Terrorism and Media

The reporting of terrorism provides one of the biggest challenges for the mass media in democracies. Terrorism is defined as the use of violence in order to promote a political cause. The media have an obligation [Page 784]to report on politics as well as violent events, but reporting on terrorist acts does more than just broadcast news about explosions, airline hijacking, and other violence. This reporting also gives publicity to the terrorist organizations and their aims. As a result, reporting on terrorism presents the mass media with a difficult dilemma. News organizations must balance their role as information providers with their function as gatekeepers of civil society and social order. At the same time, failing to examine the complex social and political causes of terrorism makes it difficult to find ways to stop terrorists.

Video grab taken from CNN showing Afghan Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Mutawakel, speaking late September 11, 2001, in Kabul following the series of terrorist strikes in New York and Washington. Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia denied that Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden had played any role in a series of apparent terrorist attacks in the United States.

Source: AFP/Getty Images.

Media coverage of terrorism can have several different effects on media outlets, terrorist groups, and the general population. First, coverage of terrorist events can provide a huge source of sensational, visually compelling news. This helps media outlets in competition for ratings, revenue, and prestige. At the same time, it leaves journalists open to charges of providing extensive publicity for a terrorist campaign.

The media have a great deal of power in defining whether terrorists are simply criminals or have some sort of legitimate political grievance to justify their acts of violence. The tone as well as the level of sympathy for “terrorists” varies a great deal in different countries. For example, African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela was labelled a terrorist by the South African government at the same time he was called a freedom fighter by the international media for his campaign against the racist regime. Eventually this “terrorist” became the elected leader of the country.

As the media coverage of Mandela suggests, it is easier for those removed from the violence of political unrest to make dispassionate judgments about whether violence is justified for a political cause. For example, Christopher Hewitt found that Italian journalists were relatively uncritical of domestic terrorism until the violence of the attacks escalated. There was little interest in covering terrorism as an international phenomenon in the United States until the September 11, 2001, attacks. Since then, coverage of terrorism has increased markedly and remained on a high level although there have been no subsequent major terrorist attacks on the United States.

Although there is a relatively large amount of time devoted to possible terrorist plots in the U.S. media, there is little discussion about the broader political reasons for Islamic groups to target the United States. Studies of news broadcasts and magazines in the wake of September 11 found that U.S. journalists were uncritical of plans to attack foreign countries in the attempt to reduce terrorist threat. This suggests that although journalists are careful to avoid manipulation by terrorist groups, they are perhaps less questioning about government messages on counter-terrorism.

...