The latest blog contribution from guest blogger and Intelligence Fusion training programme graduate, Alessandro Gagridis, takes a closer look at the role played by the media with regards to terrorism and terror-attacks across the globe.
Terrorism
is a complex phenomenon. Defining it requires addressing a number of issues
linked to the methods, targets, ideological motivations and political goals of
the perpetrators. This inevitably entails a political and moral judgment, as
the word ‘terrorism’ has a negative connotation and indicates an inherently
ideology-driven act. In its traditional (non-cyber) form, terrorism presents
the following general characteristics: It is a violent act; it is driven by
ideological beliefs of political, social, ethnic and/or religious nature; it
usually targets civilians, non-combatants or public venues (often charged with
a symbolic value) located outside of conflict zones; it seeks to maximise the
number of victims and the level of damage to make the attack as dramatic as possible
in order to cause terror and spread fear among the target audience, with the
ultimate objective of changing its behavior and achieve goals consistent with
its underlying ideology.
In
analytical terms, terrorism is performed on three levels; each corresponding to
a different domain of action. The first coupling is tactical-material, and it
concerns the planning and execution of the attack (this may also include cyber
terrorism: Even though it acts via the virtual cyber domain, it still produces
actual disruption and is not merely declaratory or symbolic). The second is
operational-psychological. Its objective is to raise and disseminate fear among
the target population, and is strictly connected with the tactical-level
attack. The third is strategic-political, and concerns the terrorists’ ultimate
goals: Convincing the target audience – namely the public opinion and the
government – to accept their demands.
Here, a
further set of considerations is necessary. Terrorism is a form of asymmetric
armed struggle adopted by weak groups to fight stronger ones (normally states).
In many cases, and possibly the majority, the power gap between the two is very
wide; the exception being when terrorists operate against the governments of
failed states whose security forces have very limited capabilities. Due to this
disparity of forces, terrorist have not the material means to cause enough harm
to subdue their opponent to their will. No matter the damage they will be able
to inflict, it will always be immensely inferior to the one required to
materially debilitate the government and force it to cede. The most devastating
terrorist action in history – the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington D.C.
– did not seriously undermine the power of the United States. Compared with the
terrorists, the targeted state would still dispose of immensely superior
economic and military, surely much more than enough to survive and retaliate.
For this reason, the tactical-material actions of terrorists per se cannot
achieve any strategic/political accomplishment. In other words, terrorists
cannot ‘defeat’ the state.
Nevertheless,
in spite of this material inferiority, terrorists are considered a major threat
to national security. Terrorists succeed in creating a sense of insecurity
among citizens, thus inducing governments to implement extraordinary measures
that disrupted the ordinary lifestyle. Considerable resources have been
invested to tackle their menace, often with disputable results. Sometimes this
led to ill-fated foreign policy decisions – the most striking examples being
the invasions of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) – and on a few occasions
terrorist organizations even managed to achieve their goal by prompting states
to change their policy.
The
reason is to be found in the operational/psychological level, which represents
the essential linkage between the other two. As a matter of fact,
tactical-material actions are practically useless by themselves, due to the
aforementioned material disparity between terrorists and states; but they can
have a disproportionate impact due to their psychological effects. Fear is an
essential force multiplier for terrorism – after all, as the etymology
suggests, it is the act of instigating panic among the target audience that
constitutes the quintessential feature of terrorism. This must be taken into
duly account when trying to define, understand, and most importantly counter
it. By the means of a traumatizing violent act, terrorists seek to create a
shock that will change the audience’s perceptions in line with their interests;
thereby compensating for their marked inferiority in terms of material
capabilities. Differently said, the cognitive sphere is the most important
domain for terrorists, as their attacks are largely – if not exclusively –
meant to achieve a psychological goal.
But for
this strategy to be effective, the terrorists’ actions must reach the intended
audience; and this raises a fundamental – yet often neglected – aspect of
(counter-)terrorism: The role played by the media.
To some
degree, terrorists are themselves capable of using rather advanced
communications techniques to ‘advertise’ their actions in order to radicalize
sympathisers (who can be considered as a secondary target audience) via
propaganda and push them to join their ranks. The self-proclaimed Islamic State
has demonstrated remarkable skills in producing videoclips resembling movie or
game trailers to promote its agenda. However, this is not sufficient to reach
the main target audience, composed of individuals who do not follow the
terrorists’ own communication channels and instead rely on mainstream mass
media for news. As a result, terrorist must imperatively attract the attention
of the latter, since they represent the vector through which they can achieve their
operational/psychological goal of frightening the public. In other words, for
terrorists the media are an essential resonance chamber that plays a central
role in maximizing the cognitive impact of their attacks. This is why they
strike symbolic targets, strive to inflict as much victims/damage as possible
and revendicate their actions: The more ‘spectacular’ the attack, the greater
the mediatic coverage it will receive and the psychological impact it will
have; all while providing terrorists with a powerful propaganda tool by
drastically increasing their prestige among potential recruits. Therefore, the
capacity to shock the public and to ‘mediatize’ the attacks are two strictly
intertwined aspects of paramount importance for terrorists.
This has
deep implications in the post-attack phase of counter-terrorism in both policy
and ethical terms. Currently, the main preventive areas of counter-terrorism
policies are preventing radicalization, monitoring radicalized individuals,
denying them access to the financial and material resources they need and
adequately protecting potential targets. These measures are surely important in
averting an attack to occur in the first place and in reacting adequately when
it happens, but they face complex challenges: Terrorists operate in the
shadows, scattered in the mass, and are therefore difficult to detect; in many
cases their activities are based in other (sometimes distant) states, and thus
in different jurisdictions; and finally they are a reactive enemy seeking to circumvent
the measures implemented to stop them. And if they succeed in carrying out an
attack, then it is too late for preventive policies to be effective. At that
point counter-terrorism enters in the post-attack phase, which revolves around
securing the attacked area, assisting the victims, and trying to catch the
terrorists to prevent further violence, collect intelligence and put them on
trial. But in all this, and in spite of its crucial importance – since it
enables terrorists to achieve their main goal of spreading fear among the
target audience – the role of media is neglected.
The mediatization
of a terrorist attack depends on multiple factors; but three play a major role.
The first is the number of casualties: The higher the figures, the greater the
mediatic reporting. The second is the socio-cultural gap between the attackers
and the victims: If the divergence is significant, the media will tend to focus
more on the event. The third aspect is the location: An attack in a stable and
secure country with low levels of political violence will be more shocking (and
therefore receive greater coverage) than one in a failed state crippled by
civil war. Contrarily to what may be expected, the number of casualties is
arguably less important than the other two factors. Even if an attack is less
deadly, it will receive far greater global coverage if it is perpetrated in a
stable and developed country by terrorists from a different socio-cultural
background than that of their targets. Differently said, even if it causes a
relatively limited number of casualties, a Jihadi attack against Christians in
a Western city will receive much more mediatic attention than a far deadlier
attack perpetrated by Muslims against Muslims in Kabul.
The
location is probably the most important of the three factors, because striking
in a metropolitan area at the heart of a stable country maximizes fear among
the target audience, which is exactly what the terrorists aim at. At the same
time, such kind of attack is more shocking and therefore more appealing to the
media; meaning that it will quickly hit the headlines and will remain there for
days to follow with continuous coverage on the latest developments. And this
reveals the subtle, somehow twisted but extremely important link between
terrorism and the media: Albeit involuntarily, the latter constitute a
tremendous resonance chamber reverberating the terrorists’ dreadful message
across the world, enabling them to bring fear directly in the houses of the
target audience in a manner that would otherwise be far beyond their limited
means.
This
brings back to the considerable implications of how the media affect
counter-terrorism policies. While citizens have all the right to be informed
about terrorist attacks, as they represent major disturbances to public peace
and a criminal aggression against society, the way the media cover such events
is in the large majority of cases inappropriate.
A
general premise is necessary here. The task of the media is, or at least should
be, to inform. This implies providing factual, accurate and objective reporting
on matters of public interest, and is of fundamental importance for any
democratic society. However, this role has been supplemented by a
(profit-driven) trend where the media, instead of informing, focus on narrating
in order to maximize their audience share. This general tendency is even
reflected in journalism job ads, where it is not uncommon to read requirements
like ‘strong and convincing story-telling skills’. However, the job of a journalist
is not to tell stories. That is the task of novelist and film makers. However,
and regrettably, this ‘narrative’ approach has become rather common; and this
is particularly problematic when dealing with sensitive events like terrorist
attacks.
What
media outlets are supposed to do, especially under such emergency
circumstances, is to provide facts. Instead, they often rush for
sensationalistic headlines, they report any kind of unverified rumors and they
constantly reproduce shocking images. Sometimes they push even further,
crafting melodramatic press reports appealing to the spectator’s feelings by
combining martyr-like accounts on the personal life of the victims with
saddening music in the background.
Apart
from not corresponding to the rigorous attitude that reporting should imply and
from raising ethical concerns about the exploitation of tragical events for
increasing share, this is also detrimental to counter-terrorism efforts. This
kind of emotional coverage risks to fuel social tension and to harm the
long-term effectiveness of anti-radicalization policies. By de-rationalizing
the collective perception of terrorism and funneling an emotion-driven
reaction, this mediatic approach may create the unfounded impression among the
population that all individuals belonging to the same political, ethnic and/or
religious groups as the terrorist all represent a threat. This may result into
prejudice and discrimination that in turn will generate a specular reaction of
diffidence among members of these groups, possibly to the point of pushing them
to radicalization. In short, it aliments a vicious cycle of mutual enmity with
detrimental effects in the long run.
Yet, the
main reason why the intensive and emotion-based coverage of terrorist attacks
by the media represents a problem is that it plays in favor of the terrorists
themselves, as it does exactly what they seek: Disseminating fear and sense of
insecurity among the target audience, thus allowing them to attain their
operational-psychological objective. This in turn may push governments to
ill-fated domestic and foreign policy choices: To give two prominent real-life
examples, the reported use of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo or the
invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
In the
light of the above, it is clear that the medias’ approach to terrorism should
change. The shift should come from the media themselves, who should take
conscience of the problem and start practicing self-restraint. Instead of
posting sensationalistic headlines, or even worse producing drama-like
coverage, they should simply present facts to inform people; as they are
supposed to do. In covering the attack, they should limit themselves to
announce that an attack has taken place in a certain place, concisely describe
what happened, mention the number of victims and the measures implemented by
law enforcement authorities to restore security. All other information is
basically an unnecessary and detrimental ‘spectacularisation’ of the event
which plays in the terrorists’ favor. In the absence of such self-restraint,
there would be no other choice than introducing legally-binding regulations on
the mediatic coverage of terrorist attacks; but this may represent a dangerous
precedent in a democratic society.
This
kind of approach may seem cold and excessively detached, but it is necessary
when considering the particular challenges of countering terrorism, which
exactly requires a rational and objective approach to circumscribe the
psychological effects the terrorists seek. In order to compensate for their
material inferiority, terrorists use violence and leverage on our fears to
coerce us; but we must never forget that we are far stronger and that they
cannot win with force alone. The media should not revert this balance of power
by creating a false perception that plays in the terrorists’ favor.
***Alessandro
Gagaridis, See more from Alessandro: http://www.strategikos.it/