Is Terrorism Over Reported In The Media

After September 11, 2001, U.S. citizens were shocked that over 2,900 people were dead because of Islamic extremists (Kean, et al. "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States"). More deaths occurred in the Paris and San Bernardino attacks. Tensions between the U.S. and Islamic extremists have not yet subsided. Americans receive information regarding Islamic extremists through the media, from which they form opinions on what the U.S.’s foreign policy with the Middle East should be, which affects military spending. To what extent has the media’s portrayal of Islamic extremists affected U.S. military spending and relations with the Middle East?

Many Americans do not understand the implication and role of terrorism in the modern world. Terrorism is not a something that can be measured or held in hand. It is a theoretical idea that has many different meanings to many different people (Aziz, 2014). U.S. Citizens in general need to understand the full effect of modern terrorism. Blinded by media coverage and dramatized by slow-motion video replay of terrorist attacks,

The article "The Oklahoma City Bombing: The Jihad That Wasn't" is notably biased with its conclusions since the title itself implies that it was a middle eastern terrorist attack when in reality, it was not. After the incident was immediately reported many news outlets relied on unnamed government sources. Assumptions rose and overpowered the evidence gathered. News outlets such as CBS News, Newyork Times and the Chicago Tribune encouraged Islamophobia. Moreover, the culprits in the article as described are "Midwestern frat boys, " based on their sketches. However, even when the identities announced to the public, there were still multiple news outlets that chose to disregard the evidence, and some journalists felt letdown that it was not

Firstly, the “war on terror” had reduced the humanitarian concerns down, and the foreign policy. Furthermore, media coverage had become more deferential and constrained: therefore, reducing the chances of media influencing policy. The “war on terror” most importantly provided journalists with a guide in which they could understand global events and policy makers with the ability to justify a more aggressive foreign policy plan. At last, the “war on terror” had constructed an ideological bond between journalist and policy makers which created stronger media management. Techniques developed to display coverage of certain issues over others to frame stories that support official

1.) Asa Don Brown, the author of “Desensitization of Terrorism,” focuses on how the influence of the media and social media have desensitized us when it comes to terrorist attacks. Brown directs the article toward an audience who questions why they are no longer as surprised by terrorist attacks when they occur as they used to be. This seems like an extremely odd feeling to have when several people are killed and hundreds are hurt, however, it is the strange reality these days. Terrorist attacks have been happening for years and years now and while we would love to just stop them from occurring, this is blatantly impossible to achieve. He emphasizes in the article, the idea that when terrorist attacks and the terrorists themselves are

The methods that people nowadays use to get news of any kind, whether it be sports, weather, or global, have changed drastically from the time where news was only available through newspapers and radio stations. Regarding terrorism, the media is the only source of information, unless it is a primary account of a soldier who had been at war. However, the media is able to manipulate any story to make someone or something either look good or bad. This is exactly what happened after the occurrence of 9/11. The media, along with the government, caught the wave of nationalism sweeping across the country and built news stories favoring America. For example, not many people talk about how the American government in 1990, intervened in the Middle East after Iraq invaded Kuwait, which could be a possible cause for the attacks of 9/11. This event and many other instances of American intervention in the Middle East have been swept under the rug by the U.S. government through the media. These incidences were all put forth as necessary steps to protect “our” best interests in the region. John Steinbrink, a professor of education and Jeremy Cook, a doctoral candidate at Oklahoma State University, used the media’s coverage of the aftermath of 9/11 as an example for education in media literacy, which is “the ability to read, understand, and interpret the influence of all forms of media in one’s life” (284). Using

The front pages of newspapers on Tuesday, January 31st were covered with stories describing the horrifying Quebec mosque attack. By looking at the difference between the way The Globe and Mail, The National Post, and the Toronto star have designed their front pages for the day, we can begin to see clear distinctions between the papers morals, values, and tone. All three of the newspapers’ headlines clearly portray the values and style of the specific papers, while also serving to set the tone of the paper as a whole. The most bold and dramatic headline of the three is The National Post’s headline “Make no mistake: this was terror”. The use of Justin Trudeau’s quote regarding the attack aims for shock factor, while playing off the fear of the

For my issue I will be focusing on the influence of the American mainstream media after the September 11th attacks and during the United States’ international military campaign known as the ‘War on Terror’. On September 11, 2001 otherwise known as 9/11, a series of terrorism where committed in which the Islamic terrorist group Al-Qaeda devised four bomber attacks on U.S landmarks killing 2,977 people (CNN). Shortly after the events of 9/11, George W. Bush enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorist (AUMF) and from his administration declared their own definition and objectives regarding the war on terror. The declaration would create not only a mass media indolent but insight a decade long conflict of fear of security

Media coverage of news events can be disseminated to the general public in any number of different ways and media biases often “reflects certain organizational and/or professional preferences or values” (Bennett 2011, 173). In fact, Lundman (2003) points out “that journalists assess the newsworthiness of homicides occurrences using the relative frequency of particular types of murders and how well specific murder occurrences mesh with stereotypical race and gender typifications (357).” In addition, Johnson (2012) felt that the real job of media was to “create a message that…grabs public attention (62).” In other words, can the media grab the public’s attention and hold it?

The United States will not soon forget the rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut that occurred just two weeks before Christmas in 2012. This tragic results in the death of twenty students and eight adults. These public acts are bloodcurdling. They create an invisible fear to society. Mass shootings are usually very frightening and receive nation attention because they are often unpredictable. Although the massacre shocked the nation, they are nothing new. In the United States, mass shootings do not happen quite often. Nevertheless, the media coverage often overstates the incident through various methods to hype the scare. When a shooting occurs, the media would not only report the bloody details, attach horrible pictures,

In doing this, he uses statistics to help support his claim, for example, “at least 20 percent of individuals were Islamic converts; and at least 14 percent had a documented history of psychological problems (again, all males).” (Mullins) The wording in the use of these statistics is misleading, the phrase “at least” is used in this context to make the statistics seem higher than they are, which would evoke an emotional response in the reader. He also states that in a majority of attacks, the perpetrators use some type of bladed weapon, but the Department of Homeland Security’s annual report of terrorist incidents shows that 52% of attacks are bombings or explosions, and of the 11,774 attacks in 2015, only 101 were “unarmed” (primarily involving melee weapons, chemical weapons, or vehicles) (Department of Homeland

To a sizeable audience, anyone who has the audacity to justify terrorism could likely face heavy scrutinization. Events such as the attacks on 9/11 impacted American society in such a way that the thought of someone being inherently evil is directly correlated to being a terrorist. While terrorism can be inexplicable and profoundly discouraged, there seems to be only one stubborn approach to the topic. When presented with the question, “can terrorism be justified?”, audible gasps and faces of disbelief unashamedly occur. Yes, terrorism and the violence against civilians is abominable and should not be tolerated, but it truly is a travesty in its own right. The media and their eagerness to apply the word to high-tension situations stimulates a rudimentary understanding of terrorism. The intricacy of the layers of terrorism force those willing to thoroughly study the topic to come to terms with morality. Terrorism has a generally uncomfortable disposition; it compels an individual to not only respond emotionally, but to have logical understanding of the politics and motives behind the cause. The concept is so consuming of thoughts, facts, and

The United States government and the mass media use advertising and self-censorship about the 9/11 attacks and analysis of the war on terror in order to effect the general public’s feelings about the terrorists and the

Attacks receive more coverage when they harm or kill victims, involve hijackings or aircraft, have known perpetrators, and select targets associated with Western countries. A study of transnational terrorism shows that attacks that inflict injuries are twice as likely to attract media attention as those that do not. The attacks in which the perpetrator can be identified are four times as likely to be reported in a newspaper and ten times as likely to be reported on television (The Media’s Role in International Terrorsim). Attacks in the Middle East or Europe are twice as likely to receive media attention as attacks perpetrated in Latin America (The Media’s Role in International Terrorism). There are very similar factors that influence media coverage of attacks that take place within the United States.

“If the media were not there to report terrorist acts and to explain their political and social significance...terrorism as such would cease to exist” said John O'Sullivan, an editor of the Times of London.1 This is also the way many other people feel about the recent increase in terrorist activity; they feel that the media is causing it. The media is doing this by fulfilling the terrorists' need for publicity.2 Terrorists need media publicity in order to get their views spread to the public.3 Because of this need for publicity, terrorists are committing their acts of terrorism in areas where a lot of publicity will be gained; the United States and Western Europe are the most recent targets. The bombings of the federal building in