Media and Terrorism
Introduction
Terrorist acts are widely covered in the media, so much so that questions arise as to whether or not the extensive coverage is precisely what the terrorists want. The unspoken question here seems to be, does this kind of media reporting encourage terrorist attacks? I also want to explore another question, namely, if no one reported on the attacks, would they stop? I intend to discuss these questions and try to determine if, by covering terrorist attacks in depth, journalists are subconsciously fulfilling the terrorists' desires for publicity, attention and justification.
Communications and Terrorism Today
Until fairly recently, communications were limited. But with the improvements in telecommunications, particularly satellites, and the spiral of the Internet, the world is suddenly much smaller. Now there are “live broadcasts from anywhere on the globe” giving terrorists “the widest publicity for their spectacular violent acts” (Nacos, 1994). Nacos continues, “While international terrorists stage their violence primarily if not exclusively for publicity, media coverage is only the means by which these perpetrators try to promote and realise their various goals.”
However this can be questionned because Nacos bases this view on the assumption that terrorists do what they do for publicity. Although this seems questionnable as killing inncocent people and children surely can't just be for publicity and to be notices. It is therefore we understand the correct meaning of terrorism.
The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (Flaherty, 2003). We tend to think of terrorists as young Middle Eastern men, but they are only part of the picture. In the U.K. the IRA is a terrorist group, and in the U.S. the KKK can legitimately be described as such a terrorist
Terrorist acts are widely covered in the media, so much so that questions arise as to whether or not the extensive coverage is precisely what the terrorists want. The unspoken question here seems to be, does this kind of media reporting encourage terrorist attacks? I also want to explore another question, namely, if no one reported on the attacks, would they stop? I intend to discuss these questions and try to determine if, by covering terrorist attacks in depth, journalists are subconsciously fulfilling the terrorists' desires for publicity, attention and justification.
Communications and Terrorism Today
Until fairly recently, communications were limited. But with the improvements in telecommunications, particularly satellites, and the spiral of the Internet, the world is suddenly much smaller. Now there are “live broadcasts from anywhere on the globe” giving terrorists “the widest publicity for their spectacular violent acts” (Nacos, 1994). Nacos continues, “While international terrorists stage their violence primarily if not exclusively for publicity, media coverage is only the means by which these perpetrators try to promote and realise their various goals.”
However this can be questionned because Nacos bases this view on the assumption that terrorists do what they do for publicity. Although this seems questionnable as killing inncocent people and children surely can't just be for publicity and to be notices. It is therefore we understand the correct meaning of terrorism.
The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (Flaherty, 2003). We tend to think of terrorists as young Middle Eastern men, but they are only part of the picture. In the U.K. the IRA is a terrorist group, and in the U.S. the KKK can legitimately be described as such a terrorist