The word terrorism is a significant word. One which has captured the fear in people’s hearts in the way it connotes destruction, war, killing and violence. After the pivotal event of 9/11, this was made more apparent and the term was generally used in a pejorative way. This article attempts to examine the ideologies and the historical approach to reporting terrorism in the TV news media with particular attention to the British TV news media. Analysis will be made of TV news reports and the implications these reports can have for the audience. Terrorist related events will be examined looking at the ideologies behind them. A survey will be done to show the public perception of terrorism in the news. The article will argue that the mainstream media distort the reality of events in order to achieve their news value, helping the terrorists in their aims and consequently changing society’s perception of terrorists.
There is no universal definition of terrorism, since there are so many different types of terrorist acts. Attempts by the UN and other international bodies to define term, was made into a book which runs to three volumes and 1,866 pages without reaching any real conclusion. The word terrorism was first coined by Edmund Burke, describing his dislike for the ‘state terror’ which was prevalent in the French Revolution in 1793-1794. (Gerwehr, Hubbard, 2007:90). Interestingly one of the influential figures of the French Revolution Maximilien Robespierre says: “Terror is nothing than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible: it is therefore an emanation of virtue.” (Gerwehr, Hubbard, 2007:90). Maximilien undoubtedly believed sincerely in what he said, and this also goes for the modern day terrorist. They sincerely believe in what they fight for since they have an ideology which motivates them.
One definition can be seen from the Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Anan, as he presented in his address to the International Summit on “Democracy, Terrorism and Security” on March 10, 2005 in Madrid. He said: “Any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians and non-combatants, with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from any act.”
The Oxford definition of the term is: “The unofficial use of violence and intimidation in an attempt to achieve political aims.” (Oxford Dictionary, 2007: 575). The Cambridge dictionary defines it as: “(threats of) violent action for political purposes.” You’ll notice the word ‘political’ being mentioned and this is what the majority of people believe terrorism to be – a politically motivated attack.
This has led some to argue that terrorism is a political ideology, with the main aim being to frighten or create a psychological impact on its targets, and provoking a reaction which will consequently or most definitely involve the media. The mass media is responsible for so much of the information the world receives and usually has a big role to play in fulfilling the terrorist’s goals. As Papacharissi and Oliveira tell us: “...terrorist acts are reified in the presence of media who cover, and thus publicize, the terrorist act.” (Papacharissi, Oliveira, 2008: 55).
Terrorist acts unfortunately possess news value elements such as drama, visuals, sound bites, relevance, and “general newsworthiness” and it is this “newsworthiness” in today’s time, which terrorist groups frequently use and exploit in order to further their agendas. (Papacharissi, Oliveira, 2008: 55). The news value that terrorism has is immense since it is something which not only captures the audience’s attention especially in the west (due to terrorist incidents of 9/11 and the 7/7 tube bombings in London) but also because of the mixture of fear and hatred that the general public have for these ‘terrorists’. The media is responsible for making people more fearful of terrorist acts because of the amount it actually reports. An example can be seen, as John Lewis points out that international terrorism has been the main topic of interest in this generation with many more news stories being produced since 2001 than they were in 1981, when in fact more terrorist activities were prevalent back then. (Harcup, 2007:55). Lewis argues that this kind of coverage “...distorts our perception of risk” and thus leading the audience to be less fearful of other big dangers like global warming for example since the media changes our perception of the world and also reflects it. (Harcup, 2007:55).
The TV news media in particular is a medium which is very powerful. Dr. Ronald Meinardus argues that whenever the “terrorists” make their move and provoke a reaction, the media play a central role: “There are those who argue that terrorism is basically a communications strategy. While that may be too one sided, I believe that terrorism as we know it today, would be inconceivable without the power of the global media, and particularly the global television networks.”
TV along with the internet, radio, newspapers, magazines, and books, has become an ‘Information highway’ and is quite a valuable source of information as Nicholas Abercrombie tells us: “Our everyday lives are so interwoven with the media that we are scarcely aware of them.” (Abercrombie, 1996: 2). Many people use TV as their essential news source and it is this news source which people use as their ‘window to the rest of the world’. Nick Lacey tells us: “In Britain, television news has greater credibility than printed news, and the BBC more so than ITN. This is probably because of the combination of a press that is too obviously partisan and the strength of the myth that ‘seeing is believing’. (Lacey, 2009:267). Seeing images, especially video footage adds an element of realism which helps the news organization to further represent their ideological values.
However, although TV adds to the strength of ‘seeing is believing’, Philip Taylor argues that once war breaks out there are two types, the “Real War” and the “Media War”. He states: “Real war is about sounds, sight, smell, touch and taste of the nasty, brutal business of killing people...Media war, however, is literally a mediated event which draws on that reality but which in, and of itself, is confined to merely an audio-visual – and therefore inherently desensitizing – representation of it.” (Dodds, 2007: 222). So in actual fact whatever we see in front on our TV screens can never be the actual representation of the event, but only a mere representation of what the TV news network wants us, the audience to see and as Jonathan Bignell tells us: “Newspapers and other news media shape what can be thought of as news, by reporting some events and excluding others. So news discourse is an ideological representation of the world because it selects what will be reported, and sets the terms of what is significant.” (Bignell, 2002:80).
But when reporting terrorism there seems to be a dilemma for journalists which raises ethical and ideological questions. Shurkin explains the dilemma quite well as he says: “The media find themselves in a dysfunctional position relative to terrorism. On one hand they must report terrorist attacks as they happen. On the other, they are part of the reason these incidents occur in the first place...In its most cynical form, the image is of terrorists using the media as a conduit for their message and the media using the terrorists for dramatic stories. ” (Shurkin, 2007: 81,82).
This is particularly true in the way Islamic terrorists have actually gained a platform to voice their opinion on TV in the form of video interviews. Terrorist groups can go to great lengths to gain control over the way in which their message is transmitted and received. For example they tend to provide journalists with “firsthand” videotapes of attacks in order to make sure that their version of events controls the airwaves and not the governments. (Gerwehr, Hubbard, 2007: 92).
Although in the case of Kenneth Bigley, this is not so apparent. The terrorists gave the Arab television network Abu Dhabi, the video tape of Bigley’s execution in which afterwards they posted it on the internet . This wasn’t to dominate the airwaves but to hit their intended audience with a psychological impact. This is the main purpose of terrorist related attacks; they create fear in the people hearts, and an execution as unfortunate as Bigley’s would have surely put a scar on the audience’s heart. It could be argued the British media inflamed this fear, in the amount of coverage the story had received, consequently resulting in the media’s criticism. The effects of this kind of reporting created the fear that more British people in the future would be kidnapped by terrorists – just exactly what the terrorist wanted.
The independent news network of the Middle East, Al-Jazeera is known for its daring attitude with its controversial coverage into reporting terrorism. It became famous worldwide for showing exclusive interviews with Osama Bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks earning it the nickname as the “Bin Laden Channel”. The news network is criticized for having a biased attitude towards ‘the west’ with its lack of objectivity and giving a voice to terrorists.
However the Deputy Executive Director of Al-Jazeera's London bureau, Yosri Fouda says: "We always try to provide as comprehensive a picture as possible. We don't only reflect one angle and this is why some governments are unhappy with what we do. Al-Jazeera is a cultural, political and social phenomenon - it’s teaching people about things like civil society, human rights and voting - many governments in our part of the world are not happy with such things." He argues that no news organization would not have aired the Bin Laden tape. While it is probably true that any news network with the Bin Laden tape would have aired it on their channel, one thing does come to mind though – is it ethically correct? Showcasing a terrorist on national television can be severe and have dire consequences. The people watching, particularly those with strong feelings against the US would just get even more inflamed and their hatred for the ‘west’ would just increase.
According to Dr Naomi Sakr, it’s not the channel which has an anti-US agenda, but the fact that it is reflecting the “anti-American feeling”: “What we are seeing is the pent-up frustration of people in a part of the world where there is no free media. Al-Jazeera focuses on the issues that they are pre-occupied with - the Palestinian situation, Iraq and levels of poverty and social exclusion in Arab countries. People find it hard not to blame the US for the problems in the Middle East." Al-Jazeera could be compared to likes of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News, in the way both channels have nationalistic ideals. In the eyes of an Arab, Al-Jazeera is much more credible than any of the other international news sources, mainly because most of the journalists there are Arabs themselves and also because in the way it’s hailed as a ‘revolutionary force’, and the only channel telling the “story straight.”
The reporting of terrorism or terrorist acts, may lead one to think about why are these ‘so called’ terrorists, actually terrorists? How do we know which news source is conveying the correct information about these terrorists? One thing that nearly all terrorists portray themselves as is freedom fighters, who are fighting for a ‘righteous cause’. The most famous terrorist attack in British history was known as the Gun Powder plot of 1605. Robert Catesby – a staunch catholic, led the plot, which was an assassination attempt to kill King James I along with the protestant aristocracy by blowing up the Houses of Parliament. Other conspirators also joined Catesby in an attempt to kill off the King in a bid to make protestant England a more ‘catholic’ country, including the infamous Guy Fawkes who was the explosives expert in the plot and responsible for setting off the bombs.
Catesby felt he had to do something in order to change the countries religious beliefs and he is reported to have said: "The nature of the disease required so sharp a remedy", meaning to say that he thought the plot was a “morally justifiable act of self-defense against the oppressive rule of a tyrant” . He saw the plot as an act of last resort, and was determined to try and solve the “ills by peaceful means and without bloodshed” . So were these people freedom fighters, fighting for a good cause? Catesby wanted to try another means but felt he was led to compulsion to carry out the plot. But whatever the situation, how can one call themselves ‘freedom fighters’ by trying to kill or blow up people, thus taking freedom from others by consequently taking away their lives?
This assassination attempt or terrorist attack was a religiously fuelled attack and is still remembered and venerated to this day as Guy Fawkes Night or Bonfire Night. Families and children alike come together and set off fireworks enjoying the colourful delights of what is essentially commemorating a deadly terrorist attack; which if successful, would have probably killed several people along with many casualties. A recent BBC news report about the City of York not having fireworks this year because of costs, started off showing a reconstruction of the event of the Gun Powder plot where by a barrel is seen being lit by presumably Guy Fawkes himself .
The non-diagetic background music used here is some classical music with violins. Nick Lacey tells us that: “Music not only adds meanings generated by the image; it also creates meanings. (Lacey, 2009: 62). This suggests that the Gun Powder plot in the BBC news report is being ‘desensitized’ through the use of calm and tranquil violins being played and thus the “meaning” which Lacey talks about being conveyed here, is that ‘there is no real danger’. The commentary over this scene says: “He is easily Yorks most infamous son, Guy Fawkes, one of the world’s first terrorists and the explosives expert of the gun powder plot.” It’s as if Guy Fawkes is being praised in the way he is being referred to as “one of the world’s first terrorists,” since the noun “worlds” is being used as an adjective to describe Fawkes’s position when compared to the ‘whole world’.
Consequently as the media desensitize the incident of the gun powder plot the more people think of it as a cause of celebration. This is another way the media can change society’s perception. Why should something like this especially in this day and age be celebrated? Why are we all remembering a terrorist? Should we all then venerate the event of 9/11? – What’s the difference? Both had the intent to kill and destroy with 9/11 only being successful in its intent. Both had a sense of injustice felt towards their nations or people – with the Catholics being subject to persecution in Britain in the period of Kings James I and the Muslims being persecuted in their own lands by America whether directly in Afghanistan or indirectly through regime support.
Bin Laden seemed to believe he was striking back in retribution for injustices carried out against Islam and Muslims as he explains on a video tape shown on Al Jazeera on October 29, 2004: And I tell you, God only knows, that we never had the intentions to destroy the towers. But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers.
It can be seen here that Bin Laden felt a strong need to fight back against the “transgressors” and seemingly did so through the 9/11 attacks. Some of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon along with some Lebanese were celebrating the attacks by giving out sweets to everybody out on the streets. One Lebanese said to a Reuters camera crew: "People are happy. America has always supported terrorism. They see how the innocent Palestinian children are killed and they back the Zionist army that does it. America has never been on the side of justice." Muhammad Rasheed, a Palestinian said: "This is the language that the United States understands and this is the way to stop America from helping the Zionist terrorists who are killing our children, men and women every day." From these responses it can be clearly seen that Osama Bin Laden was seen as a hero and a freedom fighter for all those Muslims who have been oppressed in the world by America. Just as the saying goes, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” the Palestinians and Lebanese saw America as the ‘real’ terrorist.
Both the 9/11 and the Gun powder plot, were seen as attacks against symbols of power, with a high collateral damage or the potential to do so. They were more to do with a rebellion against what was seen by the individuals as oppression which was then stained with a facade of ‘religious righteousness’. In the contemporary era this is commonly known as religious fundamentalism. An ideology which literally means to strictly adhere to the principles of the religious scriptures be it the Quran or the Bible or any other religious text. This reinforces ones perception of fighting against the ‘enemy’ since they are now fighting for the sake of God, thus making the reason for fighting even stronger. The ideology of fundamentalism nowadays, is currently only ever associated with ‘Islamic fundamentalism.’ This association has become the norm in western media in which Elizabeth Poole states: “All Muslim acts interpreted as extreme are then constituted as fundamentalism, which is then linked to terrorism.” (Poole, 2002: 46). Although the danger here is that association of violent Islamic Fundamentalism and Islam in the western media, has made the younger and more vulnerable Muslims feel that they need to become fundamentalists in order to become better Muslims, thus creating a new breed of radicalized terrorists.
Another ideology which governs the way some terrorist’s work is nationalism. The IRA in particular is known for their patriotism. Their aim to create a united Ireland away from British interference propels them on in their long standing cause. Interestingly the PIRA (Provisional Ireland Republican Army) is an offshoot of the IRA and the RIRA (Real Ireland Republican Army) are an offshoot of the PIRA. These splits were mainly because of ideological differences and the sharing of power with other political parties.
The famous Hunger Strike incident involving 10 PIRA and INLA (Irish National Liberation Army) members in Belfast’s Maze Prison, 1981, was an act of self starvation. They literally starved themselves to death for their demand to be recognized as ‘political’ prisoners rather than ‘criminals’ or terrorists. (Merari, 2007: 109). This suicidal act could be compared to that of suicidal bombers, since both acts have a political intent behind them – the only difference being that the ‘hunger strikers’ only harmed themselves in the process. Although it can be argued that these people were real freedom fighters since they harmed know one and their determination for not to be referred to as terrorists or criminals was such, that they actually sacrificed their very lives.
But what was the driving force of this incredible sacrifice? According to Areil Merari self starvation is an extremely demanding way to die more so than that of an “instantaneous self-inflicted explosion”. He says: “The suicide was part of a contract that no one could break. The group pressure in that situation was as strong as the group pressure that led hundreds of thousands of soldiers in World War 1 to charge against the enemy machine gun fire and artillery to almost sure death.”(Merari , 2007: 109). It was these nationalistic ideals which turned the IRA members into martyrs in the eyes of many Irish citizens for standing up against the British government in its criminalization of “Ireland’s long and noble fight for freedom”. As a result, this made more people political aware and thus launching the success of the IRA’s political wing, Sinn Fein and the many electoral success that followed. The media however seem to make out the situation in Ireland involving the RIRA, who many Irish regard as ruthless thugs, and Sinn Fein is getting progressively worse.
The most recent RIRA attack on two soldiers gunned down outside their Ulster Barracks was described mainly as a “chilling” terrorist attack . A TV news report of the incident by Sky News shows Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, Martin McGuiness who was a former leader of the PIRA and now an active Sinn Fein politician, in the report saying: “These people are traitors in the island of Ireland.” He is then shown in stylized black and white shot in front of photographers – the footage being in slow motion. The juxtaposition of the two shots shows McGuiness as somewhat sinister suggesting that he should not be trusted and the commentary then says: “That sort of language from a man who used to be right at the top of the IRA tree angered hard line republicans who today declared as an enemy, the man they once regarded as a leading figure in their movement.” Interestingly the news report quotes him saying, the RIRA terrorists are the traitors whereas the commentary portrays him as a traitor to the republicans.
Fear and drama is also created in the report by using footage from an actual RIRA member wearing a black mask speaking about killing the “British occupation forces, when, whenever and wherever” they decide. Lacey tells us that in news reports: “Dramatic tension is often invoked through the use of a binary opposite [...]” (Lacey, 2009: 265). It can be suggested that use of binary oppositions plays a big role here in telling the audience that it’s the RIRA terrorists versus the British soldiers or essentially Britain itself. Also the stern and masculine commentary used here is a sign of the danger these terrorists impose . This is where the news value element comes into the story since without any real ‘enemy’ there is no value to the story and as Lacey says: “This tension is the narrative disruption that needs to be resolved, and without which there is no story.” (Lacey, 2009: 265). But if the story itself gives the audience a “chilling” feeling of fear, isn’t this in reality helping the RIRA terrorists in their motives? This suggests to us again that the terrorists use the media to their advantage and the news media always fall into this trap on the premise of news value.
Since the news industry is a business with its own commercial self interest it is essentially a ‘social construction of reality’. (Fowler, 1991:2). Taking this into account we can see that journalist’s are in a sense limited by the bounds of time, money and hierarchy. According Robert Fowler: “The world of the press is not the real world, but a world skewed and judged.” (Fowler, 1991: 11) Everything that is said or written in the news is done from an ideological position, since language itself is something which is not “clear” but rather a “structuring medium”. (Fowler,1991: 10). Media ownership can play a big part in this ‘bias’ nature of news organizations as Nick Davies tells us: “Owners can and do interfere in the editorial process of their outlets.” (Davies, 2008:15). One proprietor shows this power quite well. Since September 11th, Rupert Murdoch’s media outlets all around the globe were like “propaganda arms” of the Bush Administration, shaming anybody who dares to question the President’s ‘War on Terror’. Interference of owners does raise ethical questions about how the media is regulated because surely if owners let their medium run freely, society’s perception of the world will become more distorted, especially with regards to terrorism.
Unlike the PCC, Ofcom the Broadcast regulator in the UK is backed by law which makes sure that any Broadcasting organisation which breaks the ‘Ofcom code’ can be fined or have its license revoked. (Harcup, 2007: 116). One of the codes which Ofcom has and which every broadcast news organisation in the UK endeavours to follow is the “5.1 Due Impartiality” code . In the recent Gaza crisis the BBC chose not to air the Emergency Aid appeal by DEC because of this “impartiality” code . Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC said: “It is sometimes not a comfortable place to be, but we have a duty to ensure that nothing risks undermining our impartiality. It is to protect that impartiality that we have made this difficult decision.”
Many people who saw the Gaza crisis on TV saw the Israeli army as the real terrorists, mainly because of the indifference towards the numbers killed with at least 1,300 Palestinians killed compared to the 13 Israelis killed in the war. While it is true that the BBC may have had its reputation on the line and as Thompson puts it: “[...] without running the risk of reducing public confidence in the BBC's impartiality in its wider coverage of the story” , the fact that they never aired the appeal made more people lose confidence in the BBC and actually it underlined their partiality towards Israel. In a joint letter, Jeremy Dear and Gerry Morrissey represented thousands of BBC staff and said the move risked being seen as "politically motivated" . They said: "Far from avoiding the compromise of the BBC's impartiality, this move has breached those same BBC rules by showing a bias in favour of Israel at the expense of 1.5 million Palestinian civilians suffering an acute humanitarian crisis." One BBC news source even said most of the anger is at BBC’s top management. This conflict demonstrates even news values can sometimes be taken over due to ‘political impartiality’ and interference from the ‘big boys at the top’.
So what is the public’s perception of the terrorism in the news? A survey was carried out using 20 consumers of TV news from the ages of 18-50.
Most participants agree that terrorists are bad people but there a few (15%) who believe that they can good people as well. Interestingly 60% of the participants say they don’t believe at all what the news tells them about terrorism but they seem to think that other believe do fall for the “media lies” with 90% of the participants agreeing to this. Davies tells us that many media experts, academics, students, politicians and consumers say they cannot believe everything in the media: “[...] and yet repeatedly many of them fall for explanations which are themselves infiltrated by falsehood, distortion and propaganda.”(Davies, 2008: 13). The survey also reinforces the fact that people use the TV news media as their main information portal for information on terrorist related events.
What is worrying here is that not one person refers to any books for the source of information making it even easier for news organizations to lure them in to their ideological values. Overall the myth of ‘seeing is believing’ still stands strong with TV news media and may do for a very long time. The reportage of terrorism has been always done with news value as its reward, with little disregard to the implications of how dramatising an event can affect the audience. Covering terrorism is like playing with dynamite since the journalist’s ideological values may come to help the terrorist in their motives – and further them in their goals of creating fear in the audience. The saying of “ones mans terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is true when you look at both sides of the story-something which is lacking in TV news media. So it seems journalists have a hard job in maintaining an objective stance because the truth of the matter is journalists can never be objective. Ownership, ideologies and news value always come in the way of reporting an impartial story.
Bibliography
Abercrombie, Nicholas (1996) Television and Society, Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Bignell, Jonathan (2002), Media Semiotics: An Introduction, Manchester: University Press
Besley, Andrews and Chadwick, Ruth (1992) Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media, London: Routledge
Bonger, B., Brown, L M., Beutler, L E., Breckenridge, J N., Zimbardo, P G., (eds) (2007) Psychology of Terrorism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Connelly, Mark, Welch, David (eds) (2007) War and the Media: Reportage and Propaganda, London: IB Tuaris
Davies, Chris (2008) Flat Earth News, London: Chatto and Windus
Fowler, Roger (1991) Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press, London: Routledge
Gerwehr,S. and Hubbard, K., (2007) What Is Terrorism: Key Elements and History, in Psychology of Terrorism, Ch 7.
Harcup, Tony (2007) The Ethical Journalist, London: Sage Publications
Lacey, Nick (1998) Image and Representation – Key Concepts in Media Studies, London: MACMILLAN PRESS LTD
Merari, Ariel (2007) Psychological Aspects of Suicide Terrorism, in Psychology of Terrorism, Ch 8.
Papacharissi, Z., and Oliveria, F. (2008) ‘News Frames Terrorism: A comparative Analysis of Frames Employed in Terrorism Coverage in U.S and U.K Newspapers’, in The International Journal of Press/Politics v13 n1.
Poole, Elizabeth (2009) Reporting Islam: Media Representations of British Muslims, London: IB Tauris
Said, Edward (1997) Covering Islam – How the Media and the Experts determine how we see the rest of the world, New York: Vintage Books.
Shurkin, Joel N. (2007) Terrorism and the Media, in Psychology of Terrorism, Ch 6.
Tumber, Howard and Webster, Frank (2006) Journalists under Fire: Information war and Journalistic Practices, London: Sage Publications
