Terrorism should not be allowed publicity

In reality, the ‘oxygen of publicity’ doesn’t provide this sort of weapon to terrorists. When terrorist acts are publicised, they usually result in public responses of condemnation, drops in support amongst groups sympathetic to the terrorists’ causes, and a strengthening of the spirit of public solidarity against terrorism (the same response arguably generated in WW2 by terror bombing against Britain and Germany). This is the response seen following bombings in Egypt (after which support for Osama Bin Laden in the Palestinian territories plummeted), hostage taking in Iraq (which has contributed to Iraqi religious and community leaders shifting their support from insurgency forces to Coalition troops) and IRA bombings in the UK. Terrorist publicity is bad publicity for them; in the battle for hearts and minds, the media is a weapon for us, not terrorists.

States have exercised a fairly effective policy of non-negotiation with terrorists in the past, but it has never led to a decline in terrorist attacks. Terrorism is often used by groups avowedly anti-rationalist in their beliefs, and continues to be used irrespective of the likely prospects of achieving its stated aims.

Conclusions people draw from publicity about terrorist attacks may be legitimate indictments of their governments. Preventing media coverage of these is an attack on democratic accountability for which there is no justification. Governments may deserve to be pressurised for failing to put in place adequate security measures, or engaging in a foreign policy that may have made the nation less safe. Terrorism is a policy the government deserves to be held to account over as much as any other, and publicity is necessary for this to occur.

Attempting to prevent your public ever having to deal with the terrifying realities of events in the international world is doomed to failure. People always manage to find out about some aspect of terrorist attacks one way or the other, and fear is spread, not contained, when the public don’t feel the government is telling them the truth. In reality, people rarely change their behaviour as a result of fear generated by terrorism – use of the London underground revived rapidly after the July 7th Bombings, and use of air travel soon recovered from the impact of 9/11.

Terrorist organisations are perfectly capable of spreading word of their attacks to potential sympathisers by other means. Instead, publicising terrorist attacks opens the possibility that members of the public with information (recognising a hostage taker, or a location, or an organisation) may come forward and help security services.

On the contrary, censorship often ends up having the reverse effect, seeming to demonstrate real fear of terrorists, and makes governments look weak and possibly ridiculous, rather than strong. Many declared this was the case with the British government’s attempts to deny the IRA legitimacy by banning broadcasting of the voice of Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein in the late 1980s and 1990s. Broadcasters simply hired actors to speak his words while showing film of him speaking. The pointlessness of the whole exercise actually ended up gaining Sinn Fein greater public attention.

Time and time again, all that has been censored, snuffed and made illicit has emerged with greater publicity than that which it was denied. Every revolution has begun with a persecution, everything from the recreational abuse/use of illicit drugs, weapons trafficking and distribution/making of all forms of pornography is a direct result of these things being tabooed. People have not been reasoned into rejecting these destructive things but denied them making them very attractive indeed.

If terrorist videos were blocked, terrorist hackers would surely find a way to bring them out and broadcast them in some other way. At least when we give terrorists a platform to state and spread their views, we can balk at their ideas and answer them with our rationale and a sound rejection of theirs. Stifling the brooding spiel of terrorism means denying ourselves the right to dialogue and choice.

When our media projects these attacks we make a special effort not to exaggerated their successes. If our media did not analyze attacks then the only information the general public would be getting on these attacks would be from their media channels through which they play up their victories with theatrical resonance.

Covering attacks gives us the power to criticize,evaluate and help counter these attacks.

It is the media that tells us bad policy is bad policy. The media is an information conduit, a passageway it is not meant to terrify the public but the lay facts and opinions down so that the public may arrive at it’s own conclusions. Fact is if the news did not cover bombings, it will be accused of ignoring real tragedies/travesties. The suffering of terror-victims will dehumanize them and us. Stories of terror attacks and their aftermath send the message that terrorists are hypocrites if they believe that civilian deaths must be avenged with more civilian deaths. To not speak against terror is to ignore it (the greatest admission of fear).

Fear is derived from ignorance, we are afraid of the unknown, deliberately censoring information on terror and the (ensuing) mistrust of the media, is what creates irrational fear. The efficient low-bias coverage of events exposes us them in a nonthreatening manner. It is the responsibility of the media to ensure that where there is injustice, it will be exposed therefore answered in time with justice.

If the media did not police irrational policy decisions, security breaches and our depleting privacy we would not feel the need to protect ourselves from these or to voice our views against them, the views that the ‘media’ projects, again.

This begs the question, how much footage can be limited to give a clear picture of information the public trusts? If language were to take over more space then the responsibility of anchors to try and keep honest will be even greater than it is today.

The problem is not that people should not trust hard evidence such as photographs,videos and statistics, the issue is that people should not trust the language of politicians (George W Bush Junior calling the ‘WAR on terror” the Crusades) and the those speaking for the media(eg FOX news anchor Bill O’Reilly). If anything the language of anchors and leaders should be limited and drowned out by the voice of the people and factual record in the form of footage.

The reason people are racist, paranoid or otherwise consumed with irrational fear is not that they see bombings and blame them on the perpetrators of these bombings. It is media anchors that need to be less dramatic with their descriptions of travesties and more sympathic with victims and their stories, it is the anchors of the mass media that need to stop putting racial/national labels on terrorism. But the reason that the mass-media is the ‘mass’-media is because of these dramatic plays with people’s fears and sensitivities. So it is really public that feeds the deliverence of disinformation by paying more attention to it.

People who are racist, are racist without the news media’s help. It is usually because they are not used to meeting or being around people of different races or that they have had bad experiences with a/several people of that race and have tried to ignore those experiences and rationalize their negarive feelings stemming from the very experiences they ignore by being biased towards entire racial groups. Any negative imagery by the media only serves to trigger these feelings and is not their root cause. And if the media does not trigger them, in time something else will.

When terrorist acts are publicised, they likely to result in public responses of condemnation and the withdrawal of support from groups sympathetic to the terrorists’ causes. These messages can even strengthen the spirit of public solidarity against terrorism. There are many examples which can support this claim. Such as the response generated in WW2 by terror bombing against Britain and Germany. Following bombings in Egypt, support for Osama Bin Laden in the Palestinian territories plummeted. Hostage taking in Iraq contributed to Iraqi religious and community leaders shifting their support from insurgency forces to Coalition troops. Ultimately, publicity is bad for terrorists. The media is a weapon for shedding light on the horrors of terrorism and exposing their actions to all publics.

This has become a long established policy and states have exercised a fairly effective policy of non-negotiation with terrorists in the past. Even though individual citizens may be influenced in their thinking about terrorism and popular opinion may be heard, governments are not at all likely to negotiate with terrorists because of the broader consequences of such action. Negotiation due to public opinion would only reinforce terrorist organizations to continue their reign of terror. States do not and should not negotiate with terrorists.

Conclusions people draw from publicity about terrorist attacks may be legitimate indictments of their governments. Preventing media coverage of these is a threat to democratic accountability for which there is no justification. Governments may need to be pressured for failing to put in place adequate security measures or engaging in a foreign policy that may have put a nation at risk. The government is responsible and should be held to account for its response to terrorist organizations. Publicity is necessary for this to occur.

Additionally, information cannot be contained in today’s world. Attempting to prevent the public from having to deal with the terrifying realities of terrorist events is doomed to failure. People always manage to find out about some aspect of terrorist attacks one way or the other. Fear is more likely to spread when the public doesn’t believe the government is telling them the truth. And information does not necessarily bring about change. People do not necessarily change their behaviour as a result of terrorist activities. As an, example use of the London underground revived rapidly after the July 7th Bombings, and use of air travel soon recovered from the impact of 9/11. The public has a right to information and will obtain that information. Attempting to monitor that information is impossible and inappropriate.

Terrorist organisations are perfectly capable of spreading word of their attacks to potential sympathisers by other means. These methods of recruitment are more effective than dependence on how the media may portray terrorist purposes and actions. The rise of extremist groups is often equated with these various other forms of media capabilities such as websites and personal messaging which are much more effective in presenting persuasive messages.

Instead, publicising terrorist attacks can actually provide the public with information which may assist in national security. Airports continually asks the public to be involved in awareness of their surroundings. Information about terrorism strengthens the value of these requests. There is no clear relationship between publicity about terrorism serving significant recruitment purposes and instead we can see how information may better prepare the public against terrorist activities.

Although censorship may be seen as serving a good, the opposite effect could occur. Some declared this the case with the British government’s attempts to deny the IRA legitimacy by banning broadcasting of the voice of Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein in the late 1980s and 1990s. Broadcasters simply hired actors to speak his words while showing film of him speaking. The pointlessness of the whole exercise actually ended up gaining Sinn Fein greater public attention. The media sees their responsibility to fully inform the public and will work to serve that purpose. Whatever measures may be put in place, censoring brings untold problems of how and what will be censored .who will censor, and to what degree will censoring influence the flow of information within a free society. Concerned citizens will continue to seek information. The action of censorship has great possibilities of having the opposite effect for which it was intended.