the
target population to do their work for them. In fact, the desired panic could
be produced by the continuous broadcast of threats and declarations – by radio
and TV interviews, videos and all the familiar methods of psychological warfare”
(Ganor 2002).
Terrorists have “four media-dependent
objectives when they strike or threaten to commit violence. The first is: Gain
attention, intimidate, create fear. The second is: Recognition of the
organization’s motives. Why they are carrying out attacks? The third is: Gain the
respect and sympathy of those in whose name they claim to attack. The last is:
Gain a quasi-legitimate status and media treatment at par with legitimate
political actors” (Nacos 2007, 20). Many cases confirm that ‘getting attention
through the media is important terrorist strategy. The 7 July 2005 London
bombings on the transit system in London is one example, with the G-8 summit on
in Scotland. The terrorists pushed the G-8 leaders off the front pages’ (Ibid,
20-21).
The Palestinian terrorist organisation Black
September attack on Israeli athletes in the Munich Olympic Games 1972, when
people around the world were watching the Games and large numbers of newspaper
and broadcast journalists had gathered, is another example. A hostage situation and a rescue attempt ensued,
closely covered by all media, and watched by approximately 800 million people
throughout the world. The terrorists “monopolized the attention of a global
television audience. (Ibid, 179). “Black September undoubtedly chose Munich at
the time of the Olympics because the technology, equipment, and personnel were
in place to guarantee a television drama that had never before been witnessed
in the global arena.” (Nacos 2002, 177).
The images of attacks like 9/11, can inspire awe.
For instance, “after 9/11, Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden became most popular in
the Muslim community” (Gunaratna, 2006). “Simply by showing that he and his
kind could land a devastating blow against the US on home ground, bin Laden
conditioned a large number of young Muslim men – mainly in the Muslim diaspora
in western Europe – for recruitment into his cause without ever meeting them.”
(Nacos 2007, 22).
The Internet can be and has been used
terrorists for cyber-terrorism, coordination of plans, communication with
cells, or propaganda and information. That they can now manage their own media
is not the only advantage they have in using the Internet. “There are other
advantages in using the Net. The audience is enormous; it is easy to access and
stay anonymous, it is incredibly fast and inexpensive, and it offers a
multimedia environment, which means that text, graphics, video, songs, books,
and presentations can all be combined. In addition, regular media now often
report on or even copy Internet content, which means that both old and new
media can be influenced by using the Internet alone” (Weimann 2004, 3).
THE DYNAMICS OF MODERN TERRORISM
Modern
terrorism is media terrorism. The media are attracted by extreme terrorist acts
not only because it is their duty to report on any major event but also
because, at the same time, the dramaturgy of terrorism attracts large scale
attention. Today’s terrorists have picked up this dynamic and take action not
only to make their victims suffer but also to create maximum attention around
the world. Terrorists have become “media competent” by knowing and applying the
principles of attracting media attention in most of their activities. Not only
do they now own the necessary technical equipment such as video cameras and
Internet facilities, they also usually know how to time and create those images
which can guarantee a maximum impact through the media. This dynamic could lead
to the conclusion that a major option for the prevention of terrorism would be
not to allow journalists and the media to report on terrorist activities or
events or at least to inhibit coverage as much as possible. Several countries
indeed have chosen this option and it is difficult in those countries to have
access to information or events that are related to terrorist activities.
Modern
democracy is however characterised to a high extent by its freedom of
expression and the possibility to access relevant political or societal
information. As soon as information related to terrorism is blocked by
governments or other political or societal institutions, terrorists may have
gained one of their goals, namely to compromise the values of modern democracy.
Thus, political institutions, as well as the media, are faced with the basic
dilemma that on the one hand media coverage may be instrumentalised by
terrorists in order to get maximum attention while, on the other hand, if such
information is inhibited, the basic principle and value of freedom of
expression and information is under threat.
There
is a general consensus among European parliamentarians, politicians,
journalists and experts that the European political system is strong enough to
tolerate the distribution of information related to terrorism. In fact, a major
conclusion is that it would mean a real victory for the terrorists if political
institutions were to compromise the European values of freedom, including the
freedom of expression and information, in order to prevent any terrorist
activity.
Although
this major principle may be generally accepted, many details need to be
considered when addressing media and terrorism. One of the major questions when
dealing with terrorism is its definition. Two “schools” compete here. One
defines terrorism in terms of the actors of terrorist attacks; the other
defines terrorism in terms of the actual attacks themselves. Over the years
this question has always been central to the analysis and treatment of
terrorism. For the media the labelling and determination of precise motives is
important even if this is not the same as a criminal justice procedure. It may
therefore be more suitable to deal primarily with individual events and if
necessary describe the actors involved as criminals. Not everyone who may be
sympathetic with terrorist activities, but has not been involved himself or
herself, is a terrorist per definition. The terrorist attacks themselves may
easily be described by comparison. They usually involve extreme violence
against individuals or larger groups where mostly innocent people are hurt or
killed. Any situation outside a “normal” war which includes extreme violence
and may be motivated by whatever simple or sophisticated or ideological
political goals may be called terrorism, especially across Europe in countries
with an emerging or already established democracy. All in all, for Europe, the
notion, which has been used in some debates, that “one man’s terrorist is
another man’s freedom fighter” probably does not apply. Yet it is also a fact
that in a few cases terrorist activities may have increased the success of
non-violent but same-goal oriented groups such as IRA and SIN-FEIN. There is
indeed a preference among journalists and European politicians to limit the
word “terrorism” to events and not to apply it to a whole, e. g. ethnic, group
or even to a major part of a certain group which has not directly been involved
in violent attacks against society and its citizens.
Concentrating
on the terrorist events themselves and not on the motives when reporting on
terrorism may of course limit the number of people who may be called
terrorists. Journalists can cover any aspect of political violence including
supporters and groups which may be sympathetic with terrorist goals. But it can
be dangerous to “over-generalise” the label “terrorist” to include a larger
number of people and who may be drawn deeper into terrorist tendencies exactly
because they are already labelled as such. In fact, political integration into
the democratic system with convincing means of trust and education may be a
more efficient way of preventing a terrorist “periphery” from growing into
violence than creation, at an early stage, of a whole out-group of “enemies” by
classifying every member of a certain grouping as terrorists without
distinguishing between actual attackers and others only loosely linked with
these attackers.
One
should also consider that terrorism may also actually be supported by the fact
that “normal” criminal activities when labelled “”terrorism” receive a certain,
if negative glorification and attraction for those who appreciate being (anti-)
heroes. Many so-called terrorist activities are more based on normal criminal
behaviour than on political motives. That does not make them better or worse
for the victims or the political system but it may create a different context
or connotation for them in the media and limit the probability that their actions
are perceived as being rewarding for a higher, ideological goal. Many, if not
most attacks in the context of “terrorism” serve goals other than to reach or
realise political objectives. They are about money, attention, status, other
advantages, or just about keeping a group alive and intact. An early-1980s
study on German terrorism demonstrated that most terrorist events occurred when
the group cohesion and group structure of the violent gangs was threatened to
collapse and disintegrate. Planning and realizing an assault strengthened the
group and put it back into a stable, if clandestine structure.
The
Role Of Journalists
The
first section briefly describes the necessity to differentiate when dealing
with the label and the phenomenon of terrorism in both politics and the media.
A cautious use of the term “terrorism” may not exclude the necessity to report
about any major violent attack in society, but it contributes to a distinction
between politically motivated tendencies and extreme criminal behaviour. Again,
terrorism is a method, not an a priori characteristic of a whole group.
Terrorist
activities of course do not only involve the media as instruments of
distribution; frequently, journalists themselves are directly affected by those
activities. They become victims as hostages, are killed, are used for
negotiations, or, beyond purely reporting the facts, they interpret and comment
on the attacks. Thus journalists are, in a variety of roles, an active part of
the violent events. Recently, the threat of harm to reporters has been of
increasing concern for politics and society across Europe. As representatives
of the free flow of information and therefore as a very important group for the
realisation of democracy, journalists deserve the special appreciation and
protection of the whole of society and its political and other institutions.
Any violent attack against them is an attack against the whole system and its
values.
Without
compromising their independence, there should be cooperation between public and
political institutions on the one hand, and the media on the other regarding
protection of journalists against of harmful attacks. They not only deserve the
normal support of the political system as any citizen in danger, but as a
special risk group they should profit from specific measures such as scenarios
where media and public institutions simulate all possible acts of violence and
how they can and should collectively react in order to protect that group
without compromising their own sovereignty and freedom. Being prepared together
does not mean that the freedom of expression is at stake or vice versa that the
political and executive powers would be limited in their legal right to protect
the democratic system. Rather than regarding themselves as conflict partners as
a whole, the two groups share at least the one common interest that their own
lives and that of any citizen are the most valuable goods in society and the
basis for any democratic development.
However,
even if the common interests of public institutions and professional
journalists may be acknowledged, recent years have seen additional developments
outside the traditional landscape of media and journalism. In Europe market
pressure has also increasingly become a major factor in the success of
television, radio and the press. Whereas in former times a certain ethical code
would prevent the coverage of an event in a sensational way and therefore
would, because of professional self-responsibility, avoid showing the most
extreme scenes, this latent consensus is nowadays often challenged. If one
channel does not show the most violent activities the next one will do it and
so obtain a greater share of the market. Thus, with increased competition between
media players or individual journalists the likelihood has been increasing that
the common code of ethics is no longer automatically valid. On top of that,
particularly terrorist activities are often followed by “lay-journalism”. That
means that non-professional observers of terrorist acts record the events with
cheap digital cameras or web-cams and are also able to distribute the images
via informal channels, for example the Internet. In fact, people involved in
terrorist activities have themselves started applying media dramaturgy and
using the necessary technical means such as video cameras, digital equipment,
or the Internet. Hardly any kidnapping takes place where there is no video
message distributed globally addressing directly the public as well as the
political institutions. It is no more the professional journalist who controls,
filters and interprets the events and the images. The images have started to
lead their own lives and reach the audience frequently outside traditional
media institutions. In turn, professional journalists have to consider this
development and so pick up those images which they have not themselves produced
or personally obtained.
This
has two consequences: Firstly, there is more access to a global audience than ever
before including the possibility for criminals to reach any specific group.
Secondly, with this situation it has become more difficult to establish
professional and ethical codes to be applied along all communication channels.
This also means that new positions have to be defined on the continuum between
potentially “harmful” and “pro-social” reporting. While normal journalism needs
to describe any event, including violent attacks, in as neutral a way as
possible, the production of images by the terrorists themselves are of course
directly aimed at public relations and public terror to serve their own goals.
Several journalists on the other hand, among them Malbrunot, who had been
kidnapped suggested that sometimes the amateur videos recorded by the terrorists
were a positive instrument for the negotiations with governments to get them
free. Again, journalism may hardly stay completely neutral even if that is the
necessary intention of media reporting. Both aspects, the negative and the
positive, apply if increasingly more images and information are available
outside traditional journalism: The more that images about terrorist events are
distributed around the world, the more any audience gets the impression that
terrorism is indeed a defining factor of modern life. In this way, terrorism
would have reached its goal to irritate and threaten the majority of citizens.
At the same time, any video recorded by violent actors may also be a means for
negotiation. If the receivers of this information are willing and able to read
the message and signals, they may as a result obtain a strategic or tactical
advantage. Several kidnapped journalists reported that in the end reaction to
the videos received saved their lives. Government representatives took the
messages seriously and found ways to offer the kidnappers possibilities in
exchange for the hostages’ lives. This of course remains tricky in the long
run, even if in the actual situation the production and distribution of videos
may have supported the negotiations and their outcome. At the same time, it
means that the kidnappers were rewarded and without such possibilities the
kidnappings might never have taken place. The example shows that it is the
balance which counts. The part played by images and the media has to be taken
into account, they cannot be ignored even if that might well be the political
preference. Thus, one has to live with the technical possibilities and try to
take advantage of their existence and not vice versa.
The
European debate among parliamentarians and experts demonstrates at the same
time the continuing “cultural” differences in dealing with the media when it
comes to terrorism. Most European countries prefer a liberal approach to the
freedom of expression and information and regard the freedom of journalists
higher than the potential risk that media reporting might cause to individual
citizens. They acknowledge that by limiting freedom of expression, terrorists
would have indirectly realised a major aim, namely to change the political
system and make it more oppressive. Some countries however still subscribe to a
more restrictive policy. They want to avoid any risk of promotion of terrorist
activities through media reporting by blocking journalists’ access to sites
where a violent attack takes place. The examples, however, have demonstrated
that it is by now nearly impossible to interfere completely with media
reporting in the context of political or other violence. Nearly all images find
their way anyway to the public through all kinds of channels. It therefore
seems better to reach a consensus between the media and the political
institutions based on a minimum acceptance of neutrality that if in doubt
information should be distributed. An accepted criterion of course is that if live
reporting would immediately include the risk to lose lives through informing e.
g. kidnappers of the activities outside a hostage location, then this of course
would have to be avoided by means of self-limitations. Even if one needs to
accept these cultural differences in dealing with terrorism and the media,
efficiency is probably the most valid factor in protection of freedom of
expression and information. Limiting freedom of expression hardly prevents
terrorists from attacking. On the contrary, if certain events are not reported
which can be positioned on a lower or medium attention-grabbing level, the
terrorist dynamics demand them to create such a big and spectacular event that
automatically reporting cannot be avoided anyway. Thus, trying to block and
inhibit free reporting is either technically not possible anyway or may at
worse lead to even more extreme violence would need to be covered anyway.
When
dealing with media coverage of terrorism it is also important to consider the
different effects which that coverage has. It has already been mentioned that
the terrorists themselves aim at maximum attention for their own sake. But it
is also true of course that politics and potential supporters are affected by
the violent events. Terrorist attacks can be regarded as following the
principles of symbolic negotiation and even games. Politicians in public need
to react in public, otherwise they are perceived as being too weak and not able
to cope with the violence. Therefore it is part of the terrorists’ strategy and
the strategy of political institutions vice versa to force the respective
conflict partner to express weakness publicly. It needs to be clear in media
reporting and communication that the events and the reactions from those events
follow a dramaturgy of potentially increasing escalation. Politicians and
negotiators are under public observation and cannot necessarily chose for the
best strategy for example to free hostages. They need rather to demonstrate
strength and power. Therefore it would also be up to the media not only to
reward and pay attention to those who are applying the most extreme measures of
fighting terrorism but to feature also those which are the most clever even if
they do not necessarily appear to be the most radical and strong.
It
has already been mentioned that many terrorist activities are directed at the
empowerment of their own followers and their own group structure. Again,
journalists and the media need to be aware of this fact. It is not always the
larger audience which is addressed but their own followers. It was for example
relatively risky to broadcast the first Bin-Laden videos after 9-11 as they may
have contained hidden messages for the supporters of Bin Laden. Responsible
journalism takes account of this effect and should be very careful in the
broadcasting and distribution of material gathered outside the own professional
possibilities and means. Again it is very difficult to apply a general
standardised approach to these political and professional challenges.
Images
And Ethics
The
standards and norms of how to deal with terrorism in the media are different
within European countries and around the globe and so are the use and
interpretation of individual images. They have one thing in common however.
Strong, single icons and visual impressions increasingly determine the public
debate probably more than detailed analyses and background information. The
struggle for power is often a struggle for the most powerful images. And
violence creates powerful images and in turn attracts attention much more than
peaceful negotiations could usually ever hope to achieve. That makes terrorist
attacks a priori more efficient for media coverage than most other means,
particularly among small, originally little-powerful groups. Again, violent
images and market competition correlate and may, even unintentionally, result
in a mutual spiral of interest. Even with, or especially without political
control of the media, it is important for journalists to be aware of the fact
that they carry a high responsibility for the effects of using and distributing
terrorist images. This responsibility needs to focus on avoiding:
a)
the promotion of terrorist goals through extreme images,
b) the separation of an individual
attack from the historical and societal as well as criminal context,
c) hurting privacy and human dignity
particularly of the victims.
There
can hardly be a cross-national standard of how to use the images of violence in
the media, but journalists need to be aware of the professional, political and
ethical implications of their distribution. During the Paris debate one
journalist who had himself been hostage in Iraq (Pohanka) put it very clearly:
The frequency of violent images of the conflict in this country inhibits the
likelihood that images of “normal” life are also widely distributed. Yet one
has to show also the brutality of terrorism. Another journalist (Aliev) made it
once more clear that the oppression of any violent image would only increase
the probability of an attack so extreme that coverage just could not be avoided
anymore.
It
seems to be crucial that the images are integrated into a context, whether it
is an additional piece of background information about the event itself, a
description of the groups involved, or a picture of the whole situation and
cultural environment which may not be characterised at all by violence or
violent intentions. The danger of an isolated use of specific terrorism-images
is not only that they help promote violent political goals, but that they also
create a wrong image of a whole region or even a whole group and culture, such
as of Islam.
Consequences
For Politics And Media
Terrorism
should not be able to compromise the bases of democracy and freedom. For both
politics and media the consideration and realisation of several principles
would reduce the likelihood that any violent activity could ever reach this
goal. Among the media, whether it is television (see statements by Whittle or
Krichen) or the press (see Gor and others) such principles have already been
established. Summarising several approaches one can identify ten aspects of
reporting which create a working guideline for dealing with terrorism:
- Inform a broad audience freely.
- An event must be covered accurately.
- The coverage has to be impartial.
- If one opinion or voice is presented, at
least one alternative or opposite voice must also be heard.
- The audience should be informed about the
sources of a piece of information.
- The procedures and channels of gathering
information should be transparent.
- The reporting should be careful in its
choice of terminology (“terrorists”, “martyrs”).
- Basic privacy and human dignity should
always be respected.
- The coverage should empower the audience
to get involved in a (national) debate.
- Once a piece of information turns out to
be wrong, that should be made publicly clear.
Apart
from guaranteeing press freedom, politicians should find the right balance
between a number of challenges which characterise the tensions in the specific
context of media and terrorism. These balances, as was agreed among
politicians, journalists and experts, cannot be created in a standardised way
but need to be approached pragmatically and per terrorist event. However, it is
crucial to be aware of the respective challenges, more specifically, to find
the right balance for history to reflect it as a piece of neutral coverage.
