Our Knee-Jerk Reactions to Terrorism
Further afield, in other continents, human reaction to terror seems consistent, even if ultimately counterproductive. David Sullivan in his April 9, 2019 article, “The Consequences of Legislating Cyberlaw After Terrorist Attacks” provides a tableau of knee-jerk reactions by stricken nations throwing up tough counter-terrorism measures to stem the spread of this virus: “(The other) week, Australia’s Parliament reacted to the Christchurch massacre by rushing an amendment to their criminal code on sharing abhorrent violent material that passed their Senate and House of Representatives in approximately 48 hours. While there is undoubtedly a grave and urgent need to prevent terrorists and violent extremists of all stripes from exploiting internet platforms to spread vile and inflammatory content, hastily drafted laws passed under pressure tend to create new problems while doing little to counter such threats. The history of the Internet is riddled with problematic laws, haphazardly passed in the wake of horrific violence....
“The USA Patriot Act, passed within weeks of 9/11, has become shorthand for broad expansion of security powers in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack. Passed with only one senator opposing it, the sheer breadth of its provisions defy easy summary....
“In November 2008, four days of coordinated shootings and bombings by Lashkar-e-Taiba shook Mumbai and prompted a call for greater government powers. At the time, India’s Parliament had already been considering significant changes to its Information Technology Act, with provisions on blocking websites and state surveillance initially proposed years before. But terrorism provided renewed urgency and led to the passage of the IT Act amendments within a month of the attacks, without parliamentary debate, together with a package of other counter-terrorism laws...
“Following a similar pattern, the spate of terrorist attacks in France during 2015 and 2016 elicited a state of emergency and expansive new counter-terrorism powers affecting both privacy and freedom of expression.
“These included broad powers to search computers as well as the ability to block websites that allegedly glorified terrorism, all without prior judicial authorization. Regularly visiting a website that incites or glorifies terrorism was criminalized in 2016, which was struck down by the Constitutional Court in February 2017. The government reintroduced an amended version the law later that year, only for it to be struck down once again in December 2017.”
Sullivan insists that these draconian fear-induced countermeasures reflect “the kind of approach associated with the Cyberspace Administration of China or Thailand’s lèse-majesté laws, rather than those of governments known to respect and uphold international human rights laws and norms”.
The seed of this problematic state of affairs between political
leadership and the media is well absracted by L. John Smith in “The Media’s Role In International Terrorism”. Few lines make interesting reading: “Terrorism, like propaganda, is a form of persuasive communication. Like propaganda, it is a pejorative term....
“After considering various definitions and examples of what is and is not terrorism, (his) paper looks at the symbiotic relationship that exists between terrorism and mass media. Each exploits the other and terrorism has no meaning without media coverage in this age of mass communication. Terrorists use mass media for both tactical and strategic purposes.
“While the mass media do, generally, cover terrorism at a rate of at least nine incidents per day worldwide, according to a pilot study undertaken for (his) paper, the press uses the term “terrorist” sparingly, preferring such neutral terms as guerrilla, rebel, and paramilitary, or using no value laden adjectives at all... This raises the question of the effectiveness of terrorism. The press gives terrorists publicity but often omits the propaganda message that terrorists would like to see accompanying reports of their exploits, thus reducing terrorism to mere crime or sabotage.”
Sometimes, it appears the media forget how powerful they are. Let us remind them in the words of Michael S. Schudson, a professor of journalism in the graduate school of journalism of Columbia University and professor emeritus at the University of California, San Diego, USA (in ‘Power of News’): “The power of the mass media lies not in the direct influence of the mass media on the general public, but in the perception of experts and decision-makers that the general public is influenced by the mass media.”
One of the things we do very well in the practice of journal