anthony js

Saturday, October 08, 2005

Another thing...














Bill Leak, The Australian (theaustralian.news.com.au)

I just want to say something else on the counter-terrorism issue.

Something that I and others have noticed is a major contradiction to be found in what is said and what is done by Australia's politicians and lawmakers.

We are all familiar with the rhetoric used by leaders in response to terrorism...


'This will not change our way of life.'
'They can destroy our buildings, but they cannot destroy our values.'
'We will continue to fight for our freedom.'

(I think you know the drill...)


And YET, in almost the same breath, these very people who are apparently devout defenders of 'ways of life', 'values' and 'freedom', proceed to pass the draconian, severe, almost tyrannical laws that infringe on people's rights and traditional freedoms. The very freedoms that we used to think came with democracy.

This is necessary, we're told. We have to give up some of our freedoms in order to combat this threat. We have to understand that these are dangerous times that call for tough measures. BUT terrorists will not change our way of life. Because if our way of life is changed, the terrorists win. Huh?

Just be straight with us. The terrorists are achieving their goals. Our way of life has been and will continue to be significantly altered. They can destroy our buildings and, yep, they can destroy our values as well. They're pretty damn good at it.

In other words, the terrorists are winning. They are absolutely winning.

________________________________

This is a badly worded entry... I can't articulate myself very well today. And I know why. The heat Brisbane is experiencing is horrendous. It is sickly. I simply cannot believe how hot it is, and it's still early October. There are two months left in this so-called season of Spring. Then there is about four months worth of full-on Summer (March is hot too). How am I expected to get through the next six months? Shit! I feel like the Apocalypse is nearing. It is sooooooo hot. Tomorrow is set to be 37 degrees. It feels about that right now actually. Stuff Brisbane. I'm getting out of here when I can. Siberia awaits me.

posted by Anthony Stoddart @ 4:35 AM  

3 Comments:

  • At Fri Oct 07, 01:44:00 PM, Blogger Lisa said…

    Good point. But even without any politics involved, terrorism does change the way we think about and do things. Look what the terrorists got everyone talking about in their blogs!

     

  • At Sat Oct 08, 10:37:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    So true Lisa,

    Anthony- if you ever wanna swim- let me know..i am assuming your at dads with the air-con. sold another watch..yay

    r

     

  • At Wed Oct 12, 11:59:00 AM, Blogger 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. Terrorism has for years provided the media with a high level of drama that helps in attracting audiences and increasing sales. Terrorists require the presence (and often, the cooperation) of the media in order to further their cause, publicise their acts and, in turn, realise their aim of the creation of an environment of fear and terror and internal polarisation. After outlining more of the symbiotic nature of this relationship, I will argue why it is vital for the media to prevent itself from becoming a platform for terrorists’ messages and causes; why the media should play a role in condemning terrorism and preventing its spread; and why it should still, however, remain unaffected by governmental propaganda and bias. 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. Death and destruction were undoubtedly part of the terrorists’ major goals in the perpetration of the September 11 attacks, yet a major intent on their part was “to create a global media spectacle by targeting symbols of American prestige and power” (Hammond 2003: 1).



    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.
    (Jenkins 2004)



    This presents modern society with a difficult challenge. The modern media revolves around modern technology, which of course carries many benefits. Yet if modern technology (i.e. online news, online advertising) is to benefit the masses, which it does, it can thus benefit terrorists who are able to use modern media technologies to their advantage and for their own cause. The information age provides terrorists with new opportunities. It has


    blurred the boundary between domestic and international threats, as well as between civilian and military threats. This in turn demands greater interagency coordination within the counterterrorism community. As terrorist groups evolve toward loose, ad-hoc networks that form and dissipate unpredictably, so must counterterrorism forces adopt a more flexible approach that crosses bureaucratic boundaries to accomplish the mission at hand.
    (Zanini and Edwards 2001: 27)




    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). The major difference between terrorism and other forms of violence is that it is a political phenomenon (Lomasky 1991: 88). The core political element to terrorism automatically makes it relevant to the entire society and to the governing body of that society. Thus, it is a highly attractive phenomenon on which the media can and does focus. 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. The media is attracted to deviants (Neuburger and Valentini 1996: 64). Neuberg and Valentini (1996) highlight the study conducted by Picard and Adams (1991) on the characterisation of terrorism within the community (Neuberg and Valentini 1996: 64). The study found that an important difference exists between the characterisation of terrorism by the media and by the government. The media tended to restrict itself to nouns or verbs that remained objective when describing a terrorist event: ‘bombing’, ‘shooting’, ‘gunman’, ‘attack’, etc. Government officials used more adjectives that would emphasise their feelings and the government’s feelings on the incident in question: ‘brutal killing’, ‘despicable act’, ‘cowardly attack’, etc (Neuberg and Valentini 1996: 64).

    From my own observations, this situation has altered today. Both the government and the media use rhetoric that places terrorists and terrorist actions in an extremely negative light. In that sense, the level of media objectivity has declined vis-à-vis the media’s approach to terrorism. Whilst this has not changed the fact that terrorism provides the media with ratings, sales, etc., the so-called ‘war on terror’ has meant that many free and democratic governments worldwide have developed the expectation that their media organisations assist the counter-terror campaign. Indeed, the media should report on terrorism in such a way that emphasises its wrongfulness. All components of democratic societies should be aiming with determination towards successfully countering the threat of international and domestic terrorism. As the media’s power continues to grow, so too should its responsibility to act in the interests of its surrounding society. And this means not only strongly condemning terrorism, but also remaining detached from the government of the day. Without wanting to sound cynical, I would argue that it is absolutely vital for the media to report from a non-governmental perspective (as well as a non-terrorist perspective) when reporting terrorism to the public. The government, too, should be the target of media scepticism when necessary and reasonable. Much controversy surrounds the current US government’s management of counter-terrorism. This should not be ignored by the American press simply as a result of wanting to appear on-side with the government and its foreign policy in fear of being labelled unpatriotic or anti-American. In 2003, the then-director of the British Broadcasting Corporation, Greg Dyke, criticised American television networks like Fox for their ‘gung-ho patriotism’, arguing (and rightly so) that the media (specifically the BBC) “cannot afford to mix patriotism and journalism” (Hammond 2003: 9). This is the correct approach for all media organisations (within ‘free’ and ‘liberal’ states) to take to their reporting of terrorism and their government’s responses to it. And it can still be achieved despite an apparent decline in objectivity.

    None of this means the media could be forgiven for occasionally siding with terrorists. What it does imply is that the media should remain independent and free of persuasion from both terrorists and governments. Therefore, while the media should resist from becoming a platform for governmental propaganda, it should also resist from becoming a platform for terrorists and the terrorist cause. Arab television news network Al-Jazeera became famous worldwide after it began airing Osama bin Laden’s videotaped statements, which in turn were broadcast worldwide (Moran 2001). Members of the US Administration expressed concern with the possible dangers posed by airing such threatening statements, hinting to the possibility that the September 11 mastermind may have been sending messages to al-Qaeda cells around the world (Moran 2001). Although Al-Jazeera provides a much-needed free media to the Arab world from which communities can receive important news, it is clear that, as a result of the network’s willingness to air bin Laden’s messages publicly, it has become a platform for terrorists in that part of the world. It is necessary that the media in the West remain detached from terrorists and report only on events of which it is important for the public to be aware. I would argue that terrorist propaganda is not necessary for the public to be subjected to. Rather, such information should be supplied to the necessary authorities if indeed the media gains access to such information.

    The relationship between terrorism and the media is a mutually beneficial one, but one that the media must manage carefully. The unavoidable connection is required by terrorists for publicity and for furthering their cause, as well as recruitment and sympathy, and it gives the media an opportunity to increase ratings, sales and readership. The media needs to remain balanced when reporting on terrorism, to fall short of exacerbating the spread of fear that terrorists work toward. It also needs to retain itself as an informer for the public: a party uninfluenced by neither terrorists nor government. Admittedly, terrorists succeed every time with attracting media attention. But terrorism is news and needs media focus. Hence, an ignorant approach would be absurd (as well as impossible). The relationship is a solid and evident one that will continue as long as terrorism and media exist. As long as the free media remains condemning of terrorism whilst at the same time keeping its public rightfully and honestly informed, this should not hinder the efforts of government and intelligence authorities in combating terrorism and its ideology.



















    Words: 2, 267










































    LIST OF REFERENCES

    Hachten, William A. 1999. The World News Prism: Changing Media of International Communication. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

    Hammond, Philip. 2003. ‘The Media War on Terrorism’. Journal for Crime, Conflict and the Media. Viewed 11 October 2005.
    http://www.jc2m.co.uk/Issue1/Hammond.pdf

    Helgerson, John L. 2002. ‘The Terrorist Challenge to US National Security’, National Intelligence Council. Viewed 6 October 2005.
    http://www.cia.gov/nic/speeches_terrorchallenge.html

    Jenkins, Brian. 2004. ‘World Becomes the Hostage of Media-Savvy Terrorists’, RAND: Commentary. Viewed 8 October 2005.
    http://www.rand.org/commentary/082204USAT.html

    Lockyer, Adam. 2003. ‘The Relationship Between the Media and Terrorism’, Australian National University. Viewed 6 October 2005.
    http://rspas.anu.edu.au/papers/sdsc/viewpoint/paper_030818.pdf

    Lomasky, Loren E. 1991. ‘The political significance of terrorism’ in Frey R.G. & Morris C.W. (eds.) Violence, Terrorism and Justice. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. pp. 86-115.

    Moran, Michael. 2001. ‘In defense of al-Jazeera’. MSNBC. Viewed 11 October 2005. http://www.msnbc.com/news/643471.asp?cp1=1

    Neuburger, Luisella & Valentini, Tiziana. 1996. Women and Terrorism. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.

    Nisbet, Matt. 2001. ‘Media Coverage After the Attack’, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.
    http://www.csicop.org/genx/terrorattack/

    Schlesinger, Philip. 1991. Media, State and Nation. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Wilkinson, Paul. 1997. ‘The Media and Terrorism: A Reassessment’, in Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 9, No. 2, London: Frank Cass. pp51-64. Viewed 6 October 2005.
    http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/academic/intrel/research/cstpv/pdffiles/The%20Media%20and%20Terrorism.pdf

    Zanini, Michele & Edwards, Sean. 2001. ‘The Networking of Terror in the Information Age’. RAND: Commentary. Viewed 11 October 2005.
    http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1382/MR1382.ch2.pdf

    Council on Foreign Relations 2004. ‘Terrorism: Questions and Answers’. Viewed 5 October 2005 http://cfrterrorism.org/terrorism/media.html

     

Post a Comment

<< Home