UKC

Clearly reporting on acts of terror is nothing new, but the ones in Brussels this week got me wondering whether global reporting of such events actually aids the terrorists in spreading, well terror, fear and hate. By doing this are we not making things easier for them?
I know its news and it will travel around whether its highly publicized or not, but do we over report these tragic events? Im not saying we shouldnt show sympathy towards those that have been affected, but me sitting here feeling sorry for them isnt going to help them in any way. I just feel more fearful and anxious about travel and being in mass public places.
Terrorists win?

Whats your thoughts UKC?

In reply to Pesda potato:

I know what you mean, fear is a strange thing and it’s easy to imagine that being presented with reports such as the Brussels attack on nearly an hourly basis may cause members of the public to unnecessarily fear the people behind it.

But I think everyone is so used to this kind of reporting that it sadly becomes something that we become a bit bored of… for example you can read like six reports on the BBC site right now and every one of them repeats the same stuff over and over, same perspective, same story and no breakthroughs. So then this life shattering event for the people of Brussels becomes something that isn’t worth reading about, which is all kinds of wrong.

In reply to Pesda potato:

This cartoon springs to mind: https://d.justpo.st/media/images/2014/02/60b4deadd706d51981a44956d6f39921.j...

In reply to Pesda potato:

I've been thinking the same thing and completely agree. I'm sure the media is used by various government organisations for 'positive' propaganda, but the amount of sensationalist bullshit being spouted is helping to spread fear and distrust in an already fearful and distrusting time. It's starting to annoy me how much BS is in the media and I wonder if/when it will be controlled? Probably not, for free speech etc.

In reply to Pesda potato:

I think you're on a very slippery slope if we're in a position where our media is ever in a position where it feels it cannot broadcast/publish the full facts of what is going on in the world. Yes, the whole point of terror is to spread fear in a populace, and in the case of Islamic terrorism, to divide people and propagate religious conflict, the media is complicit in this aim, however inadvertently.

But since the terrorists can never kill huge numbers of people (especially compared to the ability of a traditional nation state's armed forces) then all they can do is conduct high profile acts of carnage and hope the fear does the rest*. We need to know what is going on, in order to make decision as informed participants of a democracy. Unfortunately that means the likes Katy Hopkins are free to spout opinions, but I'd still rather live in that kind of society rather than a middle eastern totalitarian theocracy.

Terrorism works to a degree. I work for an international company and we have a huge office in Brussels - every day we have dozens of people travelling in or out of there and we've all been told to suspend travel there until further notice. This has a knock on effect, damages confidence, fewer hotel beds filled, restaurants taking bookings etc. Life does get back to normal though.

In reply to paul_the_northerner:


I've noticed a lot fewer Belgian flags on my facebook wall today, than there were French flags following the November attacks, if that can be taken as any sort of gauge of public feeling.

In reply to yorkshireman:


>I think you're on a very slippery slope if we're in a >position where our media is ever in a position where it >feels it cannot broadcast

Every day.


D

In reply to Pesda potato:

There are was of rporting that don't sensationalise the acts showing fire and ambulances rushing around sn't really the news, but it does bring more drama.

The terrorists thrive on drama and it's free publicity for their "cause". We should report the fact and the devastation of course but we could do it low key.

Our news has been giving IS free recruitment videos for years, it's time it stopped.

In reply to krikoman:


Its a fair point. The flip side is that bringing the horror and emotion, rather than just cold hard facts could turn people the other way.

I remember the true horror of the Omagh bombing was one of the turning points in public support for the IRA due in no small part to the power of the media images at the time.

In reply to yorkshireman:


You can not be serious!

" The first casuality of war is the truth"

Govt. have been manipulating the media since the year dot.

In reply to Indy:


I think you misread me or I was unclear. Yes, the government (and all interested parties) manipulate the media. However by and large we're in free, liberal democracy with freedom of the press. I was just pointing out that I don't think we want to change that do we?


Well that is a very old quote now, and more akin to a time with fewer communication channels and a longer news cycle. You wouldn't expect embedded reporters to give away the positions or tactics of their forces, and some things are withheld for reasons of taste or decency, or national security. We're not in the days of the 2nd world war though with only officially sanctioned reports reaching the public.

In reply to krikoman:


At the end the news someone mutters "Oh BTW terrorists killed a few folk today, g'night"

For me it works completely the opposite way. Then I read about Brussels I really fought that we need to deliver more democracy to Syria. Turning Al-Raqqah in to a parking for example.

In reply to krikoman:




Pretty much agree with all of the above. The advent of 24 hour news, (or more properly 24 hour completely uninformed speculation), channels doesn't help matters.

In reply to aln:


Why did you feel the need to do that? Have you got no range between bands of reporters standing in a street looking at the outside of the building, filming ambulances and speculating about who, what and why, while constantly showing the same clips over and over again.

Against this there's the reporting of what facts they can, and what is relevant.

But of course you need to go to the opposite extreme, it's extremism one of this things you're reeling against?

In reply to krikoman:

>But of course you need to go to the opposite extreme, it's extremism one of this things you're reeling against?

Eh? Dunno what you're talking about. Do you mean "railing against"?

In reply to Pesda potato:
We used to speak in the cold war of opposing "Military-Industrial Complexes". Perhaps now we have the Terror-Media Complex. Both need and and certainly benefit from each other's activities. What can be more immediately satisfying and thrilling for the anchor manwoman to be at the centre of each latest atrocity feeding from its importance and disseminating the power of terror at the same time?

In reply to aln:



I doubt it>

In reply to Pesda potato:

Its a tough one. We like to know what s going on and the media gets murdered for not reporting events.. but yes reporting terror is what the terrorists want.

Look at the reactions on UKC and on the media..

Obama is lambasted for not returning to the US and instead visiting Castro and watching baseball in Cuba..

Isn't that the perfect response to Terrorism? To say f*ck you. I'm living my life.

All this animosity, xenophobic, border closing nonsense is what these people want.

The redsox went out and played soon after the Boston Bombings and it was loved because it was about life returning to normal quickly. If we live in fear, are all suspicious of each other then I think they do win.

I openly admit I'm worried about flying back to the UK soon but I'll still do it.

In reply to krikoman:


CNN do this. A news network I generally like but they love a good disaster, be it bombs or airplane losses.. just repetitive cycles of no new news.. another person saying the same thing..

The Malaysian air crash was almost constant news.

In reply to Roadrunner5:



There's evidence in America that this sort of sensationalism is a trigger for more of the same. Mass shootings are a good case in point in that the reporting often "encourages" like minded people to copy what they see.

There are a number of psychologists who advocate, cutting out all the "excitement" pictures; fire trucks, ambulances, eye witnesses covered in blood, etc. Yet still reporting what happened.

In reply to krikoman:

I've taken to listening Radio 3 in the morning. Their brief summaries of the news are factual with little comment and kkeep it in its right unsensational place, just like the news used to be decades ago.

I lost faith in the News people when they let out so much helpful information to the enemy during the Falklands campaign, after all it was only British lives they put at risk.