Posted on October 3rd 1986
Cause and Effect
By Alex Linder
[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]
[opinion published in Pomona College's The Student Life, Friday, October 3, 1986]
The Media and Terrorism
Cause and Effect
With the recent spate of bombings in France, terrorism has returned to the public consciousness. Grisly scenes of violent destruction of person and property remind one of earlier events: The Achille Lauro and Leon Klinghoffer's murder, the TWA hijacking Beirut, and the Pan Am hijacking in Pakistan. Images of gun-toting Arabs segue into tearful relatives and grim-faced State Department officials; real-life drama brought to you courtesy of modern technology and the network of your choice.
The cause-effect link between media coverage and terrorism is so obvious as to be undeserving of attention. The perpetrators of what society deems "terrorist" acts tend to be members of small, relatively powerless fringe groups bent on gaining national or worldwide exposure for their cause, hoping to instigate mass fear leading to a general societal upheaval and civil war. Through vicious murders of innocent civilians and reckless seizure of hostages, terrorists present the media with what might be called "medianip"; compelling, riveting stories unmatched in sheer theatrics. Reaching a compromise between the right of the media to gather information and the right of law enforcement agencies to ensure public order is made especially difficult by this symbiotic relationship between terrorists and the media.
An imaginary act of terrorism will help illuminate the intricate set of interrelationships between the media, the law, and the terrorists and allow us to draw conclusions regarding the proper role of the media. Suppose that terrorists seized hostages in a large downtown building in a major city. How would the situation unfold? First, the police would arrive and evacuate the surrounding area. Then the media would get wind of the occurrence and soon cameramen and journalists would swarm around the perimeter. Finally, negotiations would begin and things would stabilize for a while.
At this point we must consider the interests and motivations of each group. The goals of the police, for instance, would be to a) preserve the lives of the hostages without making any outrageous concessions to the terrorists, and b) capture the terrorists and demonstrate their ability to protect society and enforce the law. The terrorists, on the other hand, would want to a) publicize their cause, and b) secure objective goals such as money, safe transportation, or the release of jailed comrades. The media, finally, would want to a) report all the facts they could find, and b) get the terrorists' story as well as the thoughts and feelings of the hostages themselves. Assuming that the conflict between the goals of the police and the terrorists is self-evident, let us examine the conflicts between the media's goals and the goals of the other two groups.
Conflict between the media and the police is essentially a conflict of principle. It's a question of whether the right to freely gather information or the right to invoke some degree of censorship in the interest of social order takes precedence. Legally the media can do about whatever they want. Ethically, however, members of the media might feel compelled to withhold some information from the public that might hurt the ongoing police work. For example, the media can and have at times made reports detailing the way police forces were arrayed around the scene of the crime. Also, in their striving to show the viewer both sides of the story, reporters have tied up the line talking with the terrorists and their hostages, inhibiting negotiations. Still, the presence of the media can help allay fear and confusion among viewers by reporting the real story.
The conflict between the goals of the media and the goals of the terrorists centers around the media's need to get the other side of the story and the terrorists' desire to spread their propaganda. Thus, occasionally in a situation similar to the one described, we hear about reporters willing to sell air time for an interview with a hostage.
Finally, what conclusions may be drawn regarding the media and their reporting of terrorist acts, particularly hostage seizure? There seem to be four general guidelines the media ought to adopt. First, the media should strive to maintain journalistic ethics by not becoming part of the story themselves, if at all possible. Second, the media should absolutely refuse to give terroristst any air time in trade for certain privileges and must even beware of interviewing a terrorist on the air at all, lest the interview become a forum for propaganda. Third, the media must refrain from tying up negotiating lines, covering live delicate negotiations, and interfering without warrant in police operations. Fourth, and last, the media might be wise to distinguish between the public's right to know and its right to be shown. That is, if terrorists aren't on television they might be less likely to, say, kill a hostage to save face when the police call their bluff regarding time limits and death threats.//