Clinton & Yeltsin
Watch this gem of a video clip. You'll probably remember this. The translator is just about to finish translating Boris Yeltsin's comments, during which he said to the press:
"If you look at the press reports, one would see what you were writing was that today's meeting with President Bill Clinton was going to be a disaster. Now, for the first time, I can tell you, you're a disaster."
Clinton's reaction is a classic, and this has now become pretty famous.
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9510/un_50th/minisummit/pm/laugh.mov
(it downloads pretty quickly)
"If you look at the press reports, one would see what you were writing was that today's meeting with President Bill Clinton was going to be a disaster. Now, for the first time, I can tell you, you're a disaster."
Clinton's reaction is a classic, and this has now become pretty famous.
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9510/un_50th/minisummit/pm/laugh.mov
(it downloads pretty quickly)
posted by Anthony Stoddart @ 8:13 AM
5 Comments:
At Fri Oct 07, 02:48:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
Terrorism as we understand it would not exist without the presence and power of the modern media. The relationship between terrorism and the media is an important one that, in this essay, I shall argue is also symbiotic. In other words, the relationship is mutually beneficial for terrorists and for the media. After outlining the symbiotic nature of this relationship, I will explain why it is vital for the media to prevent itself from becoming a platform for terrorists’ messages and causes. I shall focus primarily on the terror-media relationship in the current context.
The Australian democratic activist, Brian Jenkins, remarked in 1974 that “terrorism is theatre” (Council on Foreign Relations 2004). This is a good description for a form of political violence that, obviously, aims to create an environment of terror. The media plays an imperative role (witting or unwitting) in this process. Jenkins also stated that terrorists “want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead” (Council on Foreign Relations 2004). Although this may have been the case among certain terrorist groups in 1974, it can be confidently argued that this is no longer quite so. Over recent years, terrorism has become more lethal, taking higher numbers of casualties, and the spectacular nature of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington demonstrates the modern intent of terrorists to combine high lethality with heavy psychological impact (Helgerson 2002). This is indicative of terrorists’ shift away from attempting merely to achieve political goals (as important as these remain to them).
At Sat Oct 08, 11:38:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At Sat Oct 08, 01:51:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
Terrorism as we understand it would not exist without the presence and power of the modern media. The relationship between terrorism and the media is an important one that, in this essay, I shall argue is also symbiotic. In other words, the relationship is mutually beneficial for terrorists and for the media. After outlining the symbiotic nature of this relationship, I will explain why it is vital for the media to prevent itself from becoming a platform for terrorists’ messages and causes. I shall focus primarily on the terror-media relationship in the current context.
The Australian democratic activist, Brian Jenkins, remarked in the 1970s that “terrorism is theatre”, and that “terrorists choreograph their violence” (Council on Foreign Relations 2004; Schlesinger 1991: 24). This is a good description for a form of political violence that, obviously, aims to create an environment of terror via media attention. Timothy McVeigh, the main perpetrator of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, declared how he had specifically chosen to target the Murrah Federal building because it had “plenty of open space around it, to allow for the best possible news photos and television footage” (Council on Foreign Relations 2004). Jenkins also stated that terrorists “want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead” (Council on Foreign Relations 2004). Although this may have been the case among certain terrorist groups in 1974, it can be confidently argued that this is no longer quite so. Whilst terrorists certainly continue to want the eyes of the world focused on their deadly actions, these actions have, over recent years, become significantly more lethal, taking higher numbers of casualties – the emergence of apocalyptic-religious terrorists and the spectacular nature of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington demonstrates the modern intent of terrorists to combine high lethality with heavy psychological impact (Helgerson 2002; Council on Foreign Relations 2004). This is indicative of terrorists’ shift away from attempting merely to achieve political goals (as important as these remain to them). Intrinsically, terrorism “is a psychological weapon which depends upon communicating a threat to the wider society” (Wilkinson 1997: 4). This can only be properly achieved with the ‘cooperation’ of the media, which is able to broadcast and publicise terrorist actions and discourse, in turn helping to create the environment of fear towards which terrorists work.
Terrorists want the attention of governments and the public, and the media provides the channel through which this can be sought (and almost always successfully so). As a form of calculated, political violence, the main goals of terrorists usually include delivering “a political or religious message… [,] winning popular support, provoking the attacked country to act rashly, attracting recruits, polarizing [sic] public opinion, demonstrating their ability to cause pain, or undermining governments” (Council on Foreign Relations 2004). Without the presence of the media, or the media’s willingness to highlight terrorism, the likelihood of terrorists’ achieving any of these aims would be significantly decreased. Clearly, the free media is not in open favour of terrorist ideologies and actions. And likewise, terrorist organisations “have nothing but contempt for the values and attitudes of the democratic mass media” (Wilkinson 1997: 5). Yet what is vital is that terrorists nevertheless view the media in opportunistic terms and understand its undeniable importance to their cause (Wilkinson 1997: 5). Terrorism carries purpose and, certainly in the modern context, is anything but irrational (Schlesinger 1991: 1). The terrorist attacks in New York and Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001 received massive media coverage to the point that one could very fairly argue that the media aided and exacerbated the level of terror and fear across the United States and the world. Matthew Nisbet (2001) believes
…the visual spectacle was grossly misused by the television networks. Newscasts ran repeating footage of the second World Trade Center [sic] plane crash in the corner of the screen as interviews and other reporting was ongoing. In an exceptional display of unfortunate editorial judgment, the New York Times in Wednesday's edition joined the tabloids New York Post and New York Daily News in carrying full-page color [sic] photos of victims falling from the top of the World Trade Center [sic] towers.
The attacks instilled terror in people around the world. Additionally, they clearly achieved a political and religious message (particularly after the media broadcast a message from mastermind Osama bin Laden), a demonstration of terrorist ability to cause pain and, eventually, a polarisation in public opinion.
Terrorists also have the opportunity to exploit technology, using the media for purposes that go beyond the motivations already mentioned. Brian Jenkins (2004) explains how
by watching global news networks such as CNN, BBC or Al-Jazeera, terrorists can get instant reviews of their latest production. The Internet enables them to check out the domestic media in targeted countries.
http://www.rand.org/commentary/082204USAT.html
In understanding the nature of the symbiotic terror-media relationship, it is important to explain why terrorism is beneficial to the media. Media organisations are engaged in a constant struggle for ratings, readership and sales. It cannot be denied that terrorist attacks, terrorist conspiracies and terrorist threats provide the media with dramatic news and exciting discussion that rarely fails to draw increased audience numbers (Lockyer 2003: 1; Council on Foreign Relations 2004).In a time of increased apocalyptic terror, it would be fair to assume that terrorists are encouraged by the fact that the more sensational and horrific a terrorist act, the more attention it receives in the global media (Hachten 1999: 80). Walter Laqueur observed that “the media are a terrorist’s best friend… [and] terrorists are the super-entertainers of our time” (Hachten 1999: 80).
Schlesinger, Philip. 1991. Media, State and Nation. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Hachten, William A. 1999. The World News Prism: Changing Media of International Communication. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
2004. ‘Terrorism: Questions and Answers’, Council on Foreign Relations.
http://cfrterrorism.org/terrorism/media.html
Viewed 05/10
Lockyer, Adam. 2003. ‘The Relationship Between the Media and Terrorism’, Australian National University.
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/papers/sdsc/viewpoint/paper_030818.pdf
Viewed 06/10
Wilkinson, Paul. 1997. ‘The Media and Terrorism: A Reassessment’, in Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 9, No. 2, London: Frank Cass. Pp51-64.
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/academic/intrel/research/cstpv/pdffiles/The%20Media%20and%20Terrorism.pdf
Viewed 06/10
Helgerson, John L. 2002. ‘The Terrorist Challenge to US National Security’, National Intelligence Council.
http://www.cia.gov/nic/speeches_terrorchallenge.html
Viewed 06/10
Nisbet, Matt. 2001. ‘Media Coverage After the Attack’, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.
http://www.csicop.org/genx/terrorattack/
Jenkins, Brian. 2004. ‘World Becomes the Hostage of Media-Savvy Terrorists’, RAND: Commentary.
http://www.rand.org/commentary/082204USAT.html
At Mon Oct 10, 06:15:00 PM,
Anthony Stoddart said…
Terrorism as we understand it would not exist without the presence and power of the modern media. The relationship between terrorism and the media is an important one that, in this essay, I shall argue is also symbiotic. In other words, the relationship is mutually beneficial for terrorists and for the media. After outlining the symbiotic nature of this relationship, I will explain why it is vital for the media to prevent itself from becoming a platform for terrorists’ messages and causes. I shall focus primarily on the terror-media relationship in the current context.
The Australian democratic activist, Brian Jenkins, remarked in the 1970s that “terrorism is theatre”, and that “terrorists choreograph their violence” (Council on Foreign Relations 2004; Schlesinger 1991: 24). This is a good description for a form of political violence that, obviously, aims to create an environment of terror via media attention. Timothy McVeigh, the main perpetrator of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, declared how he had specifically chosen to target the Murrah Federal building because it had “plenty of open space around it, to allow for the best possible news photos and television footage” (Council on Foreign Relations 2004). Jenkins also stated that terrorists “want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead” (Council on Foreign Relations 2004). Although this may have been the case among certain terrorist groups in 1974, it can be confidently argued that this is no longer quite so. Whilst terrorists certainly continue to want the eyes of the world focused on their deadly actions, these actions have, over recent years, become significantly more lethal, taking higher numbers of casualties – the emergence of apocalyptic-religious terrorists and the spectacular nature of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington demonstrates the modern intent of terrorists to combine high lethality with heavy psychological impact (Helgerson 2002; Council on Foreign Relations 2004). This is indicative of terrorists’ shift away from attempting merely to achieve political goals (as important as these remain to them). Intrinsically, terrorism “is a psychological weapon which depends upon communicating a threat to the wider society” (Wilkinson 1997: 4). This can only be properly achieved with the ‘cooperation’ of the media, which is able to broadcast and publicise terrorist actions and discourse, in turn helping to create the environment of fear towards which terrorists work.
Terrorists want the attention of governments and the public, and the media provides the channel through which this can be sought (and almost always successfully so). As a form of calculated, political violence, the main goals of terrorists usually include delivering “a political or religious message… [,] winning popular support, provoking the attacked country to act rashly, attracting recruits, polarizing [sic] public opinion, demonstrating their ability to cause pain, or undermining governments” (Council on Foreign Relations 2004). Without the presence of the media, or the media’s willingness to highlight terrorism, the likelihood of terrorists’ achieving any of these aims would be significantly decreased. Clearly, the free media is not in open favour of terrorist ideologies and actions. And likewise, terrorist organisations “have nothing but contempt for the values and attitudes of the democratic mass media” (Wilkinson 1997: 5). Yet what is vital is that terrorists nevertheless view the media in opportunistic terms and understand its undeniable importance to their cause (Wilkinson 1997: 5). Terrorism carries purpose and, certainly in the modern context, is anything but irrational (Schlesinger 1991: 1). The terrorist attacks in New York and Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001 received massive media coverage to the point that one could very fairly argue that the media aided and exacerbated the level of terror and fear across the United States and the world. Matthew Nisbet (2001) believes
…the visual spectacle was grossly misused by the television networks. Newscasts ran repeating footage of the second World Trade Center [sic] plane crash in the corner of the screen as interviews and other reporting was ongoing. In an exceptional display of unfortunate editorial judgment, the New York Times in Wednesday's edition joined the tabloids New York Post and New York Daily News in carrying full-page color [sic] photos of victims falling from the top of the World Trade Center [sic] towers.
The attacks instilled terror in people around the world. Additionally, they clearly achieved a political and religious message (particularly after the media broadcast a message from mastermind Osama bin Laden), a demonstration of terrorist ability to cause pain and, eventually, a polarisation in public opinion.
Terrorists also have the opportunity to exploit technology, using the media for purposes that go beyond the motivations already mentioned. Brian Jenkins (2004) explains how
by watching global news networks such as CNN, BBC or Al-Jazeera, terrorists can get instant reviews of their latest production. The Internet enables them to check out the domestic media in targeted countries.
http://www.rand.org/commentary/082204USAT.html
In understanding the nature of the symbiotic terror-media relationship, it is important to explain why terrorism is beneficial to the media. Media organisations are engaged in a constant struggle for ratings, readership and sales. It cannot be denied that terrorist attacks, terrorist conspiracies and terrorist threats provide the media with dramatic news and exciting discussion that rarely fails to draw increased audience numbers (Lockyer 2003: 1; Council on Foreign Relations 2004).In a time of increased apocalyptic terror, it would be fair to assume that terrorists are encouraged by the fact that the more sensational and horrific a terrorist act, the more attention it receives in the global media (Hachten 1999: 80). Walter Laqueur observed that “the media are a terrorist’s best friend… [and] terrorists are the super-entertainers of our time” (Hachten 1999: 80). Certainly, the Western media condemns terrorists, their intentions and their actions. However, the relationship nevertheless exists (albeit a twisted relationship).
It is worth noting that audiences surely expect the media, from which they receive most of their information, to report on terrorism and keep people informed as to what has occurred, what may occur and what progress is being made by governments and intelligence services in their attempts to combat the threat. Obviously, the public needs to be informed via the media of any potential threats or dangers. However, terrorism provides the media – TV, radio and print – with a vast amount of material with which they can produce stories, articles, national discussion, etc. The above quote from Nisbet reminds us of the way a terrorist attack (particularly those on the scale of Omagh, September 11, Madrid, etc.) is, in a sense, embraced by the media and, arguably, abused by it.
At Sat Apr 21, 01:09:00 PM,
Anthony Stoddart said…
.
Post a Comment
<< Home