Is it necessary to give press to terrorists?

[The Great Sun Jester]

In an effort to keep the scope a bit narrower, let's turn a blind eye to the immense political power to be gained by tapping into the old "The terrorists are after us!" schtick.

But if an entity were truly dedicated to stopping terrorism (as opposed to guerilla warfare), which is all about "shock and awe" and inflated horror of relatively minor attacks, wouldn't it be prudent to simply avoid public recognition of a group claiming responsibility for an attack? I'm just wondering how many volunteers would step up for martyrdom if yheir 15 minutes of fame were not guaranteed.

So a number of airplanes were hijackd and crashed into buildings on the same day, why not spin it in a way that states the perps were all destroyed in the attack? If some dude in a turbin publishes an announcement claiming responsibility for the attack, why not respond with, "He's a showboating has-been, he had nothing to do with it"?

etc.

[diggleblop]

I was thinking about something similar the other day. I was watching "The Path to 9-11" and when the terrorists names were displayed in the movie, I thought, "Those scumbags don't deserve such recognition."

So, I agree with you. They can't be martyred if they're not remembered.

[Wee Bairn]

I have always felt that it is silly and counterproductive to give publicity every time a bomb is detonated and someone is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Events like the Madrid or London attacks should be publicized due to the large scale, but do we really need a blurb stating "four dead in roadside bomb attack in Baghdad" every other day? Not to lessen the loss of anyone's life, but to me, it isn't "news" if it happens damn near every day. It's more newsworthy when there is NOT a bomb attack.

[Caridwen]

I imagine the soldiers loved one's would disagree with you.

[silenus]

Dean Ing explored this very question in his book Soft Targets. There was an informal agreement that the only references to terrorists would be mocking ones. A pretty good book overall.

[monavis]

Terrorists must like to think they are causing terror and it makes them feel important, we should call them,Stupid Ignorant Cowards as suiside is a cowardly act and remind the ones who fall for it that Osama and his ilk hide while some poor dummy is killing himself to keep their leaders feeling powerful.

Monavis

[monavis]

Terrorists must like to think they are causing terror and it makes them feel important, we should call them,Stupid Ignorant Cowards as suiside is a cowardly act and remind the ones who fall for it that Osama and his ilk hide while some poor dummy is killing himself to keep their leaders feeling powerful.

Monavis

O :smack: oops misspelled suicide.

[Marley23]

Sorry, folks. What you're proposing requires some major curtailing of journalistic ethics, such as the intentional introduction of bias. I know I wouldn't support that. As long as terrorist attacks qualify as news - and I can't see how they wouldn't - terrorists will get some press.

[Steve MB]

Anybody else reminded of the Dean Ing (IIRC) story "Very Proper Charlies", in which
the major media come to an agreement to portray terrorists as pathetic and laughable characters

[silenus]

I was, all the way back in Post #5. :D

[carnivorousplant]

Do they care what the West thinks, or are they primarally concerned with the opinions of their co-religionists?

[Marley23]

Do they care what the West thinks, or are they primarally concerned with the opinions of their co-religionists?
I'm sure there are different answers for different terrorist groups.

[fortytwo]

During the period when Thatcher was PM and the IRA was carrying out its acts of terrorism in NI and mainland Britain, she became convinced that denying them "the oxygen of publicity" was a good thing.
Thatcher had in mind more the media's role during the troubles in Northern Ireland--troubles which, of course, spilled over to mainland Britain in the form of car-bombings and assassinations. She blamed the media for overcovering the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and other paramilitary groups.

As far as the Iron Lady was concerned, the media and the terrorists became locked in a symbiotic relationship. The terrorists needed the coverage; reporters and TV producers needed the stories.

Of course it didn't work as we had the ludicrous spectacle of actors mimicking the words of members of the IRA when they released a statement.
But shutting off that oxygen supply can be a tricky thing for a government to pull off. The attempt can lead to a greater enrichment of the terrorist atmosphere, as well as leading to an undermining of the very values a democratic government purports to be defending.

Take the Iron Lady's bid to "suffocate" the IRA by prohibiting British broadcasters from transmitting the voice of paramilitary leaders such as Gerry Adams. The ban, of course, merely prompted the broadcasters to seize on a loophole and guaranteed the Sinn Fein president even more airtime, albeit with a voice-over enunciating his words.
source (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_25_18/ai_89389343)

I don't see the press standing for it.

[gonzomax]

The administration has been emphasizing terrorism to help themselves. It has been political currency and is not likely to change. The press is the tail being wagged.They are not in control. If you show a repub he will talk about terrorism. How do ypu cover that up?