
Struggling to cover terrorism in the media age - ColinWright
https://www.buzzfeed.com/zeyneptufekci/dont-let-isis-shape-the-news
======
jelly
This seems like a reframing of Charlie Brooker's criticism of news coverage
regarding mass shootings[0]. Then, as now, many institutions seemed focussed
on providing dramatic and emotional coverage rather than more objective and
disconnected reporting.

I think the BBC has somewhat changed its tone in respect to events like this;
it's usually slow or last to report casualty numbers and attacker names, but
being last doesn't effect social change if lots of competitors are doing it
anyway.

[0][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2o1V4lX_g4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2o1V4lX_g4)

------
moofight
Disrupt their appeal and outreach by:

\- no longer showing the faces / names / manifestos of the suicide bombers on
media

\- showing the people who stand up, who demonstrate, who fight for our values
rather than showing the panic, chaos, people running for their lives

would that help?

~~~
chmod775
What would help is stop making such a giant fuzz about it every time something
happens. The media just "likes" these kinds of events because they make
emotions run high.

In reality terrorism accounts for less than 0.01% of premature deaths, yet
nations spend magnitudes more surveilling their own citizens and fighting
stupid wars (to no apparent avail) than they spend on fighting various other
things that kill more than a thousand times (> 1000x) more people.

Here's a nice chart visualizing the disproportional response:
[https://i1.wp.com/thinkbynumbers.org/wp-
content/uploads/2008...](https://i1.wp.com/thinkbynumbers.org/wp-
content/uploads/2008/03/death-and-dollars.jpg)

~~~
DefundTerrorism
>In reality terrorism accounts for less than 0.01% of premature deaths,

Sure death by terrorism is only a blip. But the amount of money spent on
spreading terrorist idealology is insane.

The problem is, our ally, Saudi Arabia, is spending Billions on Wahhabist
Terrorism Propaganda aka Petro-Islam. In fact, money trails show KSA funded
90% of Wahhabist Terrorism Propoganda (Petro-Islam) around the world through
mosques and literature.

From Wikipedia:

>Wahhabism has been accused of being "a source of global terrorism", inspiring
the ideology of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and for
causing disunity in Muslim communities by labelling Muslims who disagreed with
the Wahhabi definition of monotheism as apostates (takfir) and justifying
their killing. It has also been criticized for the destruction of historic
mazaars, mausoleums, and other Muslim and non-Muslim buildings and artifacts.

>Saudi Arabia is called the "cradle of Wahhabist Terrorism". In fact, Saudi
Arabia funded an estimated "90% of the expenses of the entire faith
[wahhabism]", throughout the Muslim World, according to journalist Dawood al-
Shirian.

>It extended to young and old, from children's madrasas to high-level
scholarship. This spending has done much to overwhelm less strict local
interpretations of Islam, according to observers like Dawood al-Shirian and
Lee Kuan Yew, and has caused the Saudi interpretation (sometimes called
"petro-Islam") to be perceived as the correct interpretation – or the "gold
standard" of Islam – in many Muslims' minds.

>The Salafi movement is often described as being synonymous with Wahhabism.

------
finid
Missing in media reports about these things is the connection between action
(our foreign military mis-adventures) and reaction (terrorist attacks).

About a month ago we celebrated the mother of all bombs that flattened what
amounted to a small village in Afghanistan. We were told that it killed ONLY
90 terrorists, assuming the vast area it affected was inhabited only by the
killed terrorists. Not a single civilian was killed, we were told.

The pilot and his crew are our heroes.

Somewhere there's an Afghan from that flattened area. Even if he doesn't
subscribe to ISIS/Taliban ideology, he can't be too happy.

Most people in his position would feel that they have a score to settle. And
when he has the opportunity, we don't make the connection.

He's a terrorist, but we have our heroes.

Sometimes I feel like crying, not for the dead (that won't help them), but for
the rest of us still alive.

~~~
lostmsu
> Missing in media reports about these things is the connection between action
> (our foreign military mis-adventures) and reaction (terrorist attacks).

Ha! That is probably because there's comparatively less correlation between
terrorist attacks and foreign politics, than there's between terrorist attacks
and attacker's religion. In case you are not aware, various islamic groups
perform terrorist attacks in Philippines (look up recent news), India and
Russia, the former two being 100% internal affairs.

~~~
finid
And in virtually all those cases, there's a link to the target's actions
against something the terrorists hold dear.

Terrorist activity in India? Look to Kashmir.

In Russia? The Russians fought their own war on terrorism before we went into
Afghanistan. In some ways going into Afghanistan diverted fighters streaming
into Chechnya to fight the Russian army to Afghanistan. We gave them a target
they hated more than they hated the Russians. From reports, many of the best
fighters on the side of ISIS are Chechens.

The Russians, by the way, are still fighting terrorists.

And whether these wars are "internal affairs" or not is immaterial.

~~~
lostmsu
> And in virtually all those cases, there's a link to the target's actions
> against something the terrorists hold dear.

If by 'something the terrorists hold dear' you mean power and prevalence of
islam, I absolutely agree! When Chechnya de-facto separated from Russia in
1990s, they run multiple ethnic cleansings:
[https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87...](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%B2_%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B5)
(no translation to English unfortunately).

It looks like something similar is happening right now in the Philippines.

~~~
finid
_Power_? Doubtful. _Prevalence of Islam_? Maybe.

However, just watching another person destroy your homeland can tick most
people off.

------
daemin
Whenever I read a meta article like this I think that part of the reason it is
written is so the author can appear or feel superior to the people reading and
the other people writing about the same event. Much in the same way I am (in
some small part) writing this comment to feel superior to the author of the
article. This then feeds into an endless meta-loop from which only few escape.

------
Upvoter33
Agree with the article (generally). The comments section below it, however,
shows that many don't seem to understand the problem -- that the media is a
tool being exploited by terrorists.

~~~
panzer_wyrm
No they are symbiotes. The same as with Trump. The media needs terrorists and
love the current administration. They were not exploited... they are willing
partners.

Every left leaning journalist has perfect job security - something that this
profession has nit seen in a decade. And highly improved social status among
the crowds.

~~~
l33tbro
>Every left leaning journalist has perfect job security

You've crossed over to hyperbole now. While the current administration has
been colorul, there's a click fatigue induced when outrage becomes normative.

Or have you come across some data about the decline of syndicated coverage and
the resurgence of investigative reporting?

------
nailer
An excellent point, the media are indeed part of the problem, on both the left
and the right:

\- Buzzfeed (a couple of years ago) published an exclusive that ISIS wants
it's followers to find employees of company X and slit their throats.

\- The Times (last week) published that ISIS wants it's followers to (attack
pubic in specific manner).

Anyone, worldwide, who sympathises with ISIS would simply read those
instructions and follow them.

~~~
Theodores
Could the real ISIS stand up please? Anything and everything is blamed on ISIS
yet nobody has ever met a genuine ISIS person. It is a contrivance of the
military industrial media congressional complex, the moral panic of our age.

Because ISIS get instantly blamed a legitimate struggle against a Washington
ally can be blamed on ISIS and not whatever nationalist movement was behind
the incident. Things can only be done by people assumed to be ISIS
sympathisers, not by anyone else.

~~~
nailer
There is no 'real ISIS'. There's only people closer and further from the
center who share the same ideals. That's the point: the media connects them.

> Things can only be done by people assumed to be ISIS sympathisers

No, certain things are done by people who identify themselves as ISIS
symathisers

> not by anyone else.

Huh? I think we all know far right and far left groups who are responsible for
violence and nobody pretends they're ISIS.

------
zamalek
There's another side to this that I contemplated today. If the goal of
terrorism is to spread terror, have they accomplished their goal? So far as
the families of the victims and people in surrounding areas go, likely.
However, when you look at the planet as a whole you have this sort of
response[1]: widespread and global compassion. This defiance must be
incredibly demoralizing for murderous scum. Removing awareness of these
events, which media provides, takes our defiance (compassion, solidarity, and
fearlessness) away.

Limiting the media would only work if we limited all media in this way. The
media needs to cover our peaceful defiance and we need to give the media more
of that defiance to cover.

[1]: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/23/world-
monuments-i...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/23/world-monuments-
illuminated-british-flag-tribute-manchester/)

------
KaiserPro
The problem is this:

It is profitable to report on such things. Outrage sells. The UK (and I assume
others) suffer horribly because of the death throws of print media. The
dailymail would lead with every big ISIS video, simply because people would
visit their site.

Until the link between peddling/stirring outrage and profits is severed, we
will continue to have problems like this.

~~~
flurdy
The media, especially in the UK, also hound victims' families for profit. In
the past with the infamous phone-hacking scandal, and this week chasing
families of the missing (in this sad case later confirmed fatality).

I can avoid reading such journalism but the vast population is attracted to
car crashes and will look.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacki...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal)

[2][https://twitter.com/danhett/status/866960257150529536](https://twitter.com/danhett/status/866960257150529536)

------
carapat_virulat
I have to say, I am impressed at how journalists are able to find new
ingenious ways to write whole articles about the attacks without mentioning
Islam or why it was perpetrated even once.

On a more serious note, we westerners are probably not the target audience of
these attacks, so I'm not sure hiding them from our population will do
anything to prevent the news from reaching their target audience. I seriously
doubt ISIS potential recruits get their news from Buzzfeed.

~~~
jansho
Because to do so would be rather unfair on the vast majority of followers who
do not share the values of these terrorists. Ever wonder why the world hasn't
burnt down? Because there isn't a "sleeper switch" in every Muslim you pass in
the streets.

There are discussions of Islam and ISIS - the Atlantic's most popular article
covers just that (so thorough that it's praised by ISIS even.) And then
there's the likes of the Daily Mail, which rather than heal serves to deepen
divisions and hatred - _that_ is the aim of terrorists.

~~~
Neliquat
Suppressing when attackers are muslim does not equal equating all muslims with
terrorists. Wtf. Lets not censor our news for any reason, nor sensationalize
it.

------
vka
[https://news.vice.com/story/us-airstrikes-have-killed-
more-a...](https://news.vice.com/story/us-airstrikes-have-killed-more-and-
more-civilians-in-iraq-and-syria-since-trump-took-office)

The coalition's terrorist media strategy is a bit more subdued.

~~~
mmjaa
> 1,472 Civilians killed by the US/UK and their allies this month.

The statistics are mind-boggling. We are at war, people, FFS.

Stop being so surprised when that war arrives within our borders.

------
nippples
What is needed is for nations in Europe to take less unaccompanied adults and
have an education system more focused on assimilating the young ones into the
local culture, not opening the local culture to the same cultures those people
are supposedly escaping from.

~~~
mschuster91
What in blazes are you talking about? The perpetrator in question was born and
raised in UK. This has NOTHING to do with "unaccompanied adults".

Also, "assimilating the young ones into the local culture"... I am not sure
what openly racist stuff like your post has deserved being on HN - I'd say
/r/The_Donald is a better place.

~~~
daemin
As the old saying goes "When in Rome, do as the Romans do".

Why should people not assimilate into the local culture of where they are
fleeing to? Or at least discard elements of their previous culture which are
incompatible with where they are now? Especially if the place they came from
was so bad that they had to leave?

If they cannot or do not want to assimilate to the new culture, or discard
incompatible practices in their new location, then they are always free to
return.

It's not racist to call out faults with cultures and ideologies, no culture is
perfect, but some cultures are objectively better than others.

Note that culture is not the same as religion, and it's not the same thing as
race.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Why should they change at all? What does it even mean to be 'incompatible'?
Who's the arbiter? Why is your culture the 'objectively better' one?

Lets just call it what it is - intolerance. "Why can't those foreigners just
behave like I want them to! They make me uncomfortable" is what small-minded
folk all over the world say about immigrants. Have said, for centuries.

~~~
daemin
What I'm talking about is cultural things like slavery, honour killings, child
sexual exploitation, blasphemy killings, making homosexual relations illegal.
I would hope that we can agree that these are things which are unacceptable or
at least unpalatable in the modern world. Therefore cultures where this is
acceptable and normal practice are objectively worse than in cultures where it
is unacceptable.

So when people move from cultures where these things are practised to where
they are not, they should either drop them, or move back.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Yeah some things seem very wrong to us, and probably are.

But I like to keep aware that, much that we do is viewed as appalling by
others. Some is objectively worse (like healthcare, prisons, racism). Yet we
struggle at the highest levels to preserve these cultural features.

Sigh.

------
spookyuser
Great article. Although I think it missed out on offering the obvious solution
of just not watching 24H news. Large networks themselves are not going to stop
making this kind of content until it's no longer profitable.

------
rrggrr
Its inspiring that widespread violence and terrorism didn't erupt in South
Africa in response to the end of apartheid. It certainly did as Rhodesia
became Zimbabwe. The key to the relative peace, I believe, was the widely
endorsed notion of reconciliation, or acceptance promulgated throughout all
aspects of South African society, particularly by religious and tribal
leaders.

I don't think its realistic to expect the media to change how it covers
terrorism. I do think much more could be done to celebrate, reward and
publicize those preaching against violence and for peace.

~~~
PKop
Well... there is this though, which sounds pretty horrible

[http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/bury-
th...](http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/bury-them-alive-
white-south-africans-fear-for-their-future-as-horrific-farm-attacks-
escalate/news-story/3a63389a1b0066b6b0b77522c06d6476)

------
qrbLPHiKpiux
Media may like it for ratings. Sick, I know.

~~~
matt4077
I like how you're disgusted at actual people for a hypothetical that you came
up with not empirically, but because it appears to make sense to you.

But to ease your pain: "media" isn't a person, and therefore doesn't like or
dislike or fancy or abhor anything.

As to journalists: From nytimes.com getting 10% more visitors on some day
because of some terror attack to anyone's actual pay check or job security
takes so many steps it's basically meaningless as a conditioning signal.

~~~
barrkel
And companies are just people. Yes, indeed. "If it bleeds, it leads" \- the
people who choose headlines or what gets airtime select for urgency and impact
within what they perceive to be their demographic. They amp up things that
they know hook into trigger-points in their audience, because that's what gets
the audience emotionally engaged, because engagement means revenue.

Terror attacks can be played in a number of different ways, depending on the
audience and what they're afraid of; whether it's immigrants, other religions,
or social freedoms and militarization of the public sphere, there's plenty of
fear all around to write about and get the audience riled up on. And if you
don't think there's a profit motive in a media source engaging with its
audience, there's not much hope for you.

------
rovek
24 hour news has found its dream source.

Conventional media reporting is much easier to improve than social media.

* Focus on the victims not the witch hunt

* Don't immediately switch into full crisis mode, dropping the program schedule

* Don't speculate on whether it's "terror" (in fact, drop that terminology altogether - it's all crime)

This is not new thinking.

Social media is a much more challenging issue though, with professional
irritants like Katie Hopkins in the UK.

Edit: formatting

------
whack
I'm reminded of the Vietnam era slogan: _" Suppose they gave a war and nobody
came"_ One could just as easily adapt it to our modern day. " _Suppose they
gave a bomb and nobody talked about it "_ I can only imagine how frustrated
those narcissistic sociopaths would feel if after all that meticulous
planning, people simply talked about the weather the next day.

~~~
yodon
In 1972 there were over 1,900 acts of domestic terrorism bombing, and more
than 2,500 such bombings in the US in an 18 month period in the early
1970's[0][1]. The bombings were so common that reporters didn't even bother to
cover all of them, and yet the bombings continued until very gradually the
number of people who felt setting off a bomb in a building was a productive
way to end racism gradually declined towards zero (the 1970's are remembered
as the anti-war era but that wasn't actually the cause that drove most of the
bombers, as recounted into the linked histories).

[0][https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/42038209-days-of-
rage](https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/42038209-days-of-rage)

[1][https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/remember-
weather-underground-bloody-terrorism-at-home-
in-1970s/2015/04/01/c68f8b8c-d17f-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html)

------
skrowl
Anyone else find it ironic that Buzzfeed is talking about how we should curb
propaganda?

------
Eerie
Disrupt terrorism, or disrupt the media?

I'd like BuzzFeed to lead the fight with a good example - by shutting itself
down.

~~~
cholantesh
What would that accomplish, exactly?

~~~
Eerie
Less crap on the Internet.

~~~
cholantesh
That's pretty vague. What defines 'crap', and how does less of it lead to less
(effective) terrorism?

------
Corristowolf
(((Buzzfeed)))

~~~
dang
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines. If you
don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and
give us reason to believe you'll follow the rules in the future.

------
SimbaOnSteroids
I don't understand how media outlets that report on terrorism (by which I mean
the 24hr coverage cycle) aren't charged with being accomplices or accessories
to these terrorist acts. We know what terrorism is, mass murder + widespread
knowledge of aforementioned murder + political motive.

Look I'm not saying we just trash the 1st amendment but there has to be some
reasonable compromise that can be made in cases where violent crime is used in
order to grab headlines for some political cause. I'm not saying don't do any
reporting on terror either but there's gotta be some hard line of what's
definitly being irresponsible.

~~~
mmjaa
The most reasonable compromise that could be made is to force western media to
report on the casualties of the war being waged by western military forces.

We'd all be far less inclined to knee-jerk react to a 'terrorist attack' if we
were more aware, daily, of just how many civilians _WE_ have killed recently.

Alas, nobody wants to hear that news.

~~~
SimbaOnSteroids
We could also put minimums on the rate at which new information appears on
screen.

