Terrorism and the Media

Throughout this blog I have explored and highlighted how terrorism and the media are interrelated. Terrorism occurs, and the media report. It seems very simple, but it isn’t. Especially during intense events such as September 11, the relationship between terrorism and the media becomes even more complicated. As I have wrote, the media’s reactions during and after September 11 were carried out inappropriately. They became subjective, and the way and contents of their report made us difficult to judge facts and opinion. In this last blog post, I would like to emphasize how the media should react to terrorism as well as how we should respond to the terrorism and the media.

Right after the incident of September 11, both the American and the Japanese media were panicked. Thus their responses to the incident were far from an ideal way of reporting of terrorism as I described. Even though it was understandable reaction, they should not have done it. Instead, the media should stay calm so that they can objectively send information regarding an incident to the public. Also, they should acquire accurate information in order to report a whole picture of the incident. This could prevent misconception from spreading to public.    

The media’s responses a few days after the incidents’ occurrence are also important. In the case of September 11, as I mentioned in previous two posts, they lost their objectivity. The American media perceived the incident subjectively, and thus failed to articulate and send the facts as they were. Due to the American media’s influence, the Japanese media were unsuccessful to integrate an analysis from third-person’s objective view. What we should learn from the major failures of those two media is that they should always be calm and objective regardless of what happens. They must be able to send logically and critically analyzed information to their audiences. For a reasonable judgment of situation and information, objectivity is necessary.   

In addition to the media being calm and seeing and assessing facts objectively, viewers should selectively obtain and judge information by themselves. Our reaction to the terrorism and the media after September 11 was that we automatically accepted all the things the media said. We became patriotic, and antagonized against terrorists. Moreover, many people became hostile against people from Middle East and those who are Muslim, and it was obvious that not all of them were terrorists. Such emotional and attitudinal transition of general public was brought by the media, and this evidently shows we are very susceptible to contents the media send. Such vulnerability is caused by a power balance exists between the media and audience. The media is very strong in terms of sending their opinion and not accepting our opinion. Viewers and readers have far less opportunities to reflect our thoughts on contents that the media send. Thus, we should become able to sort out information to prevent the same reaction we took when September 11 happened. We should selectively take and organize information, and determine what we perceive as facts by ourselves.

It is very difficult to be reasonable and clam during a devastating situation. However, because the media have the power to make influence and shape our perceptions they should be objective so that audiences can form their own perceptions of things, particularly in controversial and intense situations like terrorism.

Media Coverage of 9/11 in Japan

I mentioned how American media reacted to the incident of September 11 in the previous post. They lost objectivity, and that made viewers and readers unable to think and establish their own opinion.

What about in other countries? How did the media in different countries react? In this post, I will particularly write and focus on how the Japanese national TV network, NHK reported the incident. As I researched deeper, I found that the way of reporting was biased, and such attitude was very distant from what the media should have done during intense incidents.

NHK distinguished people’s names to be read for safety confirmation in their programs based on companies they worked for, and that was ethically wrong. NHK, which is Japan's government broadcaster, started reporting after the United Airlines’ aircraft crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) (Katsura, as cited in Ito, 2007). And NHK kept broadcasting about what was going on until the next morning (It happened around 10 pm in Japan). NHK repeated scenes of airplanes crashing into the buildings, as American TV networks did. They tried to let Japanese people know what was taking place. Simultaneously, they kept reading the name list of Japanese people working in Japanese companies which were located in the WTC. It seems there was no problem. It could be natural to worry about its citizens’ safety. However, the problem was that the scope was very narrow. There should have Japanese people who worked for American or other countries’ companies whose offices were located in the WTC as well. There is no difference between those people who worked for Japanese companies and foreign companies, and their offices located in WTC. The formers’ names are read in the national network and the latters’ names were not read. They all are Japanese citizens. It was morally wrong that NHK differentiated the names to read in their programs based on companies people worked for.

In addition to NHK only highlighting Japanese workers during the 9 11 incident, the entire Japanese media did not incorporate third person’s objective view since they were influenced by the American media, and did not know how to react under this kind of situation as well. As I wrote in previous post, the American media became very subjective, and embraced morale against Muslims and patriotism after the incident. American media’s attitude directly influenced the way the Japanese media reacted, and the Japanese media essentially followed the same steps as the American media took. That was the major failure of the Japanese media. Since Japan was not directly attacked, the media should be calm, and able to analyze the situation critically based on a third-person’s point of view. They could have judge and differentiate facts from subjective opinions created by the American media.

The other reason the Japanese media were unable to create and integrate a unique analysis from the outsiders’ view was that they did not know how to react. It could be said for both the American and Japanese media. Their reactions were totally understandable because they did not know what to do or how to react under the intense situation. However, they are the media. The media strongly influences people’s perception, and our thoughts are created based on the ways and the contents they report. The general public needs and wants information during these kinds of disturbing events. The media are the ones who should be composed, able to report facts as they are, and analyze the situation critically. In the case of September 11, it did not happen.

Ito, K. (2007). Recipe of image: Referring to the images of Islam and terrorism. Retrieved from http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/katote/08ito.htm

Media Coverage of 9/11 in America

One of the most devastating events in the history of the United States and the world was September 11. There was huge media coverage of it on the day of September 11, 2001. People wanted to know what was going on in this country, and the media bore the role of information transfer. They had a responsibility to let people know what was happening. At some point during their reporting of the whole incident, the media lost one of their essential factors of function: objectivity.

On the day of the attack, it was just chaos. The only thing TV networks could and did was to show scenes of locations where terrorists attacked.

As you can see, anchors were repeating the same things again and again. It shows how panicked they were.

 
On the next day, September 12, 2001, many newspapers issued special editions with headings saying “Horror”, “Unthinkable”, “Attacked” and similar words that triggered anxiety, fear, and anger to readers. 

(The New York Times, 2001)

 (San Francisco Examiner, 2001)

  
(The Seattle Times, 2001) 

Newspapers were in confusion and chaos as well, and many of the articles were quotes of articles and pictures released by the AP (Associated Press, world's oldest and largest newsgathering organization). That depicted how difficult it was to gather and integrate information of the event.

People were scared and angered. Gradually, a patriotic mood was encouraged throughout the country. Also, words such as “unity”, “God bless”, and “America’s pride” became prevalent everywhere. Such attitude was also present in media, especially TV networks. Major TV network stations had phrases such as CNN’s “America’s new war”, and CBS’s “America rising” (Ito, 2007), and used those phrases to promote unity and exalt people’s will to fight back against America’s attacker. Simultaneously, media started to use words such as “us”, “our”, and “our enemies”. Because they started to use first person, they became involved in the event as part of the country. At this point, the media in America lost its objectivity, which is necessary for fairness and third-person-positioning of media.

Media are indeed part of this country. It is understandable that their reports reflected their emotion because they were angry as well. However, such subjectivity in media would alter our perceptions and create ,misinformation. Simultaneously, it would be an obstacle for us and think and judge by ourselves. Not being subjective is one of essential factors of media because their fundamental role is to give people the facts to form their opinions. In the process of reporting what happened or is happening, facts should be presented as they are. However, during and after the incident of September 11, 2001, such fairness of media no longer existed when they began to use subjective terms. Objectivity and variation of press were abandoned by media themselves. They forgot to be calm and lost ability to judge and report in the way that they supposed to do. However, that was the reality of what was happening in America.

Bastards! (2001, September 12). San Francisco, CA: San Francisco The Examiner. Retrieved from http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/hr_archive.asp?fpVname=CA_SFE&ref_pge=gal&b_pge=1

CNN live breaking news. (2001, September 11). [Television broadcast]. Atlanta, GA: Cable News Network. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/vfYQAPhjwzA.

Ito, K. (2007). Recipe of image: Referring to the images of Islam and terrorism. Retrieved from http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/katote/08ito.htm

Terror. (2001, September 12). Seattle, WA: The Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/hr_archive.asp?fpVname=WA_ST&ref_pge=gal&b_pge=1

U.S. Attacked: Hijack jets destroy twin towers and hit Pentagon in day of terror. (2001, September 11). New York City, NY: The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/hr_archive.asp?fpVname=NY_NYT&ref_pge=gal&b_pge=1

Sources of Misconception

Who are terrorists? Who are we fighting against? What are they trying to achieve? Though we know the government has launched the war on terror, we do not know much about them. Most of us do not know such core information. So what makes us unable to obtain it? Why are we unaware of who they are, what they are fighting for, and their purposes? Media has a significant role in shaping how we understand, feel and think about terrorists and terrorism itself. However, the variations in information reported by the media causes us to have inconsistent views regarding terrorism. They also use graphics to make the incident dramatized which would lead viewers to have distorted perception as well.

On September 25, 2011, the American embassy and related buildings in Kabul, Afghanistan were attacked by the Taliban. The incident was covered by media internationally, including The New York Times, MSN Sankei News (a website operated by MSN Japan and Sankei Shinbun, a Japanese-nationwide daily newspaper) and Aljazeera. Surprisingly, all three of them reported the incident in different ways. 

The New York Times said it was done by the Taliban to show their ability to “terrify the population, dominate the media, and overshadow the West’s assertions that the Afghan government…will soon be able to handle the insurgency on their own” (Rubin, Rivera, & Healy, 2011). The article precisely depicted how the fight went, and it inferred there was a conspiracy for the attack. Authors doubted that there were people who had supported the insurgents to enter the secured premises with equipments for attacking.

MSN Sankei news article had similar contents as the New York Times, but it was in less descriptive manner. It covered backgrounds of the incident, but it did not cover a motive of the attack as the New York Times had. It said that Kabul’s security level remained high since it was the tenth anniversary of the September 11 attack (Takita, 2011). The author asserted that this incident showed Afghanistan had been far from settlement, and could be an evidence of ineffective ISAF (International Security Assistance Force, a security mission created by NATO). This was not mentioned in other two articles, and Takita inferred that there was an alleged conspiracy for assistance of the attack, as the New York Times did.

On the contrary to the previous two articles, Aljazeera did not even mention the presence of supporters who might have helped terrorists’ attack. However, it provided a unique perspective compared to other articles, and quoted a statement of Zabihullah Mujahid, who is a spokesperson for the Taliban disclosing that “the primary targets of the attackers [were] the intelligence agency building and a ministry” (“Taliban Target”, 2011). This might be helpful to understand why the incident took place.

By comparing and contrasting those three articles, we may be able to see a whole picture of the attack. Each article helps and fills in missing parts. However, it is true that there is a variation in information in each report. This might prevent us from having a consistent idea regarding the incident, the Taliban, the country of Afghanistan, and terrorism.

Another factor of media that contributes to misconception within the general public is the use of graphic images. The New York Times had a video showing one of the authors reporting from Kabul. It showed graphics of soldiers, helicopters, guns and casualties. This video triggers psychological reaction that makes us shocked and antagonized against the Taliban and damages caused by them. (You can watch the video at http://video.nytimes.com/video/2011/09/13/world/asia/100000001050805/timescast--taliban-attacks-in-kabul.html). 

The Taliban also had a video depicted and focused more on fighting portion of the incident.  

How do you feel after watching those two videos? Indeed we feel that the country of Afghanistan is collapsed, and Taliban is a dangerous and violent terrorist group. That might be true; however, we should not just watch graphics and believe the feelings you had. Those images may contain misconceptions. One article or video does not provide a whole picture of the incident.

Rubin, A. J., Rivera, R., & Healy, J. "Militants Launch Attack on U.S. Embassy in Kabul." The New York Times September 13, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/world/asia/14afghanistan.html?scp=1&sq=militants%20launch%20attack%20on%20U.S.&st=cse

Takita, M. “Taliban attacked the U.S. embassy in Afghanistan.” MSN Sankei News September 13, 2011. Retrieved from http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/news/110913/asi11091323090005-n1.htm.

“Taliban target key sites in Kabul: Battle with Afghan forces dragged into the night after a day of chaos in the capital.” Aljazeera September 14, 2011. Retrieved from www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/09/2011913234447565145.html

 

Transition after the Chaos

Poverty, economic recession, food crisis, and crimes. We have been struggling to solve various problems such as these in the world. A current issue that immediately threatens our lives is terrorism.

One of the most shocking and devastating events in the history was the September 11. Nearly 3,000 innocent people from more than 90 countries were killed (Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 2011 *1). Its memory is still fresh even a decade later, and will not ever fade. After this tragedy, our world has experienced various transitions in terms of government policies, society, and perspectives.

First, many countries have changed their policies and attitudes toward terrorism and terrorists’ activities, and that caused dramatic changes to people. In the United States, the Department of Homeland Security was established in 2002 to “overs[ee] and coordinat[e] a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard the country against terrorism and respond to any future attacks” (DHS, 2011 *2). The department did not exist before the September 11 happened. The department’s budget is $66.3 billion as of 2009, that is 7.3% more than the year of 2008 (DHS, 2011*3). The presence of the department and its huge budget explicitly shows that immense efforts are required to protect this country. The United States is not the only country which took action against terrorism after the incident. Other countries ranging from Japan, China, Tonga to Turkey have launched a war on terror, and have passed and revised laws to combat terrorism. As a consequence, “at least 35,000 people worldwide have been convicted as terrorists in the decade since the Sept. 11 attacks”, Huffington post reported on September 3 (2011). In short, the war on terror made great changes in governments and their attitudes toward people.

Transition in governmental policies is not the only change, but our perception of terrorism has changed greatly. We became more aware about terrorism. We started to think that terrorism exists in close proximity to our life. Even though terrorism has been problematic and caused tremendous damages and pain to many people in the past, it was not our issue but someone else’s. Now we feel it actually threatens our nation and lives. However, we should not forget that it is not only the problem of the United States, but also the problem of the world. Second change could be observed in media. They tend to focus and cover more news on terrorism in television, newspapers, and magazines after the September 11. We are more informed than before, however, we need to be aware that media selectively send information. They tend to change their attitude by their position, and sometimes such preference could distort facts.

Therefore, we need to distinguish what is fact and what is opinion. We also need to know and be aware what is going on in our society, especially for matters that threaten our lives. However, it is difficult to do so because of the media’s preference on what they cover. Thus we have to selectively receive information.  We must distinguish what is fact and what is opinion. This blog is intended to seek a new perspective on international terrorism by exploring various media sources and thinking critically and analytically. Also, I will try to find what makes us unable to reach the truth.

*1 Department of Homeland Security. (2011). 9/11 Ten years since September 11, 2001. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.gov/files/9-11-ten-years.shtm

*2 Department of Homeland Security. (2011). Creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/history/gc_1297963906741.shtm

*3 Department of Homeland Security. (2011). Crosscutting programs retrieved from http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=6AFh1T/0/1/0&WAISaction=retrieve

Mendoza, M. (2011). “Global terrorism: 35,000 worldwide convicted for terror offenses since September 11 attacks. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/03/terrorism-convictions-since-sept-11_n_947865.html