!!

Guests can now post!

Welcome to Intelligent Answers.  As a guest, you are now able to post a question, subject to getting through our spam-bot filters.  However, if you want to answer any questions, you will need to register.  Thanks for visting!  (BTW - guests cannot post links, and if you post spam, we will block your IP and report you to every spam protection site we can find - we work hard to keep this site spam free for the benefit and enjoyment of our members!)

Author Topic: How much do you think reporting on terrorist attacks fans their flames?  (Read 1058 times)

Offline Hiheels

  • Founder member, in the naughty corner for smoking in the café.
  • Founder
  • Chancellor
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 123
  • -Receive: 82
  • Posts: 5060
  • Helpfulness: 677
  • Yes, yes, very nice. Now put it away.
Does it give the coverage they crave, or is it only a tiny part of their overall objective that they'd be just as happy to carry on trying to achieve silently?

Offline Cosmos

  • Masters
  • **
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 25
  • -Receive: 8
  • Posts: 737
  • Helpfulness: 8
  • Sydney, NSW.
I think it makes a difference. Reports should be kept to a minimum and pictures of whatever aftermath there is should kept as insignificant as possible. News networks seem to be competing to see who can horrify the most. Why must these horrors be spread worldwide when an announcement to locals of the continuing dangers and inconveniences would be more germane???

What surprises me about it is the ordinary language used to report these behaviours. This should be an opportunity to say something like, " a cretinous attack on innocent people has been made by imbeciles from ISIS ".
Bare barbarer barberer rabarbera bra .

Offline P-Kasso2

  • Awaiting inspiration.
  • PK unique
  • University Councillor
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 53
  • -Receive: 163
  • Posts: 12220
  • Helpfulness: 213
  • January 2011 prize-quiz winner.

Much as I don't want to be seen as publicly supporting Maggie Thatcher...wasn't it she who coined the very telling phrase of "depriving terrorists of the oxygen of publicity"?

I think that she (or her army of speech writers) were dead right on that score. If a terrorist action receives absolutely no response in the media the result will be that terrorists simply give up. Of course, the absolute opposite may happen leading terrorists to massively escalate their actions to totally un-ignorable new levels of atrocity.

Unfortunately, no political pundit or security chief seems to know in which of those two ways an ignored terrorist group will turn.

Personally, I am confused. On the one hand terrorists have effectively declared war on us...and should be treated as an enemy and blown to bits before they can do the same to us.

On the other hand, the terrorists' grievances do have some credence in that many of them are reacting to decades or centuries of atrocities inflicted on them by the West and by Western imperialism and capitalism.

Despite this, I still come down on the side of prevention being better than a cure and, if "depriving terrorists of the oxygen of publicity" is part of that prevention, then I am all for it. Just very pessimistic about the backlash.

"I live in hope"