The Atlantic has a very good article on media and their role in terror. A really interesting tidbit was this quote from Margaret Thatcher in 1985 that sums up my thoughts more succinctly:
Quote:
Civilised societies cannot use the weapons of terrorism to fight the terrorist. But we must take every possible precaution to protect ourselves … And we must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend. In our societies we do not believe in constraining the media, still less in censorship. But ought we not to ask the media to agree among themselves a voluntary code of conduct, a code under which they would not say or show anything which could assist the terrorists’ morale or their cause while the hijack lasted?
Sorry to spam post, but some more from that article:
Quote:
Even if further research bears out those findings, I do not believe it desirable, or tenable, for terrorist attacks to go unreported. But a United Nations#report#was persuasive when declaring, “the relationship between terrorism and media is complex and fraught. At its worst, it is a perverse symbiotic relationship – terrorist groups devising spectacles of violence to continue drawing the world’s attention, and the media incentivised to provide wall-to-wall coverage due to huge audience interest.”
Or as Brian Jenkins put it, “Terrorism is aimed at the people watching, not at the actual victims.”
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
I thought that was made clear many posts ago.
Because it takes the NI conflict data out of the pool.
Which I feel are misleading and carry far too much weight when taken in context with the current terror threat. Which is exampled by how the data drops off after the 1998 ceasefire.
Why do you feel they are relevant from a risk perception pov to the current threat?
Because it shows unrest in the area which is (very) small.
You say it's misleading... but to who? The article is from Maclean's and is directed at Canadians, which reminds us that the area is safer today than it was 30 years ago despite the rise in Islamic terrorism. Despite this graph including Northern Ireland, it still accurately conveys that facts that terrorist attacks in England were more common and constant in the 70s and 80s than they are today.
Terrorism in the U.K., including in each of its members, is less a concern than it was pre-2001. It's not like the UK is going to read that and be confused about where they should feel safe. They know the difference between England and NI. Maybe Canadians don't... but why should a Canadian be concerned about terrorism in the U.K. at all if even the distance between Belfast and London is a huge factor for you?
Terrorism and other homicide are not the same animals under different names, though. No more than a lynching is the same as, say, a murder during a mugging. That graph is all well and good but I think even the statement “Terrorism is aimed at the people watching, not at the actual victims" makes the point that the two aren't particularly comparable.
As for the Northern Ireland thing, what exactly is the argument here? We now have occasional brutal mass-murders in the UK based on religious grievances, but thirty years ago we had even more of them, so... no worries? Even if you want to compare the troubles to the current jihadi insurgency (and there are lots of reasons for distinguishing them that have been discussed), well, everyone seemed to want to understand and eliminate the source of the violence 30 years ago. It was possibly the most pressing and substantial issue of domestic policy for years. Why wouldn't this new flavour of violence provoke a similar motivation? Why would people care any less about it?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I believe the argument is that media coverage/availability (the 24/7 news cycle) has removed the context and contributed to the culture of fear surrounding terrorism which, to a lot of people, seems very scary and concerning, but is very far down the list of things to be worried about and is probably considered a "low" period of terrorism in most U.K. citizens lifetimes.
Fear is absolutely central to the success of terrorism, so it should be viewed as "extremely problematic" that there is something within our responsibility that is greatly improving the effectiveness of terrorism.
The Atlantic has a very good article on media and their role in terror. A really interesting tidbit was this quote from Margaret Thatcher in 1985 that sums up my thoughts more succinctly:
In theory, it would be great if terrorists were given minimal attention. I am not sure that this is a realistic request though. The public has an interest in knowing when and where terrorist attacks occur, and who is doing them. Plus, there are so many independent media these days given the internet, that you would never be able to facilitate an agreement.
Information travels almost instantly these days and if the mainstream media stops reporting with detail, then the mainstream public will find the information where they want to. It's very difficult to launch and fight a propaganda war without state controlled media, and I am sure most people would not want to bend on the fundamental democratic principle (except maybe guys like Trump and Putin).
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
In theory, it would be great if terrorists were given minimal attention. I am not sure that this is a realistic request though. The public has an interest in knowing when and where terrorist attacks occur, and who is doing them. Plus, there are so many independent media these days given the internet, that you would never be able to facilitate an agreement.
Information travels almost instantly these days and if the mainstream media stops reporting with detail, then the mainstream public will find the information where they want to. It's very difficult to launch and fight a propaganda war without state controlled media, and I am sure most people would not want to bend on the fundamental democratic principle (except maybe guys like Trump and Putin).
Do you actually believe that terrorism would go away if it wasn't covered?
Terrorists aren't simple they aren't doing this just to seek attention, they're doing it to kill and to further fear.
So if lets say the media says nope, we're going to give minimal attention to this, the terrorists would simply up their ante and commit larger acts of terror to swing the attention back.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Do you actually believe that terrorism would go away if it wasn't covered?
Terrorists aren't simple they aren't doing this just to seek attention, they're doing it to kill and to further fear.
So if lets say the media says nope, we're going to give minimal attention to this, the terrorists would simply up their ante and commit larger acts of terror to swing the attention back.
That's under the assumption that they're limiting the scale of their attacks currently, which doesn't make any sense to me.
You think there are terrorist organisations out there thinking "hey, we could do more, but we'll scale it down to a handful of casualties once in a while."
1. Why would they scale down below their capability
2. Doesn't the idea that terrorist organisations are capable of more but are satisfied with their current level all but confirm that the level of media attention is center to their goal? If they wanted to kill the maximum number of people why not do it now? You think lower media attention is going to increase it? Why?
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Do you actually believe that terrorism would go away if it wasn't covered?
Terrorists aren't simple they aren't doing this just to seek attention, they're doing it to kill and to further fear.
So if lets say the media says nope, we're going to give minimal attention to this, the terrorists would simply up their ante and commit larger acts of terror to swing the attention back.
I think people would feel less terrorized and be less inclined to give up freedoms and embrace bigoted laws in order to fight terrorism if it was covered less in the media.
So if lets say the media says nope, we're going to give minimal attention to this, the terrorists would simply up their ante and commit larger acts of terror to swing the attention back.
You're suggesting that they're somehow holding back now. They're not. They declared "all out war" long ago, and have already been doing the biggest strikes they possibly can, as often as they can. If they figure out a way to go bigger, they're gonna do it already.
Do you actually believe that terrorism would go away if it wasn't covered?
Terrorists aren't simple they aren't doing this just to seek attention, they're doing it to kill and to further fear.
So if lets say the media says nope, we're going to give minimal attention to this, the terrorists would simply up their ante and commit larger acts of terror to swing the attention back.
That's a loaded question with no room for nuance, cap. "Would terrorism go away without media coverage?" "Well, I guess not entirely bu......." "Exactly, it wouldn't go away!".
The question is whether we'd see a reduction in terror attacks if they weren't glorified and magnified with 24 coverage and constant fear instilled and reinforced by governments?
Its not that they're holding back at all, by up the ante, these thugs, and pieces of human garbage would increase their frequency, on top of the whole concept of the goal of terrorism is to terrorize, the other goal of terrorism is to keep a populace in fear, and constantly looking over their shoulder, and to create an ultimate system of submission.
So lets say that the media tomorrow, said that they're not going to pay attention or report in depth.
These groups would certainly not go away, they'd try to find ways to force themselves back into the public eye. The question is then asked, in the absence of attention, what would they do to get that attention back.
Are they holding back now? Certainly not, but what are they willing to do to stay relevant, the envelope that they push today? How far will they push it tomorrow.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Because it shows unrest in the area which is (very) small.
But it doesn't specify NI
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
You say it's misleading... but to who?
I would say to the average North American who if you mention UK to them their primary thought will be England.
As mentioned the simple thing to do would have been to colour code the NI data separately to allow the reader to view the magnitude of events that came from there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Despite this graph including Northern Ireland, it still accurately conveys that facts that terrorist attacks in England were more common and constant in the 70s and 80s than they are today.
How did you manage to come to this conclusion simply by reading the graph?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
but why should a Canadian be concerned about terrorism in the U.K. at all if even the distance between Belfast and London is a huge factor for you?
I don't know. I didn't present the graph. Just commented on how silly it is.
The distance is not a factor. The fact that over 90% of the data on the graph was primarily located in a very small area with a geographical barrier is more my point. Deserves as mentioned a colour code of its own to avoid confusion or at the very least a footnote.
The Atlantic has a very good article on media and their role in terror. A really interesting tidbit was this quote from Margaret Thatcher in 1985 that sums up my thoughts more succinctly:
In our societies we do not believe in constraining the media, still less in censorship. But ought we not to ask the media to agree among themselves a voluntary code of conduct, a code under which they would not say or show anything which could assist the terrorists’ morale or their cause while the hijack lasted?
Very timely to how the thread has moved. Good old Thatcher says that in 1985 and then introduces government censorship of the media in 1988. BBC looks back at her Broadcast ban and how it backfired.
Worth noting, before the age of the internet.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Bagor For This Useful Post:
The question is whether we'd see a reduction in terror attacks if they weren't glorified and magnified with 24 coverage and constant fear instilled and reinforced by governments?
It's not government magnifying and reinforcing fear. They wish this problem would go away. The media covers these attacks because, well, they're big news. And these days, if the mainstream media didn't cover them, the alternative media and individuals on social media would. Imagine the outrage if the mainstream media and the government were perceived to be colluding in the suppression of stories about mass killings on the streets.
Frankly, I don't believe media coverage is the main goal of jihadi attacks in the West today. I think the killing itself is the goal. Killing degenerate apostates who live profane lives. That why the targets are concerts that shameless young women attend, bars and restaurants where infidels get drunk and pursue fornication. Cleanse the world of them, thinks the jihadi. Then everlasting bliss in heaven.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
'He held her and watched her die in his arms': London attack victim from Castlegar, B.C.
Christine Archibald worked in a homeless shelter in Calgary, moved to Europe to be with fiancé
Beloved daughter and fiancée Christine Archibald, 30, has been identified as the Canadian killed alongside six others in Saturday night’s terrorist attack in London.
Archibald, of Castlegar, B.C., graduated from the social work program at Calgary’s Mount Royal University in 2015.
The attack began around 10 p.m. local time, when three men drove a van into a crowd of pedestrians on London Bridge. The attackers then ran down a set of stairs into a marketplace, where they stabbed people in several restaurants.
Her family asks people to honour Archibald’s memory by making the community a better place.
“Volunteer your time and labour or donate to a homeless shelter,” the statement said. “Tell them Chrissy sent you.”
Archibald worked at the Alpha House Society, a homeless shelter in Calgary, before moving to Europe to be with her fiancé.
R.I.P.
