In democratic societies it’s hard to see propaganda.
As a result, it is important to keep it in mind when we see coverage of conflicts or even other issues in the media, regardless of the media organization and their apparent reputation.
Propaganda works because media management and public relations is very professional.
Experts say terrorism is calculated violence, usually against symbolic targets, designed to deliver a political or religious message. Beyond that, terrorists’ goals might also include winning popular support, provoking the attacked country to act rashly, attracting recruits, polarizing public opinion, demonstrating their ability to cause pain, or undermining governments.
“We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know about and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows”.
Terrorists need publicity and, surely, the journalists must be aware of what is the intension of terrorist doing something, the journalist must know what was the purpose of any action and what every carelessly written/said word may lead to.
Experts say terrorists have learned to adapt their methods and messages as the media have evolved. Hijacking passenger airplanes, for example, became a common terrorist strategy only after the launch of the first international television satellite, which allowed viewers worldwide to watch hijackings as real-time dramas. More recently, al-Qaeda’s strategy of not claiming responsibility for attacks—unlike earlier generations of terrorists—helps perpetuate insecurity and drive media coverage. The growth of satellite networks such as the Arabic cable news network al-Jazeera and of the video capabilities of the World Wide Web let terrorists make video recordings—for example, ones showing the murder of Daniel Pearl or Palestinian suicide bombers’ last testaments—that can be seen even if CNN and the BBC decide not to show them.
Terrorists have learned to use the Internet for secret communications among themselves, facilitating planning and fund-raising, and they have promotional Web sites. However, experts say that information flow on the World Wide Web is hard to predict or control, and the Internet isn’t yet a way to reach everyone at once, as carrying out a spectacular televised attack is. However, rumors spread via the Internet sometimes filter up into other media. The great virtues of the Internet—ease of access, lack of regulation, vast potential audiences, and fast flow of information, among others—have been turned to the advantage of groups committed to terrorizing societies to achieve their goals. Terrorism on the Internet is a very dynamic phenomenon: websites suddenly emerge, frequently modify their formats, and then swiftly disappear—or, in many cases, seem to disappear by changing their online address but retaining much the same content.
Terrorist websites target three different audiences: current and potential supporters; international public opinion; and enemy publics.
The mass media, policymakers, and even security agencies have tended to focus on the exaggerated threat of cyberterrorism and paid insufficient attention to the more routine uses made of the Internet. Those uses are numerous and, from the terrorists' perspective, invaluable.
There are eight different ways in which contemporary terrorists use the Internet, ranging from psychological warfare and propaganda to highly instrumental uses such as fundraising, recruitment, data mining, and coordination of actions.
While we must better defend our societies against cyberterrorism and Internet-savvy terrorists, we should also consider the costs of applying counterterrorism measures to the Internet. Such measures can hand authoritarian governments and agencies with little public accountability tools with which to violate privacy, curtail the free flow of information, and restrict freedom of expression, thus adding a heavy price in terms of diminished civil liberties to the high toll exacted by terrorism itself.
There are many proposed solutions to the problem of terrorism, but the one that I encountered most frequently in my research for this paper is the argument that we must ignore terrorists and they will ‘go away’. Nacos’ article (Accomplice or Witness? The Media’s Role in Terrorism) starts out with the quote, “... Without massive news coverage the terrorist act would resemble the proverbial tree falling in the forest.” But solving the terrorist problem would be much more complex than simply ignoring terrorists. By definition, terrorists create conflicts which are almost impossible to ignore (to a certain extent). There is no way that we can ignore that the Twin Towers no longer exist, or convince ourselves that the Oklahoma City bombing never happened. Even if the media were to cease reporting on events such as these, it does not mean that it never actually happened. Plus, word of mouth is another very effective means of communication that would be impossible to stop.
Obviously, terrorists are to be held responsible for their actions. But I think that the media, governments, the public, in fact, anyone involved in some way is at least partially responsible (some much more than others) for the effectiveness of the terrorists’ message.
The media should take a more objective role on issues such as terrorism, and realize that there are more important things in this world than ‘getting ahead of the pack’. This may be impossible in our capitalistic society, but I think that it should be attempted.
Government officials should think less of themselves and more about the people they represent and are responsible for. This may mean putting their reelections on the line, but I think that if a stance like this were taken more often, people would see the value in it and know that the government is acting in their best interests, and would respect them for that.
The public must be informed on how terrorists manipulate the media and public opinion to obtain their goals. The public must learn to ‘fight back’ by making a conscience decision not to need to know all the details about everything. This is very difficult (if not impossible) to achieve, since arguing that informing the public and not letting them know everything is a contradiction. The war against terrorism is really the battle of balancing our right to free speech against allowing terrorists to continue manipulating the media. This is a very touchy subject that is quite difficult to resolve, but I think that if people are informed about how they (and the media) are being manipulated, they will keep an objective view and eventually put terrorists in their place by not allowing them to rule our lives.
Bibliography
Katharine Graham, Washington Post owner speaking at CIA's Langley, Virginia headquarters in 1988, Reported in Regardie's Magazine, January, 1990, Quoted from David McGowan, Derailing Democracy, Common Courage Press, 2000.
Nacos, B.L. Terrorism and the Media. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994
Nacos, B.L., Accomplice or Witness? The Media’s Role in Terrorism. April 2000: Current History. 04 March 2002
Perl, R.F., Terrorism, the Media, and the Government: Perspectives, Trends, and Options for Policymakers. 22 Oct. 1997: Congressional Research Service, Federation of American Scientists. 04 March 2002
Pilger J., Power, Propaganda And Conscience In The War On Terror, Znet, January 26, 2004
Ramonet I., The control of pleasure, Le Monde diplomatique, May 2000
Wilson, J.R., and S. Roy Wilson. Mass Media/Mass Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.
Wilkinson, Paul. The Media and Terrorism: A Reassessment, The University of Saint Andrews, 04 March 2002
- free on-line encyclopedia
- free on-line encyclopedia
Ignacio Ramonet, The control of pleasure, Le Monde diplomatique, May 2000
Katharine Graham, Washington Post owner speaking at CIA's Langley, Virginia headquarters in 1988, Reported in Regardie's Magazine, January, 1990, Quoted from David McGowan, Derailing Democracy, (Common Courage Press, 2000), p.109.
