Fear Factor Of Media To The Public After Events Of Terrorism

Fear Factor of Media to the Public After Events of Terrorism

Nowadays, people are living in fear due to various terrorist activities such as suicide bombing, threats, harassments, kidnapping, that has affected the many lives of innocent civilians. One of the most renowned and unforgettable terrorist event these days is the 9/11 brought about by Bin Laden wherein a plane is hijacked and crashed through the pentagon killing thousands of people. Events such as this 9/11 event triggers massive coverage in news media with hundreds of stories highlighting the grief, suffering and shock of the victims and their relatives, condemnation of the administration and public officials, speculation about its underlying causes and possible consequences of the events and the expressions of sympathy from world leaders. Reverberations and aftershocks triggered by these events still continue to impact international relations, domestic policy and public opinion. Additionally it has brought a major debate and clashed over the definition of terror, its social and political roles, its ethics of counter-terrorism operations, state complicity, dangers of future terrorist activities, failure of democracy and fueling religious fundamentalism.

The role of mass media on the coverage of terrorism is an important issue arising from such events. Journalism often attracts controversy, not least where news coverage becomes part of the contest to define the social meaning of events. Reporting terrorism--whether the destruction of 9/11, suicide bombers in the second Intifada, or violence in Chechnya--raises significant questions about how far news coverage can meet journalistic standards of 'balance', 'truth' and 'objectivity' in cases of extreme political conflict. Debate has centered around two questions. First, does media coverage err on the side of group terrorists, lending them legitimacy and credibility, as well as unintentionally encouraging further incidents through a 'contagion' effect? Alternatively, do journalistic conventions err instead on the side of governments, due to an over-reliance upon the framework of interpretation offered by public officials, security experts, and military commentators, with news functioning ultimately to reinforce Understanding this situation is important, not just for its own sake, but also because perceptions of the growing threat of terrorism in America has created widespread public concern, as well as fueled radical changes in U. S. security and foreign policy. The events of 9/11 moved counter-terrorism to the top of the public-policy agenda in America, leading the Bush administration to boost spending on police, firefighters, and emergency medical teams; to create the Department of Homeland Security; as well as taking steps designed to improve airport security, intelligence gathering, security at US borders, the prevention of bio-terrorism, and reserves of medicines. In American foreign policy, the events of 9/11 initiated the war in Afghanistan, as well as shaping President George Bush's identification of an 'Axis of Evil' with 'state terrorism' linking Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, while simultaneously thawing relations with leaders in Russia, China, and Pakistan. Discussion of issues that used to be regarded as the province of a few specialized, esoteric, and highly-technical security and intelligence experts--such as the potential risks of biological and chemical warfare, 'loose nukes' and 'dirty' bombs, and 'weapons of mass destruction'--are now widely debated in public on the American airwaves. Explaining these developments requires an understanding of perceptions of terrorist threats and, in particular, the role of the news media in this process. This book explores how frames about terrorism are generated and reinforced, compares how far these frames shape patterns of news coverage in different contexts and cultures, and analyzes how far conventional frames about terrorism have the power to affect public opinion.

The heart of our explanation lies in the idea of news frames, representing persistent patterns of selection, emphasis, and exclusion that furnish a coherent interpretation and evaluation of events. Decisions and common practices in newsgathering--determining what and how stories are covered--contribute toward these frames. Out of the myriad ways of describing events in the world, journalists rely upon familiar news frames and upon the interpretation of events offered by credible sources to convey dominant meanings, make sense of the facts, focus the headlines, and structure the story line. Although the specific details surrounding any terrorist occurrence may be unique--a particular suicide bomber in Tel Aviv, a car bomb in Manila, or a kidnapping in Bogotб--the way that journalists observe and report each of these occurrences is shaped by how similar events have been covered in the past and by the reporter's most trusted sources of information. Conventional frames, which become mainstream in the news media, provide contextual cues, giving meaning and order to complex support for political leaders and the security policies they implement? problems, actions, and events, by slotting the new into familiar categories or storyline 'pegs. ' Conventional news frames of terrorism are important because they furnish consistent, predictable, simple, and powerful narratives that are embedded in the social construction of reality.

There are basically three approaches to the dilemma of reconciling the conflicting aspects of press freedom and survival security. The 'formal censorship' approach has been most common. It involves legislation that sets forth what may or may not be published. Such laws vary in the terms and scope of the censorship operations and often stipulate severe penalties for violations. The press may still be allowed to decide what is publishable within the government's guidelines. Alternatively, the decision about what may be published may be in the hands of official censors who use their discretion about the sensitivity of particular information at a specific time. In either case, freedom of the press is in abeyance, as American constitutional lawyers generally interpret it, including the traditional reluctance of American courts to permit prior censorship of potentially harmful news reports (Silverberg 1991).

The opposite 'free press' approach leaves journalists free to decide what is or is not safe to publish under the circumstances. Journalists may choose to follow guidelines provided by the government or respond to specific requests by public officials. But reporters make the ultimate decision free from formal pressure by public officials, although there are always ethical