The Media And The Challenge Of Global Terrorism

Abstract

The most important challenge in the 21st century has been posed by the terrorist acts in different parts of the world. Terrorists respect no frontiers or boundaries. Terrorism is a crime against humanity. Terrorism is, in fact, premeditated, politically motivated violence committed against innocent civilians and non-combatants by individuals, groups or state agents. The emergence of global terrorism has marked tectonic shifts in this relativistic approach. As a rule, global terrorists commit individual acts of an intentionally provocative nature, which may include threats of murder or the assassination of state and political figures; the seizure of hostages or potentially hazardous facilities; bombings; or the release of poisons, radioactive substances, or biologically active agents. Terrorist acts at potentially hazardous facilities—enterprises working with chemicals, radioactive materials, or explosives; hydro technical structures; unique tall buildings; subways, surface rail, and air transport facilities—present a great danger to

Personnel and the public and cause substantial economic damage, affects international trade and commodities, stocks, tourism etc

Again it is also very important that we understand the issues of relevance of the media and the challenge of global terrorism; how the media portrays terrorists and covers related stories and news, the mediums they employs, their reportage and the challenges they face.

 
Key Words: Global Terrorism, Globalisation, Al Qaeda, Al Shaba, ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, Jihad, Jihadist, Freedom Fighter, Extremist, Cyber terrorism, Chemical Terrorism, Radiation Terrorism, Agenda Setting, Priming, Mass Media, Counterterrorism.

 Meaning of Terrorism:

Terrorism, therefore, may be seen as a violent act that is conceived specifically to attract attention and then, through the publicity it generates, to communicate a message. As a one of leaders of the United Red Army once realistically explained: “violent actions… are shocking. We want to shock people, everywhere… It is our way of communicating with the people (HoffMan, 2012).

A 2004 UN Secretary-General report describes terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".

Terrorism is a category of political violence, which is intended to influence foreign and domestic governments, as well as communities. Terrorism uses its immediate victims and material targets for semiotic and symbolic purposes (Lewis, 2005). Attacks are designed to create an atmosphere of fear or a sense of threat. In the same vein, terrorism can also refer to politically motivated deeds perpetrated by groups or individuals for the sake of communicating messages to a larger audience (Nacos, 2002a)

Terrorism is characterised, first and foremost, by the use of violence. The idea of “terrorism” is a snare and delusion, a way of diverting the public’s attention from the failings of western

governments, the American and British ones especially. “Terrorism” is a semantic technique employed by government, spokespersons to change the subject, a slick way of transforming the victims of injustice into its perpetrators. This tactic of violence takes many forms and often indiscriminately targets non-combatants (Baylis, Smith and Patricia 2008). Till the 1990s, the number of groups and their ability to engage in terrorism was limited. Acts of terrorism itself and their intensity and lethality were also limited in scale.

 

In conclusion, terrorism is a menace to the society that has threatened every fabric of it throughout history. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” (Kulwant, 2005) is not only a cliché but also one of the most difficult obstacle in coping with terrorism. This global threat has all but not a global solution as some countries are trying to present it. With regards to terrorism the globe can share many things including intelligence, trafficking of money and information etc. but to deal with it can mostly be local. As a “language of communication” calls for attention to certain grievances and is thus not a goal in itself but a means. “Think Globally and Act Locally” (Kulwant, 2005) would be an honest approach to deal with the menace of terrorism. There is no one accepted definition and there is no one solution to the problem

  

Does Globalization contributes to Terrorism?

Globalization has contributed to the growth of terrorism from a regional phenomenon into a global one. Global terrorism has been explained in cultural, economic and religious terms linked to globalization.

 

Terrorism is now in full-bloom around Afghanistan and Pakistan, a strategic centre of the Islamic World. Trained by CIA and ISI, there are now over 100,000 jihadist all over the Islamic world in Kashmir, Albania, Chechnya, Xin-jiung (China), Central Asia and elsewhere. They are sustained by heroin exports and smuggling (Gupta, 2004). The number of groups that resort to terrorism now has increased, and their abilities have also been enhanced. Acts of terrorism have become more widespread and their lethality has also increased in terms of the number of civilian and security personnel causalities and the high levels of physical destruction that they can cause. Suicide attacks are non-discriminatory with targets, including the old, the young, the wealthy, and the poor. These attacks impact all sectors of the civilian population and have been carried out in various types of crowded public venues, including transit stations, buses, restaurants, shopping malls, nightclubs, and outdoor markets. This method of attack is adaptable, can maximize casualties, is inexpensive, and is far reaching by instilling fear in the general public.

 

There are several factors that contribute to the effectiveness of this mode of attack: Today when we think about “terrorism” we are more likely to associate it with the activities of private groups and organisations, what students of international relations frequently describe as “non-state” actors: Al Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah (Indonesia), Sendero Luminoso (Peru), People’s  evolutionary Armed forces (Colombia), Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Palestinian nationalists) PFLP, DFLP, PFLP-GC (Palestinian leftists), Hezbollah(Lebanon), Mujahedeen-e-Khlq (Iranian rebel),Chechnya-based Terrorists (Russia), Boko Haram (Nigeria), ISIS (Iraqi and Syria) etc. (Jackson and Sorensen, 2008). Terrorism is, “an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi) clandestine individual, group, or state actors, whereby the direct targets of the violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators (Laqueur, 2003). The emerging trend in the pattern of terrorism since the end of the Cold War has arisen due to certain political, socio-economic, geo-political, and strategic factors.

 

Purpose and Role of Global Terrorism in Present days

 

Terrorism did not begin in 2001 or in the 1990s for that matter. There is a long history behind the kind of violence that the mass media show us seemingly on a daily basis. The expression ‘Global Terrorism’ came into currency in our language with September 11, 2001. The attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon in USA was the first quaking spectacle of its kind watched on the TV networks. Global terrorism as represented by Al-Qaeda will grow into a large-scale threat to Western societies. While there are a great number of terrorist groups scattered around the world, especially in weak states. Those who think that the terrorist threat is not so serious emphasize how the Al-Qaeda network is specifically connected to marginalized Muslim groups of Mujahedin (fighters for Allah’s cause) who joined together to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and were able to use that country as a safe haven (Jackson and Sorensen, 2008). The London bomb attacks (2005) demonstrated that Muslims with a relatively ‘normal’ background as citizens of the UK had been recruited for the actions is very large indeed; it is not merely confined to ex-Afghani Mujahidin’s; it also comprises self-selected members of local Muslim societies in the UK and other Western countries. Some Commentators argue that the US-led war in Iraq leads to ‘blowback terrorism’ meaning that the war tends to increase, rather than decrease, the recruitment potential to international terrorism (Mann, 2003).

 

  Effects of Terrorism

                                                                                                          

The pace of political change in the world is revolutionary and the aftermath is far-reaching both vertically and horizontally around the globe. This trend is strange, having contradicting trends kept in the same basket of time and space. Since 2001, the world has witnessed several terror-related events, some of which are:

• Attack on the most powerful nation in the world, the US by non-state actors (Al Qaeda).
• The subsequent revival of a preemptory military alliance.
• Violation of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution.
• Military takeover of two states in three years i.e. Iraq in 2003 and Afghanistan in 2001).
• Revival of Imperialism
• Refusal of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and Kyoto Protocol by the US – the torchbearer of democracy.
• A new wave of serious violations of human rights like genocides (e.g. Sudan, 2004), honour killings and trafficking of women and children along with rising terrorist attacks by non-state militias
• A slump in economic activity since the fall of 2007 and then constantly falling economic indices (e.g. the fall of Lehman Brothers in the US). The credit market collapsed in tandem with rising military budgets of some of the developing and developed nations. Not only this, the world also saw rising economic powers with distinct features like Russia with its gas, oil and gold reserves; India with its trillion-dollar economy, a civilian nuclear deal with the US and a provocative military doctrine  ..
• The addition of new members of the nuclear club (North Korea and Iran) after the failure of diplomacy and economic sanctions. Overall, the global was on terror has resulted in severe consequences. The distant military power, the US, has become regional to the Asian powers sitting at the doorsteps of Western, Central and Eastern Asia. The resultant security dilemma has pushed politics of great powers towards increasing economic interdependence, larger military budgets and the creation of a state. (http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/the-challenges-of-global-terrorism/)

 Is there a relationship between Terrorism and Media?

“The success of a terrorist operation depends almost entirely on the amount of publicity it receives.”—Walter Laqueur, Terrorism (1977)

A renowned terrorism expert Walter Laqueur writes in his book The New Terrorism (1999):

“It has been said that journalists are terrorists’ best friends, because they are willing to give terrorist operations maximum exposure. This is not to say that journalists as a group are sympathetic to terrorists, although it may appear so. It simply means that violence is news, whereas peace and harmony are not. The terrorists need the media, and the media find in terrorism all the ingredients of an exciting story”

As Hoffman (2008) argues to explain the above-mentioned symbiosis, “without the media’s coverage, the act’s impact is arguably wasted, remaining narrowly confined to the immediate victim(s) of the attack, rather than reaching the wider ‘target audience’ at whom the terrorists’ violence is actually aimed.” In a similar vein, Stohl (in Staci, Bennett, and Flickinger 2002) argues that terrorists are primarily interested in audience, not the victims, and emphasizes that how the audience reacts is as important as the act itself. Accordingly, winning the attention of the media, national and foreign publics, and decision-makers in a government is one of the primary goals of terrorists. To this end, terrorists carefully select the places in which they carry out their attacks in order to provide the best media coverage.  As will be addressed later in greater detail, the obvious example of this is the 9/11 attacks in the US, where a wide variety of media covered the story immediately.  Not only was the media able to capture this incredibly visual attack, but the people who were in New York City, residents and tourists alike, were also able to document this event with pictures, videos and personal stories (Baran, 2008).

Recent history, specifically the past decade, has provided plenty of examples of the mutually beneficial relationship between terrorist organizations and the media (Rohner and Frey, 2007). As some remarkable terrorist attacks in history indicate, whether it is in the United States (US), Europe, or the Middle East, it is by and large the case that the architects of terrorism exploit the media for the benefit of their operational efficiency, information gathering, recruitment, fund raising, and propaganda schemes (Nacos, 2006). In the words of Nacos (2002), whether it is the relatively inconsequential arson by an amateurish environmental group or mass destruction by a network of terrorists, the perpetrators’ media-related goals are the same: attention, recognition, and perhaps even a degree of respectability and legitimacy in their various publics (Nacos 2002a). Media, in return, receives the attention of the public that is vital for its existence and benefits from record sales and huge audiences. To put it briefly, just as terrorism has to be communicated to have effect (Seib and Janbek, 2011), the media has to cover the incidents in such a way to benefit from the public’s eagerness to obtain information about terrorist attacks. It is, therefore, fair to argue that there is a mutually beneficial relationship between terrorism and today’s media.

The How and Why of the Media Coverage of Terrorism

Needless to say, terrorism is an attractive boon for media coverage, mainly because terrorist attacks make viewer ratings surge and profits increase. To be more specific, terrorism has many aspects that make it a very attractive subject for the media, as it has the elements of drama, danger, blood, human tragedy, miracle stories, heroes, shocking footage, and action (Terrorism and the Media 2008). Another reason is that violence is a central and defining quality in contemporary television culture and is critical to the semiotic and financial momentum of contemporary media organizations (Lewis, 2005). Indeed, the media has always been interested in reporting terrorism; however, the recent proliferation of television and radio channels, and the emergence of mega-media organizations have resulted in greater competition and insatiable appetites for shocking, sensational “infotainment” that is believed to keep audiences captivated, boost ratings and circulation, and increase profits (Nacos, 2006). Also, the part of the reason why the media is that irresponsible and excessively profit-oriented in the context of terrorism is that a considerable number of top media executives today come from the corporate world, but not from the ranks of journalists (Biernatzki, 2002).

The problem does not lie in why the media covers terrorism, but lies in how the media covers terrorism. It is by and large the case that the media covers terrorist acts by writing sensation-seeking, enlarging anecdotic stories, especially on who is to blame, repeating the same images over and over again, separating physical and mental health consequences of disasters, and creating new syndromes (Vasterman, Yzermans, and Dirkzwager, 2005). In addition, the media traumatizes the audience by exaggerating the threats, or, as it was in the case in the US after 9/11, showing nonstop footage of combat scenes (Long, 2002). In other words, as Altheide underlines, the politics of fear is a dominant motif for news and popular culture today. Moreover, within this framework, news reporting about terrorism is linked with “victimization” narratives that make crime, danger, and fear very relevant to everyday experiences (Altheide, 2009).

To understand how the media portrays terrorists and covers related stories and news, one should take a closer look at the mediums the media employs. The media generally uses agenda setting and framing to highlight and make certain issues more prominent than others. Agenda setting is the theory that the more attention a media outlet pays to a certain phenomenon, the more importance the public attributes to such an issue (Terrorism and the Media, 2008). Framing, on the other hand, is “selecting some aspects of a perceived reality and making them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (Papacharissi  and Oliveira, 2008). Thus, the words and images that make up the frame can be distinguished from the rest of the news by their capacity to stimulate support of or opposition to the sides in a political conflict (Entman, 2003).

The Media-Related Goals and Means of Terrorists

As Hoffman (2008) argues to explain the above-mentioned symbiosis, “without the media’s coverage, the act’s impact is arguably wasted, remaining narrowly confined to the immediate victim(s) of the attack, rather than reaching the wider ‘target audience’ at whom the terrorists’ violence is actually aimed.” In a similar vein, Stohl (in Staci, Bennett, and Flickinger, 2002) argues that terrorists are primarily interested in audience, not the victims, and emphasizes that how the audience reacts is as important as the act itself. Accordingly, winning the attention of the media, national and foreign publics, and decision-makers in a government is one of the primary goals of terrorists. To this end, terrorists carefully select the places in which they carry out their attacks in order to provide the best media coverage.  As will be addressed later in greater detail, the obvious example of this is the 9/11 attacks in the US, where a wide variety of media covered the story immediately.  Not only was the media able to capture this incredibly visual attack, but the people who were in New York City, residents and tourists alike, were also able to document this event with pictures, videos and personal stories (Baran, 2008).

Indeed, the goals of terrorists are not solely confined to winning the attention of the masses. In addition to that, through the media, they aim to publicize their political causes, inform both friends and foes about the motives for terrorist deeds, and explain their rationale for resorting to violence (Nacos, 2006). They further aim to be treated like regular, accepted, legitimate world leaders, as the media gives them a similar status. That is to say, for terrorists, the media functions as a tool to shrink the power asymmetry between them and the entity they fight against in an actual and ideological warfare, create an atmosphere of fear and suspicion, legitimize their acts, and reach greater audiences. Given these motives, terrorists arguably carry out their attacks rationally and strategically with full awareness of the influence of the media coverage on almost every segment of a society and government officials of almost all levels. To illustrate this, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al-Qaeda, argues that “[al-Qaeda is] in a battle, and more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. [Al-Qaeda is] in a media battle for the hearts and minds of the ummah” (Seib and Janbek, 2011).

Terrorists’ means of communication greatly vary. Indeed, technological advancements and changing audience behavior in the past decade enabled terrorist groups to utilize media tools with greater convenience. Specifically in the years since the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union crumbled, the mass media of communication have changed in dramatic ways, mostly because of the global reach of the Internet and cellular phones (Nacos, 2002a). The new and emerging media has made it easier for terrorists to publicize their messages to the world via websites at their own discretion and “new technologies have simply allowed the dissemination of terrorist messages to reach a broader audience with a more concise message” (Baran 2008). In the words of Moutot, “terrorists do not really need [printed media] anymore to convey their message. The ‘official’ media have been replaced by the Internet which, in the end, is much easier to use, much quicker and much more effective” (Nacos, 2006). In other words, the Internet has arguably replaced the role of the printed media in the field of terrorism, as, for the first time in history, terrorists can take whatever message and images they decide to straight to the online world, which is global in reach (Klopfenstein in Kavoori, 2006). As their stories and messages reach the general public either through the “old” media or the “new” media, terrorists use this publicity specifically in their recruitment efforts. In brief, the Internet clearly increased the scope of terrorist propaganda and activities, and became a perfect tool for terrorists in terms of advancing their operational goals with little expense and risk.

Despite this, the power of other media forms and technologies such as video and audiocassettes, DVDs, video games, popular music, and novels should not be underestimated (Nacos, 2002b). Terrorists generally embrace the newest information, follow the latest technological developments to be innovative, and utilize the most up-to-date communication technologies; however, it does not necessarily indicate an absolute shift from old technologies and trends, as, for instance, some terrorist organizations even today rely on hawala, the informal network of money exchanges that dates back to 8th century (Feldman, 2006).

The picture above suggests that terrorists need the media to receive free publicity for their cause, transmit their messages, and garner support, recognition, and legitimacy. Given the emerging trends in the media and communications technology, it is likely that terrorists will employ more innovative tactics to achieve their goals.

The 9/11 Attacks and the Media

Without a doubt, the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and on the Pentagon near Washington, DC were shocking global media events that dominated public attention and provoked reams of discourse (Kellner, 2004). Obviously, terrorists were aware of the fact that attacking the symbolic targets in the US, killing thousands of citizens, and causing a tremendous amount of damage to the American and international economy, as well as the image of the US would be sensational news around the globe.

The response of the media in the US was often far from being objective, calm, and prudent. Instead, media organs oozed hatred and hysteria, calling for action against mainly Arabs and Muslims and crying for revenge, as terrorists would have planned. The major corporate media tended to support the patriotic discourse and the policies of the then president George W. Bush, who was leading the nation against the forces of “political and cosmological evil” (Lewis, 2005). This way of media coverage after a traumatic event dramatically changed the public perceptions, discourse at government and public levels, and the way people perceive events and “other” people, specifically ethnic and religious minorities who can be perceived as a “threat”. As a result, as Altheide (2009) argues, the discourse of fear has been constructed through news and popular culture accounts and the main discourse of fear has clearly become terrorism in the post 9/11 era. In other words, “9/11 was used by the media and politicians to promote fear related agendas and ideologies. Citizens became accustomed to ‘safety rhetoric’ by police officials, which often required them to permit police searches, condone ‘overaggressive’ police action, as well as join in a myriad of crime-prevention efforts, many of which involved more human as well as electronic surveillance of work places, neighborhoods, stores, and even ‘bodies’” (Altheide, 2009).

The picture above suggests that the architects of the 9/11 attacks achieved their media-centered objectives, as the media conveyed the message that even the US was vulnerable to terror attack, that terrorists could create great harm, and that anyone at any time could be subject to a deadly terror attack. They also succeeded in immersing the US government in “a global information war to promote the interests, values, and the image of the US” (Kavoori and Fraley, 2006). Terrorists were obviously aware of the magnitude of sensation their attacks would create; however, the way media covered news and stories rendered it possible for the terrorists to conceive an unimaginable victory in terms of penetrating into the daily lives of a huge audience. They attracted global attention, obtained global recognition, received a degree of respect among sympathizers, and gained legitimacy in the eyes of supporters and potential recruits, through the fear narrative the media employed.

Media coverage of terrorism ‘leads to further violence’

Violence, so the saying goes, begets violence. Now evidence is emerging that suggests even the reporting of violence can trigger further attacks. Research has found that sensationalist media coverage of acts of terrorism results in more such acts being committed.

Michael Jetter, a professor at the School of Economics and Finance at Universidad EAFIT in Medellín, Colombia, and a research fellow at the Institute for the Study of Labour in Bonn, Germany, analysed more than 60,000 terrorist attacks between 1970 and 2012 as reported in the New York Times. Jetter notes that over the past 15 years “the world has experienced a terrifying, exponential increase in the number of terrorist attacks”. The Global Terrorism Database listed 1,395 attacks in 1998, a figure that has steadily risen since then, reaching a record high of 8,441 in 2012.

The total number of casualties from terrorist attacks in the past 15 years has soared from 3,387 to 15,396. At the same time, terrorist groups have increasingly sought to use the media to promote their agendas.

Graphic videos of beheadings filmed by Islamic State and released on the internet have turned the group into a globally feared brand. But they have also prompted anguished questions about how much such organisations should be given “the oxygen of publicity”.

According to Jetter, one additional New York Times article about an attack in a particular country increased the number of ensuing attacks in the same country by between 11% and 15%. On average, he calculates that an additional NYT article appears to result in between one and two casualties from another terrorist attack within the next week.

He also found that less attention was devoted to attacks in countries farther away from the US. Significantly, Jetter concluded that the media attention devoted to a terrorist attack was predictive of both the “likelihood of another strike in the affected country within seven days’ time and of a reduced interval until the next attack”.

The findings raise the question of whether limiting the reporting of acts of terrorism would result in a decline in attacks. Jetter pointed out that 42 people die every day from terrorist attacks, compared with 7,123 children who die from hunger-related causes.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/01/media-coverage-terrorism-further-violence

The Role of the Media/Recommendation

The media plays a central role in the calculus of political violence and are put into positions where they can magnify or minimize these kinds of acts and their perpetrators, or, of course, they can provide coverage that avoids either one of those extremes (Nacos, 2002a). Under this light, the recommendations below can be implemented to minimize the media-related effects of terrorism:

1. Desecuritization – There is no doubt that terrorism must be reported. However, the way the events are framed and the extent to which it is covered is also important. Accordingly, in order to alter the symbiotic relationship between terrorism and the media, it is of high importance for the media to reevaluate and change its rhetoric when covering the terrorism-related news and stories. Just as the security elite can desecuritize issues in international affairs through speech-acts, media can adopt the same approach and desecuritize terrorism-related acts and stories through covering those incidents just as any other story in a more responsible and less “sensational” manner. Achieving this may not only prevent terrorists from using media coverage as an important publicity and recruitment tool, but may also prevent the emergence of an atmosphere of fear at the public level. It may also force government and security elite to make more rational decisions regarding countering terrorism and dealing with public outrage. Hence, news coverage with less repetition of horrific scenes, less traumatization, less sensation and more information and prudence are essential in the first place to break the symbiosis.

2. Objectivity – The media should have a conscious sense of its responsibilities to the public, as one of the goals of terrorists it to shake public confidence in their own security. Thus, objectivity and bipartisanship should be key when reporting a story. The media should present both sides of the story to the audience fairly and accurately without bias, so that the audience can make their own opinion of the news and/or story independent of the media’s negative influence. The media coverage of success stories should be balanced with the coverage of failure stories without speculation and dramatization in order to add to the credibility of the source and public order in the aftermath of an attack.

3. Clarity – Since a critical part of counterterrorism is information warfare, it is among the goals of terrorists to misinform the public and exploit the uncertainty and suspicion emerged afterwards. Given these, the media should provide the clearest, most factual, and most balanced information to the extent it is possible to prevent the misinterpretation of terrorism-related incidents by the public and government officials who can possibly make suboptimal decisions regarding the countering moves. The media should especially avoid presenting extreme and blindly partisan viewpoints to raise ratings and use a plain language that everybody can understand in order not to invite panic.

4.Selective use of soft power – Even though some advocate the use of media tools for propaganda against terrorists, specifically in the narrative warfare in radical extremism, this is generally fruitless, given that the media has certain limits and legal and moral obligations, while terrorists do not. It is also counterproductive, as media propaganda amplifies the perceived power of a terrorist organization. Instead, media can be employed as a public affairs and public diplomacy tool instead of a propaganda tool to influence foreign publics and potential recruits. To this end, without propaganda, through the “new” and “traditional” media tools, the extremist narrative can be countered with an equally clear and appealing narrative to deny access to the public terrorists draw their support from.

5. Differentiation – Since no terrorist group is alike, the media should differentiate between different types of terrorism and terrorist groups in order not to provoke and mobilize public against certain ethnic and/or religious minorities. In other words, it is of high importance not to cover news and stories in such a way to contribute to the “otherization” of the group in question and create an “us vs. them” scenario. Such dichotomy can give way to social unrest in multicultural societies that fail to integrate certain groups and trigger further attacks, as the anger and hopelessness become pushing forces for potential recruiters, sympathizers, and even moderates to uprise.

6. Counter cyber-terrorism – The Internet has become a central forum in a global scale for debate among numerous communities that are being directly affected by the global political violence. The communication of violent and oppressive groups has also heavily relied on the Internet. In other words, the age of the Internet has brought an age of online terrorism and enabled terrorists to use the web to recruit, raise money, and spread their messages. Even though the regulation of the media, specifically the Internet, presents a fundamental dilemma due to the inherent tension between censorship and the democratic tradition of free speech, privacy, and press freedom, it is crucial to take countering measures against the cyber activities of terrorists. These measures can include tracking their activities on online forums, following their conservations and activities on social media, and prevent the spread of radicalizing materials from specific websites. In addition to that, enacting laws at national level to punish the ones using the Internet to provoke the public, recruit and train, and propagandize can identify terrorists and prevent a potential attack.

7. Government assistance – Governments can give assistance to media organs by giving the political context and background of any terrorism-related act or story, as it is ideally the ultimate goal of the media to correctly inform the audience. To this end, a government-media partnership that is better informing the public, refuting the arguments of terrorists, and depriving them of the publicity they need can be formed.

Concluding Remarks

Terrorism is a category of political violence, which is intended to influence foreign and domestic governments, as well as communities. Terrorism uses its immediate victims and material targets for semiotic and symbolic purposes (Lewis, 2005). Attacks are designed to create an atmosphere of fear or a sense of threat. In the same vein, terrorism can also refer to politically motivated deeds perpetrated by groups or individuals for the sake of communicating messages to a larger audience (Nacos, 2002a). In any case, the terrorists’ need for media publicity and media’s need for a greater audience and profits form a symbiotic relationship between terrorism and the media.

This symbiosis is not inevitable. Implementing certain policies that are different than the previous failed policies can facilitate the breaking of that cycle by forcing at least one side of the equation–the media–to act in a more responsible, more conscious, and more cooperative manner. Only then starving the terrorists of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend can become possible and more robust steps can be taken to win the ideological and actual battle against terrorism.

 References

Altheide, D. (2009). Terror Post 9/11 and the Media. Terror Post 9/11 and the Media.

Arda, b. (2008). Terrorism and Media. Transnational Terrorism, Security, and the Rule of Law.

Baran, J. (2008). Terrorism and the Mass Media after Al Qaeda: Achange of Course? The Peace and Conflict Review 3. Retrieved from www.review.upeace.org/index.cfm?opcion=0&ejemplar=7&entrada=63: www.review.upeace.org/index.cfm?opcion=0&ejemplar=7&entrada=63

Baylis, S. a. (2008). The Globalisation of the World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Challenges of Global Terrorism-Strategies, Dimensions and Response: In search of a perspective, 8.

Biernatzki, W. E. (2002). Terrorism and Mass Media. Communication Research Trend , 21.

Entman, R. M. (2003). Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House's Frame After 9/11. Political Communication, 20.

Feldman, R. (2006). Fund Transfers-African Terrorists Blend Old and New: Hawala and Satelite Telecommunications. Small Wars and Insurgencies, 17.

Gupta. (2004). Introduction to International relations: Theories and approaches. Challenges of Global Terrorism- Strategies, Dimensions and Response: In Search of a Perspective, 8.

HoffMan. (2012, July 22). E-International Relations Students. Retrieved from Terrorism and the Media: A dangerous Symbiosis: http://www.e-ir.info/2012/07/22/terrorism-and-the-media-a-dangerous-symbiosis/

Kavoori, A. P. (2006). Media, Terrorism, and Theory. USA: Rowman and Littlefield. Media, Terrorism, and Theory. USA: Rowman and Littlefield.

Kellner, D. (2004). 9/11, Spectacles of Terror, and Media Manipulation: A critique of Jihadist and Bush Media Politics. Critical Discourse Studies.

Kulwant. (2005). Introduction to International relations: Theories and approaches. Challenges of Global Terrorism- Strategies, Dimensions and Response: In Search of a Perspective, 7.

Lewis, J. (2005). The Role of Media and Culture in Global Terror and Political Violence. London: Pluto Press. Language wars.

Long, D. E. (2002). Coming to Grips With Terrorism After 11 September. Brown Journal of International Affairs, 8.

Mann. (2003). Introduction to International Relations: Theories and approaches. Challenges of Global Terrorism- Strategies, Dimensions and Response: In Search of a Perspective.

Michael, J. (2015, August 1). Media Coverage of Terrorism ' Leads to further Violence'. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/01/media-coverage-terrorism-further-violence, p. 1.

Nacos, B. L. (2002a). Mass-Mediated Terrorism. USA: Rowman and Littlefield. Mass-Mediated Terrorism. USA: Rowman and Littlefield.

Nacos, B. L. (2002b). Terrorism, the Mass Media and Events of 9-11. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 82.

Nacos, B. L. (2006). Terrorism/Counterterrorism and Media in the Age of Global Communication. United Nations University Global Seminar Second Shimame-Yamaguchi Session, Terrorism - Aglobal Challenge.

Nacos, B. L.-R. (2002). Muslim Americans in the News before and After 9-11. Prepared for Presentation at the Symposium. " Restless Searchlight". Terrorism, the Media and Public Life, Co-sponsored by the APSA Communication Section and the Shorenstein Centre at the John F. Kennedy School, Harvard University.

Papacharissi, Z. a. (2008). News Frames Terrorism: A comparative Analysis of Frames Employed in Terrorism Coverage in U.S and U.K Newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13.

Rhine, S. S. (2002). Television Viewers, Newspaper Readers and Public Opinion about Terrorism's Consequences.'' Presentation at the Annual APSA Meeting. Television Viewers, Newspaper Readers and Public Opinion about Terrorism's Consequences.'' Presentation at the Annual APSA Meeting.

Rohner, D. a. (2007). Blood and Ink! The common-interest-game between terrorists and the media. Public Choice, 133.

Seib, P. a. (2011). Global Terrorism and New Media.GB: Routledge. Global Terrorism and New Media.GB: Routledge.

Sorensen, J. a. (2012). Introduction to International relations: Theories and approaches. Challenges of Global Terrorism- Strategies, Dimensions and Response: In Search of a Perspective, 7. Retrieved from http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/IAGS/article/view/1452: http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/IAGS/article/view/1452

Vasterman, P. C. (2005). The Role of the Media and Media Hypes in the Aftermath of Disasters. Epidemiologic Reviews, 27.

Walter, L. (2013, April 18). Terrorism and the Media: A symbiotic relationship. Retrieved from www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/terrorism_and _the_media_a_symbiotic_relationship: www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/terrorism_and _the_media_a_symbiotic_relationship