Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : PROPAGANDA AND THE GLOBAL 'WAR' ON TERROR (GWOT) Years 1 and 2, ie 9/11-2003
Terrorists vs the Media: who really has the upper hand by E Morgan 
TERRORISTS VERSUS THE MEDIA: WHO REALLY HAS THE UPPER HAND? Elise Morgan The broadcast filled Americans nationwide with fear and terror. They fled their homes, running from impending doom. The radio report included information that Martians landed in New Jersey and were killing people with poisonous gas. The credibility of the event was marked with supposed updates and interviews with people who were seeing everything unfold. (Simon, 1994, p.263). This 1939 broadcast was nothing more than a show; supposed entertainment. Yet this dramatization of H. G. Wells' 'The War of the Worlds' by Orson Welles had the power to send the country into nothing less than a frenzy. If the world had not yet seen or understood the power of the media, the time had finally arrived (Simon, 1994, p. 263). Before you can fully understand how terrorists use and manipulate the news media to further their goals, it's important to have a solid understanding of how the media work. Of utmost importance in the television news industry is the ratings that news stations receive. The more people that are watching their programs, the higher their ratings points, and ultimately, the more stations can charge for advertising space for commercials. Advertising dollars are what pay the salaries and expenses of the stations. This is why during 'sweeps' months (February, May, July, and November) you will see an unusually high amount of special series, such as consumer investigative reports or reports on health. All of the stations are vying for your viewership. This is also why sometimes entire news departments are let go. If they aren't making the grade, management may believe the only way to fix the problem is to begin with a new set of reporters, anchors, etc. The competition is even more aggressive now because there are more outlets for viewers to choose from. No longer do the original big three networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS) monopolize the industry. Now there are cable networks like CNN, as well as tabloid shows all seeking the exclusives. Many viewers complain about the amount of violence on television and the sensationalism of today's newscasts, but the truth is the media is only giving the public what it wants to see. If people didn't watch it, news departments wouldn't produce it. In my own journalism career I've found that people have a curiosity that is sometimes insatiable. There may be a part of each viewer that doesn't want to see graphic video, but most people's curiosity wins out. News departments know this. Those that don't show the gruesome video or cover the violent stories lose out. The numbers show that even if people say they don't like to see violence, sex or sensationalism on TV, those programs that provide them win the audience. The success of shows like Hard Copy and Inside Edition prove this to be the case. Here is the bottom line for the news business: if people don't want to see something on television, they should stop watching it. That simple action would give those in control of making decisions on TV programming incentive to change their format. What makes television different than any other medium is the visual element. For television stations to be able to compete, they must use this element to their advantage. TV producers are counting on the fact that a picture is worth a thousand words. They use compelling video and as much as they can and stay away from 'talking heads' (industry lingo for people talking on camera with no video to cover the interview). News departments all over the country know what it takes to sell a story. What makes a news story compelling is the human element. A successful station will go beyond the initial story that a terrorist took hostages. The main focus after the concrete facts becomes the hostages' families, stories about the hostages' personal lives, and what is being done to free these innocent victims. This adds emotion, depth, and drama to the story. It personalizes the story, makes it easier for viewers to connect with the story. The story is no longer an objective list of facts. It is now a real story about real people like you and me. Unfortunately, as we will later see, it is this drama and emotion the terrorists depend on to manipulate viewers in a democratic society and ultimately their policy makers (Nacos, 1994, xxvii). Terrorists understand how the media work and count on these outlets to dramatize their cause, draw attention to it, legitimize it, and try to get their demands met. If the media refused to cover terrorist incidents, it would be much more difficult for terrorists to achieve their goals. In Totalitarian and Communist countries, as you can imagine, the media is not allowed to cover incidents as freely as in the United States. In countries such as Spain and Italy, the press is forbidden to publish terrorist manifestos or to give any positive publicity to the terrorists (O'balance, 1989, p.118). The same open, free press that is the basis of our democratic society also adds fuel to the fire for terrorists. Terrorists are quite savvy when it comes to using the press to their advantage. One of the earlier examples of this was during the 1972 Olympic games in Munich when the Israeli athletes were massacred. If the Palestinian group 'Black September' had killed hostages anywhere else in the world, there would not have been the same amount of coverage. Television cameras and reporters from all over the world were already in place. This horrific event could not help but grab the attention of the media and the viewers. An estimated 800 million people watched the live coverage. As Jeffrey D. Simon stated in The Terrorist Trap, 'Terrorism was ahead of television technology at this time. The global sporting event was instantaneously transformed into a global terrorist event.' (Simon, 1994, pp. 263-64). Terrorists continued their exploitation of the media into the next decade. The TWA hijacking in 1985 is an excellent example of the importance of media planning to terrorists. Special events were set up for news crews, including an exclusive television network interview with Amal leader Nabih Birri. Another dramatic exclusive was given in the cockpit of the plane. TWA captain John Testrake was shown with a hooded terrorist holding a pistol to his head. There was even a surprise dinner for the hostages hosted by the terrorists at a beachfront hotel with TV coverage of the event (Nacos, 1994, p. 128). The more dramatic the coverage that terrorists can get, and the greater the power to scare the American viewer or help them emotionally connect and pull for the safety of the hostages, the better chance the individual or group has to achieve its goals. When the public becomes more concerned with the welfare of the hostages than the overall good of the country, the pressure is on the President to make some tough decisions. Alexander Haig suggested that, 'the emotional climate created by television in a hostage situation leads to national pronouncements in which the lives of the hostages take precedence over the broader interests of the American people as a whole.' (Hickey, 1985, p.22). With a democratic society come many freedoms and choices. Unfortunately, it also means there is great pressure on the leader of that nation to please the people or be booted out of office. President Carter's inability to resolve the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979-80 contributed to his defeat when he ran for re-election in 1980. Many Americans saw him as an ineffective negotiator and leader, weak when it came to foreign policy. In fact many believe the rescue mission (which ultimately failed) was attempted because Carter's advisors felt the move was critical for his re-election and because of public expectations to act. Yet, at the time, the military estimated only a 65% success rate for the rescue mission. This shows the incredible power of terrorists to use the media to influence the public, and ultimately, decision-makers (Nacos, 1994, pp.140-41). The United States has a strict policy not to negotiate with terrorists. Yet terrorists have found a way to manipulate the Executive Office into putting the needs of a few over the needs of millions by finding our leader's weak spot. Gary Sick was the principal White House aide on Iran during the Iranian hostage crisis. He observed, 'The media contribute to the process of transforming an international issue into a domestic political crisis for the president. There is perhaps no other type of situation that subjects the president to such intense public scrutiny, and the president is aware that his image as a decisive and effective leader is constantly at risk.' (Sick, 1990, p.242). So, why do the media cover terrorist events if it ultimately benefits the terrorists' causes? First and foremost, it's because a journalist's job is to cover the news, and this is a news event. Some might say it is a planned media event and reputable news organizations try to stay away from staged events. But there's no doubt that when hostages are taken or people are killed, it is indeed a news event. Dan Rather, CBS news anchor, discussed the coverage of the hijacking of flight 847 at a conference. Rather posed the question, 'If you are covering a hijacking and you aren't going to cover the activities of the hijackers-even if they're staged-then aren't you in the wrong business?' (Broadcasting, 1985, pp.76-78). A news producer's first job is to decide what is news and what is not. Charles Caudill, VP Senior Executive Producer of CNN explains that if an organization calls the network and says they will blow up the World Trade Center in two days, they will pass the information on to the FBI, but it will not be reported as a news story. If an actual explosion occurs, it becomes breaking news. Caudill says, 'It's our journalistic duty to cover it. We can't start deciding what news to cover. We can't censor the news. It's our job to put it all on: the good, the bad, and the ugly, and let people decide for themselves.' Journalists see it as their job to inform the public. It is also of utmost importance to their integrity to objectively show both sides of an incident. Caudill recalled when the U.S. military was preparing to go into Haiti before Carter pulled out of negotiations. Officials spoke with CNN off-the-record about the military's movements and their concern about CNN going in live. Understandably, they did not want television crews showing military positions. They also warned that the military could not be responsible for the lives of the television crews. In the end, CNN agreed not to show movement on either side, but they would not alter their coverage. Similarly, the military asked CNN to stop broadcasting some of its coverage of the Gulf War. The military did not want to give any information away to the enemy. But CNN continued its coverage. Caudill says network officials didn't see Iraq as their enemy and that they wouldn't pull punches for either side. They believed it was their job to report the war as an objective bystander, not as an American news agency. Because CNN is broadcast all over the world, they had to be as unbiased as possible and show both sides objectively. Even though many people believe the media will not censor themselves, there is a code of ethics that most journalists follow. Most stations will not air the most gruesome footage they receive. Choosing wide shots instead of close-ups of dead bodies still gives the viewer the message. Viewers usually see only a small fraction of the video that passes through a news organization. Those who work at the TV stations are sensitive to their audience and are careful about unnecessary exposure to horrific video. ABC's 'World News Tonight' refused to air the gruesome footage of hanged hostage Lieutenant Colonel William Higgins in Lebanon despite the fact it had been aired on stations and networks across the country (Nacos, 1994, p.158). Most news departments will not report a suicide unless it was a public figure. They do not want to encourage suicides, glorify the act, or send the message that the media will give you attention if you kill yourself. Based upon my own experience, I believe that most journalists would not include in a story information they received if they knew it could endanger lives or an important investigation. Information off-the-record stays off-the-record if told to a trustworthy journalist. For instance, on the request of the Reagan Administration, the media agreed not to disclose the fact that one of the hostages on board TWA 847 was a member of the National Security Agency. This information could have endangered his life (Simon, 1994, p.271). But there are times the media have not exercised the most sound decision-making. In 1977 during the Hanafi Muslim barricade-hostage incident, one TV report showed a basket of food being lifted to a floor where several people were hiding from the terrorists. The leader of the sect had not been aware of these hidden individuals until he saw the telecast. Luckily, the individuals escaped before he found them (Simon, 1994, p.271). More recently, was the botched ATF raid in Waco. It was a television reporter who accidentally tipped cult members off that ATF agents were on their way with an arrest warrant. The warning led to a disastrous raid in which four agents were killed. It is important to remember this reporter was the exception, not the rule. There is a code of ethics and of common sense that journalists demand within their own circles. In general, most local, state and federal agencies don't want to give any information to the media. There is a general mistrust between agencies and journalists. Those with the information have a number of fears. First they fear being misquoted and ultimately misrepresented and misunderstood by the general public. Second, they fear what will happen once the information gets out. Will it create a life of its own? Will I get in trouble for sharing this information? How will the masses react once they receive this information? Third, they fear it will escalate the immediate crisis. Will this threaten the safety of anyone involved in the crisis? Will this threaten the safety of the general public? Will this jeopardize any aspect of the investigation? I have found that many of those outside the immediate circle of the media view journalists as competitive, hungry, animals waiting for a juicy tidbit of information that will catapult their careers to a new level. They believe reporters are insensitive and will do anything for a story; that they put their own personal needs above any standard code of ethics and moral choices. There is no doubt that there are a few that exist out there. Just like any industry, a few bad apples give the whole group a bad name. But, in general, most journalists are just like you. They are family people trying to make it in the world and live a good, normal life. They see their roles in the world as an important one. Their job is to continue the tradition and privilege of a free and open press. Their job is to find out information that the public deserves and wants to know, and share it with them in an objective, clear, and timely manner. It is also a rewarding creative process to take an enormous chunk of information and select the most important facts and put them together in an organized and meaningful way. Government agencies must get beyond seeing the press as the enemy. It is essential to develop a good, working relationship because at some point you may need them. On a public relations level, they will be more likely to cover soft news stories on your agency. These are positive 'feel-good' stories that your agency may generate in a press release and ask the news media to cover. On a crisis level, you may also need their help. Television and radio are your key outlets for getting a critical message to the masses quickly. You may need people to evacuate a large area if there is a bomb threat or chemical agent involved. News crews have also acted as an ally when police helicopters have been held up. Media helicopters have been used to track runaway criminals on freeways and in neighborhoods as well as to show police the layout of homes where suspects have blockaded themselves. Whether you like it or not, the media does have incredible power. No matter how objective a news agency tries to be, there are subtle messages given to the public. For instance, the amount of time given to a story tells the public how important the story is. A terrorist story may very well take up half a newscast, whereas a gas leak may be a 30- second 'throw-away.' Also, the order of stories is important. A top story at the beginning of a newscast or on the front page of the newspaper tells the public this story is more important than a story in the middle of the newscast or towards the back of the paper. Even the words a journalist chooses, and the mood and inflection interpretation by the anchor subtly communicates to the viewer. With all of this in mind, I once again stress the importance of a good relationship with the media. In the end, it is in your best interest, especially in a time of crisis, to have a positive working relationship with all the media outlets in your area. You will receive more cooperation and ultimately can use the media as you ally. Another reason to maintain a good working relationship with the media is that they help you to maintain trust and cooperation with the public. If you are not on particularly good terms with an individual TV station or newspaper, there are subtle ways they can put you in a negative spotlight. If you state that you are unable to make a comment at this time, they may then let the public know your agency 'refused to comment at this time.' This simple statement creates an 'us-or-them' mentality. Your agency is now seen as untrustworthy, private, on the inside, possible hiding something. You may lose a great deal of trust with the public when you are seen as being on the other side, an agency disconnected from the public as opposed to working for the public. A good relationship with local media develops a better understanding by the media of what it is that emergency responders and managers do in a crisis, thus decreasing the potential for errors in reporting. So, how do you create a good relationship with the media? It's a gradual process that begins with your desire to step in this direction. I would begin by finding one person at each media outlet you trust. Build a relationship with them by meeting occasionally for lunch to discuss what they do. You may give them story ideas along the way. Now, when a true crisis hits, you will have one person at each agency that you trust enough to share information with and can call on if you need a message to get out quickly. Let agencies know you're interested in creating a good working relationship. Let them know you want a partnership with their organization and that you want them to be your ally in a crisis situation; they will welcome this role. Some agencies invite the media to mock bomb/crisis situations. The positive effects that come as a result stretch to many levels. First, you've created a meeting ground by reaching out to the news agencies and shown your willingness to work with them and demonstrate what exactly you do. Second, you've given them an interesting story for the day. This is a huge benefit, especially on slow news days. They will want to return the favor at some point. And, finally, they will now have file footage to use. If at some point they are kept far from the perimeter of a terrorist bomb incident, they have the option of using the file footage as an example of the current crisis. Dave Audsley, a hostage negotiator for ten years, said, 'The media will get the story one way or another. It's in the best interest of law enforcement to foster a good relationship with them.' You may also want to consider that the media is going to do a story with or without your cooperation. Do you want your version of events included or not? Open your mind to the positive effects the media can help you accomplish. Another example is their ability to bring back the public's confidence after a devastating terrorist attack by showing security checks at airports. They might also help by asking the public to bring photo identification to the airport and arrive two hours early to cooperate with increased security measures. With the inherent power they have, it pays to have a partnership with them. The best preparation for dealing with the media in a terrorism crisis is the preparation done before the crisis has occurred. Pre-planning meetings are essential for everyone who may be involved in an incident: from law enforcement and emergency medical personnel to the television stations and newspapers who will be covering the story. Invite general managers, news directors, reporters and anyone who will be involved in covering a story or making decisions about news coverage. Meet on neutral ground to increase the comfort level and to show your desire to discuss information as equals. Begin the meeting by stating the purpose of the gathering: to gain a better understanding of each other's needs and concerns, to set ground rules for what you can and can't allow, and to come to some agreement on how the different organizations can work together for everyone's best interest. Find out what the deadlines are for the various media organizations. They live and die by the clock. Newspapers generally have one or two deadlines a day. Radio may be hourly or on the half-hour. Television may have a morning show, noon, 5, 6 and 10 (11p.m. on the east coast). If you show your desire to help meet their deadlines, they'll know you understand what they're up against. If they call you at 2 p.m. for an interview, there's a good chance they require an immediate answer because they need information or interviews for their next broadcast&sooner if the incident is breaking news and they will be breaking into programming. In most other industries, there's no problem if you call someone back at the end of the day or even the next morning. But if you wait that long with a journalist, you may have blown their story. Show your interest in helping them accomplish their job by being sensitive to their deadlines. Public information officers carry a beeper for this very reason. Steve Jones of the Orange County Sheriff's department in Florida has an incredible working relationship with the media. Journalists in the area know if they beep him, they will have a call back within five minutes. The department also sends all newsworthy information directly to the news organizations via the internet each morning and posts information on their Web page for bigger stories that news departments outside their area may be interested in. Jones and the department make getting information to the media as easy as they can. Give the media a list of contact names and numbers they can call if they need information or an interview. When a crisis hits, they don't have time to be given the runaround and sent from extension to extension. And, frankly, you may not have the time to find the right person for them to speak with. This should be figured out ahead of time. Once you've shown your willingness to work with the media's needs, it's time to let them know what types of cooperation you will need in order to do your job. You need to set ground rules as to what you can and cannot allow in order to protect potential victims in a terrorism incident, to protect the crisis management teams, to protect the public, and to protect the integrity of the investigation. Explain that there will be a perimeter set up around the area to give emergency personnel ample space to do their work as well as to protect the investigation. This area may include the air space around the scene, meaning no helicopters allowed. If reporters or cameramen go beyond this perimeter, they may be given a verbal warning. But make it clear while you are on neutral ground that you can and will arrest anyone that goes beyond the perimeter. The helicopter pilot who flew a photographer over the Freeman compound found out the hard way when he lost his license. He apparently wasn't aware he was violating FAA rules. PIO Steve Jones recommends letting a pool camera shoot video if the situation is extremely dangerous. This way one station or network is allowed to shoot the video and shares it with all other media organizations. If the situation is ongoing, you may want to allow the media to switch off every day and take turns shooting the pool video. Let the media know there will be a command post set up with regular briefings every two hours or sooner if information becomes available. It's important to be clear that every situation is different; some crises may require hourly briefings and some only twice a day. You may also want to discuss any fears you have over sensitive information or video being given out or shown. Inexperienced producers or reporters may not understand how sharing certain information may further anger a hostage-taker. Similarly, they may not be aware of how key video may give away SWAT team positions and give the advantage to terrorists. Ask them to use their best discretion or to call you if they have any doubt about questionable video or information they may obtain without your knowledge. Be very clear that making the wrong decision in these cases could cost hostages or rescue teams their lives. Also important to pre-planning is to make your own list of media phone numbers, fax numbers and contact names. If you need to get an emergency message out to the public and there is no time to waste, you'll be glad you had this important information. Make sure everyone in your agency has a copy of this list so that the list is never lost and so a number of people can help make the necessary calls. Once a terrorism incident has occurred, it's time to jump into action. Expect a flood of calls from media personnel if your agency is involved in any way with the crisis. They will want any information you have and want it immediately. Television and radio's ability to break into scheduled broadcasting and give immediate information means not only that they will go live with whatever facts they can gather, but that the public will be extremely anxious to know what has happened and how the event is unfolding. Presidential Decision Directive 39 reaffirmed that the FBI is the lead agency during management of domestic terrorism incidents. In some cases, it might be several hours or days before an event is recognized as terrorism rather than a mishap such as a gas leak explosion or a natural occurrence such as an outbreak of the flu. But there's a good chance that it will take FBI agents one to two hours to arrive on the scene. That means local and state agencies will be first responders and need to know how to handle the media flood. You should immediately have your outer perimeter in place and a broadcast area set up at a safe distance for the media. This area is where their equipment will be set up so remember it needs to be a big enough space for all of the agencies to pitch their cameras and lights and most probably, to broadcast from live. Also remember to be flexible because each situation is different. With the Oklahoma City bombing, the area of destruction was so enormous, it was relatively easy for television crews to get video and stay out of the way of emergency personnel. With the Montana Freemen, the perimeter was so far from the center of activity; there were relatively few visual opportunities. Also, there was a far greater danger for camera crews to get too close to the Montana compound. Agents were trying to limit what could be seen so the Freemen would have limited information. With Oklahoma City, there was relatively little danger in terms of visual information being disseminated. Steven Berry is a supervisory special agent in the FBI's national press office at FBI headquarters. Berry admits it's difficult to keep information from leaking out; but that everyone involved, from police and firemen to medical personnel, should be advised not to share information with the press. All inquiries should be forwarded to the central command post. Media representatives from up to 27 agencies establish a joint information center. It's a cooperative effort between such agencies as the FBI, Secret Service, FEMA, ATF, and local agencies. As far as what information to share with the media, Berry advises to come up with a brief, general statement that is put through the on-scene commander. You can verify that an incident has occurred, when it happened, which agencies are involved, and that there is no more danger because the scene is secured. Beware of giving out information that may seem benign, but could help out terrorists who may have access to a TV or radio. For instance, if two terrorists' bodies are discovered, you would not want to confirm they are dead or discuss this information with the media. The surviving terrorists may not know if their partners were killed or captured, giving law enforcement the advantage. You need some type of information initially. The public and media have a right to know. But do not give out information that undermines your ability to protect the hostages, yourselves, the public, or your investigative duties. Hourly briefings are designed to keep the media and the public up-to-date, and they also act as the public's connection to the incident. It is more likely to cause panic if the public cannot get information when a crisis has occurred. These briefings let them know the situation is under control and being taken care of. Berry recommends a simple, 'We can't comment on that now,' if questions are asked that would jeopardize the situation. The media's job is to objectively report the story. But even with your best efforts to keep the media a safe distance away, especially when you are dealing with a terrorism incident, there is always the risk of the media becoming part of the story. Terrorists try to involve the media because it increases the chances their goals will be met. They believe their cause can be suddenly given international legitimacy just by the nature of the media coverage and importance the event is given. Whether we like it or not, it's a win-win situation for the media and the terrorists. The media gets their exclusive interview, which gives them a boost with viewership. The terrorists get the widespread attention they want in order to air their grievances. Terrorists want the media to capture the drama, terror and fear associated with their act. The more the public sees the drama played out on television, the more power terrorists feel they have. If the public rallies behind the safety of individual hostages, or demands that further terrorist incidents be stopped, they may pressure policy makers to give the terrorists what they want. Terrorists are counting on this drama to give them results. It sometimes seems that this approach works for the terrorists. Despite the U.S. government's policy not to bargain with terrorists, Ronald Reagan secretly engaged in an arms-for-hostages deal with Iran. In his memoirs, Reagan wrote that he 'spent many, many hours late at night wondering how we could rescue the hostages&' (Oberdorfer 1991, 16). The image of helpless Americans captured by extremists was so powerful, it led the Reagan administration to violate its oft-stated policy to deal harshly with terrorists rather than appease them. The New York Times and The Washington Post were unwillingly pulled into the story of the Unabomber in 1995 when he demanded they print his lengthy manifesto 'Industrial Society and Its Future.' Were they to give into the demands of a killer and possibly encourage others to demand publicity under the threat of violence? Or did they risk more innocent lives being taken? In this case, it was a difficult decision to make for the publishers of The Times and The Post. In the end, out of concern for public safety, the U.S. attorney general and the director of the FBI recommended the manuscript be published (Nacos, 1994, xxiii-xxvi). Other times, the news media become more willing participants. When David Koresh called CNN directly from the Waco compound where he and his followers were in a standoff with federal agents, CNN viewed this as a breaking news story and decided to put him on the air. In this case, the ATF and FBI did not approve of the media involvement and cut the phone lines coming out of the compound. Charles Caudill of CNN added, 'The bottom line is we try not to become part of the story.' But it was difficult not to as in the case of the Gulf War when CNN was the only crew in the middle of the most intense action, covering the war live. According to Caudill, Saddam Hussein and President Bush were both watching the live coverage. Saddam would then send taped broadcasts as a result of what he watched. If you are ever in a position to help decide whether or not to allow the media to become involved in a story, the most important thing to remember may be that there are no set rules because each situation is different. According to the FBI's Steven Berry, 'there would have to be a great coordination effort between behavioral scientists, hostage negotiators, and other branches before a sound decision could be made.' Each event is different based on the personalities of the terrorists and other specific factors of the individual terrorist act. In some cases it might be the best decision to give into terrorist demands for media access. In other cases, negotiating on any level may be out of the question. The danger, of course, is of the media showing information that may further incite a hostage-taker. That is why in most domestic cases, hostage negotiators will not allow family members to speak with the subject via the media. But there is little you can do if the story is outside the perimeter. With domestic terrorism cases, the stories are most likely going to be focused on the act itself, the victims, and their families, as in the case of the Oklahoma City or the World Trade Center bombings. On one hand, this is exactly what the terrorists want because it dramatizes their event and escalates the fear factor. It brings out the terror in terrorism. But on the other hand, we can not stop a free press from doing its job and showing all the different angles of a story. The answer might be to have every news agency in the nation agree not to report the human side of any terrorist act and explain to the American people the reason they are not doing the stories is so they don't play into the hands of terrorists. Yet, the First Amendment makes it unlikely that this option would ever be implemented. Such a drastic change in the American tradition of free and open reporting might also represent a victory for terrorists whose goals may include provoking an authoritarian response by the U.S. government. Ultimately, it may be difficult to ever have set guidelines when it comes to the media and terrorism, what should and shouldn't be covered. Even with the knowledge that terrorists use the media to further their needs, to dramatize and legitimize their causes, and to get their demands met, there is little chance with a democratic press we will ever limit the coverage of terrorist events. Once our country takes even a small step to censor information being broadcast to viewers, this may open the door to further censorship throughout the press, encroaching on the freedoms of which our country was originally founded. Ideally, through better education of all those involved, from agencies to journalists, we will all be better informed to make intelligent and wise decisions when a crisis occurs. Those working on the ground level will be better equipped on how to deal with the media, the media will wisely choose what information to include in stories, and the public will be insightful in their interpretation of the big picture. Elise Morgan currently produces programming for the Workplace Training Network, a national satellite training network. For two and a half years she produced and anchored programming for LETN, the Law Enforcement Training Network. Previously she worked at KXII-TV as the 6 and 10 p.m. anchor. In addition to her anchoring duties at the CBS affiliate, she produced the 10 p.m. newscast, reported regularly, and helped train incoming journalists. Ms. Morgan helps train local, state and federal agencies on working with the media and handling crisis communications. ---------------------------------------------------------------- BIBLIOGRAPHY Hickey, Neil. 1985. "TV and the Hostage Crisis in Perspective: The Impact on Negotiations-What the Experts Say." TV Guide, September 21. Nacos, Brigette L. 1994. Terrorism and the Media. New York: Columbia University Press. "News Directors on the Defensive in Nashville," Broadcasting, September 16, 1985, pp. 76-78. O'balance, Edgar. 1989. Terrorism in the 1980s. New York: Sterling Publishing Co. Inc. Oberdorfer, Don. 1991. No More to Gain, Too Much to Lose. The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 9-15 December, 16. Sick, Gary. 1990. "Taking Vows: The Domestication of Policy-making in Hostage Incidents." In Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Idealogies, Theologies, States of Mind. Ed. by Walter Reich. New York: Cambridge University Press. Simon, Jeffrey D. 1994. The Terrorist Trap. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. |