in our opinion...

Are the Media Giving the Terrorists What They Want?

By Christie Shearer

Over the past 50 years we have seen an increase in terrorism, including the attacks we were victim to here in the United States. One definition I found of terrorism states that the, "Immediate victim is merely instrumental, the skin of a drum beaten to achieve a calculated impact on a wider audience. As such, an act of terrorism is in reality an act of communication. For the terrorist the message matters, not the victim." Theorists have labeled this "Mass-Mediated Terrorism." This idea links terrorism and publicity through the use of mass media.

Governments do not condone terrorism, often because it destabilizes the nation and makes them appear vulnerable. As a result, they often try to silence the media regarding terrorism. However, what do journalists look for when they write stories? They want stories that grab attention, are dramatic, violent and extravagant. Terrorism is a salient act; it will always make the news. This makes people think that the media are accomplices of terrorists.

If we know that terrorists strive to get attention, why continue to give them what they want? Margaret Thatcher said "publicity is the oxygen of terrorism." It's necessary for the media to not give terrorists a voice. They should do this by not sensationalizing or publicizing the reasons behind the attacks. The media should only present acts of terrorism with facts and without creating fear in the public. An example of this is a New York Times article headlined, "At least 12 Killed in Bombing at Yemeni Mosque." Vague on details, and the actors behind it, the article informed the public without glorifying the terrorists. Media should ignore terrorists to remove itself as a tool of terrorism, but can they step away from the perfectly packaged stories that terrorists provide?

 

Media Propaganda and the Iraq War

By Bethany Strahan

Whether tuning into the nightly news or flipping through pages of the daily newspaper, the media may be feeding the public information more accurately labeled as propaganda. While the role of media is to educate and inform audiences about the happenings of the world, all too often, the media fall prey to the tight reigns of the government who twist and stretch the truth of the news they report. This has been particularly evident during the current "war on terror" and Iraq war where governmental sources dominate. In an article published by mediaed.org, journalist Henry Thoreau commented, "In a time of war, free speech comes under fire by our government in the forms of censorship, false reporting, and untruths and unbalanced news.leaving behind an antiseptic and sanitized version of the war in Iraq." Due to the strict war time rules the government has enforced, the media has become a tool of war, acting as a "mouthpieces for the US government."

In a recent report by The New York Times, the media was exposed for its promotion of propaganda when TV newscasts hosted retired military generals that served as "message force multipliers" to the Pentagon. The task of the former generals was to show support of the Iraq War and discuss "briefings and talking points received from the Pentagon" even when the generals "suspected the information was false or inflated."

While this may serve as only one example of the propaganda found in our media today, it illustrates an important point-that we the public find ourselves increasingly misinformed about the Iraq War and the war on terror in general. At the bidding of our government, we are shown a tainted, one-sided story in a media we can no longer trust.

 

The Hidden Danger of Snowballing Stories

By Briana Taylor

The "snowball effect" is when a news story takes on a life of its own, spreading rapidly and causing a public response. Stories subjected to the snowball effect in media can be a great source of entertainment. There are more than a few good laughs and disbelieving head-shakes available when looking back at some of the stories that picked-up speed and were splattered all over our television sets, newspapers, and computer screens (like when we all refused to say French fries). However, there are also reminders of the dangers that can come from this phenomenon: like the wildfire spread of the stories about the soldier at Guantanamo Bay flushing a Qur'an down the toilet and a Danish newspaper publishing Muhammad cartoons that resulted in protests, riots and deaths around the world.

Another danger to note, though admittedly on a much less significant scale than violence, is that the numerous snowballs that are racing through one media outlet after another at any one point in time distract us from other, more substantive news stories. This is not to say that the resulting violence of the Muhammad cartoons or the Qur'an incident wasn't newsworthy. The strategic spreading of a story by a concerned or offended group is difficult to fight, especially if the situation escalates to dangerous levels. However, when the snowballed story in question is about a jilted bride or new trend in fast food, the time allotted in media coverage is unwarranted. The news media cease to do their job and meet their responsibility to the public when they focus their resources and attention on such absurdity instead of covering imperative issues. Five years ago, with the very real possibility of war upon us, we would have been better suited to investigating the President's plan for Iraq than calling each other "un-American" or "French-lover" as we listened in on fry orders.