This week’s assigned readings were very informative. Three overall impressions that I got from reading the articles were that terrorists are using tactics that do not work, it will take an entire country coming together to produce preventative and responsive measures against terrorism, and that terrorists tend to portray themselves as decent people who are struggling to fight for a ‘good cause.’ Terrorists frame their agenda, struggle, and cause, as one that appeals to middle class and military aged individuals. This is the impression I had when watching the propaganda video from the PIRA (PoblachtachAontacht, 2012). Of course, appealing to a group of people is not always synonymous with achieving desired goals. Prior to reading the article authored by Abrahms (2012), I never considered the rate of political success that terrorist organizations do or do not achieve to be important. However, I was not surprised when Abrahams concluded that using terrorism as a tactic is counterproductive and does little to nothing in coercing a nation to concede to their demands. Abrahams’ article cemented my viewpoint that the likelihood of ISIS accomplishing their desired political goals, no matter how they frame these goals, is doubtful because the tactics used by ISIS to achieve their desired goals are not coercing Western governments or their respective citizenry. The question now is, if terrorists know their tactics do not work (terrorists are not Neanderthals. I am sure organizations are kept up to date on recent research) in achieving their desired political goals, then why are they still using such tactics? While the question above may remain unanswered indefinitely, there is no question that the national media’s coverage of terrorism influences the American people. The national media’s influence on people also influences their perception and stereotyping of a ‘typical’ terrorist. This form of stereotyping may hinder what governments can do in order to produce preventative measures against terrorism. In his research, Haider (2006) concluded that people are influenced by the way a certain issue is framed. Furthermore, the way an issue is framed influences people’s opinions as to what security implementations they would support or oppose in order to prevent future terrorist attacks. While reading Haider’s article, I could not help but to sense that something was missing from the research. For example, I believe finding out what type of news organizations participants usually watch (FOX, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, FSTV etc.) is important. While this concept may not seem important to others, I believe that if researchers were able to find this information out, there would likely be dynamic results between conservative leaning news viewership versus liberal leaning news viewership. Regardless, Haider’s article did touch on something that I believe to be extremely important. The way news organizations frame the issue of terrorism is in a way that influences the minds of people and their perceptions about terrorism. Instead of reverting to facts and empirical research such as Abrahams’ article, the national news has become extremely opinionated and is now a tool of, in my opinion, fear mongering. Of course, news organizations strive for the highest television ratings. However, I believe the American people would be better informed on a wide array of topics, including terrorism, if news organizations were objective rather than opinionated. Becoming better informed as
…show more content…
If the American people took Abrahams’ article and other empirical research on terrorism seriously, it would serve as a tactic to prevent recruitment as well as producing rational arguments in responding to a terrorist attack rather than acting on emotions. However, this will not happen if the national media censors or misconstrues the coverage of terrorism. Matusitz (2013) laid out a list of reasons why the media should or should not censor coverage of terrorism. An interesting reason why the media should not censor coverage of terrorism was “lack of awareness would prevent the audience from understanding the political situation.” I am a supporter against media censorship so I believe that the televised media, a medium that the vast majority of adults get their news content from, must be objective and not opinionated so the American people can think for themselves. I would also suggest that the lack of awareness would prevent local and state governments from providing counter measures in fighting
If the American people took Abrahams’ article and other empirical research on terrorism seriously, it would serve as a tactic to prevent recruitment as well as producing rational arguments in responding to a terrorist attack rather than acting on emotions. However, this will not happen if the national media censors or misconstrues the coverage of terrorism. Matusitz (2013) laid out a list of reasons why the media should or should not censor coverage of terrorism. An interesting reason why the media should not censor coverage of terrorism was “lack of awareness would prevent the audience from understanding the political situation.” I am a supporter against media censorship so I believe that the televised media, a medium that the vast majority of adults get their news content from, must be objective and not opinionated so the American people can think for themselves. I would also suggest that the lack of awareness would prevent local and state governments from providing counter measures in fighting