Media as International Actor

In My Opinion

No coverage, no voice?

By Nick Visser

In early November, a passenger ferry was hijacked off the coast of Izmir, Turkey, by an individual claiming to be from a Kurdish terrorist organization. His demand? Give him media coverage. And the media agreed – dozens of stories about the passengers and crew, the fuel supply of the vessel, and the subsequent death of the individual by Turkish military personnel were published over the following days.

But what purpose is the media serving? Every story I’ve read about the incident cites the potential terrorist affiliation and the group’s goals, acting as a force multiplier of a message of fear.

What the media should be doing is cutting off the source, and stop providing a welcome platform. If individuals attempt to use hate and fear to inspire change, but no longer have an avenue to broadcast their message, what purpose would terrorism serve?

The recent influx in coverage of pirate attacks off the coast of Somalia provides an example of the downward spiral of media coverage of terrorist events. Several years ago when the attacks began, the media pounced on the story and gave the pirates the coverage they desired. Citizens were taken, ransom terms were broadcast internationally, and the pirates were paid and supported in their kidnapping adventures.

Reducing media coverage of terrorist attacks can curb them from happening. The media shouldn’t contribute to further harm – and continual coverage is doing just that.

If the media takes away the platform, they take away the incentive.