It can’t be denied that terrorism and terrorist groups are a major threat to the security of nations around the world. September 11 is but one incident in a string of incidents that have happened across the globe since the 1990s.
In Africa people forget the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, which in fact killed more Africans than Americans. In the late 1990s, South Africa experienced a series of terrorist attacks in Cape Town. Security forces managed the problem, and now it is history. Obviously, the US is not the only country that’s the target of terrorists.
The actions of terrorists, especially when civilians die and it seems the state security forces can’t ensure safety, inevitably become part of the news agenda. Events that happen suddenly, causing loss of life, mayhem, panic and fear are the stuff that news people lead with – terrorism serves perfectly a news media that believes “if it bleeds and burns, it sells”. So a terrorist event often leads to the media claiming tolls on deaths, injuries and destruction that are way beyond what actually happened. Early speculation about the deaths on September 11 hovered around 10,000, and the final tally was well below 5,000!
For the state and its security agencies, the combination of a terrorist act and media reporting of the same is a public relations nightmare. For starters, it can be said that terrorists were successful because state security agencies were simply snoozing on the job. If this is true, it raises the question of the state’s competence in relation to protecting life, limb and property – which is one reason for its existence. Governments then have to strenuously defend their competence and assure citizens that despite this one incident society is still safe. Often this might involve stretching the truth, instead of admitting that the threat was unexpected and that the state is working to plug the security walls.
A further problem for the state is that modern terrorists are media savvy – they profit from public portrayal of their activities. When the media “sensationalises” it is simply boosting the terrorists’ image. Governments, in many cases unjustifiably, call this “spreading alarm and despondency likely to cause public disorder”. So the media is caught between reporting the threats or acts as they see them (that is, when they happen) and avoiding playing the role of the terrorists’ publicity agents. As any news editor will tell you, it’s a tough judgement call. Further complications arise when the media under-report terrorist threats and incidents – this could lull a society into a fall sense of security and have calamitous consequences.
Of course some governments have been known to use the threat of terrorism to undermine civil liberties, including media freedom. Such governments, which have broader undemocratic political agendas, begin to see a terrorist under every bed and a terrorist collaborator in every newsroom. Under the guise of “war on terrorism” these governments seek to achieve things they would not normally get away with, including prolonging their terms in office. Fighting terrorism becomes a policy agenda and a means to implement bad policies.
That said, what both the media and governments often ignore are the root causes of terrorism: the fertile social conditions that breed determined and organised terrorist groups. To be fair, some people do not need causes to be extremists. The issue is complex, and one that both media and the state need to treat with the necessary subtlety. If either are flippant about it, they’ll either play into the hands of terrorists or create insecurity for citizens, or both.
Tawana Kupe is an Associate Professor of Media Studies and Head of the School of Literature, Language and Media Studies at Wits University.