Media Versus Terror

Mudjadju"

In this reflection, the concept of “terrorism” is mentioned to show the purposeful use of violence or threat to generate terror or fear (the psychological effect) in people, in a small immediate group to reach an even larger group of people. Later, psychological and physical violence is used purposefully to jeopardize the well-being of the population; living together in harmony; the development of democracy; economic growth; (sustainable) development; the political system in general; etc.

The terrorism that I will refer to here is that which is linked to violence, which can be seen from various perspectives, and which is against the political system in general. A phenomenon also characterised by its global component, that is, it is not limited to events within national borders, but operates in well-organised regimes on an international level and has various nationalities as its target. Furthermore, the definition of terrorism is that, with its implementation, the aim is to instill unprecedented fear in the target audience, so that the government can give in to some demand made by the terrorists. For Raymond Aron (1990: 28), “an act of violence is labelled ‘terrorist’ when its psychological effects are disproportionate to the purely physical results”. Luengo (2001) said several years ago that terrorists want a lot of people to pay attention, but not a lot of people to die, implying that terrorists’ main objective is publicity and not exactly the deaths they cause, thus highlighting the main objective of terrorism.

What will be the main objective of the terrorists with the media? In the first phase, it is to spread fear (psychological effect) among the population in general; then, to confuse and disorganize those responsible for defense and security; finally, to mobilize and gather more followers and potential followers, as well as more monetary funds for their terrorist objectives.

To clarify the “complicity” of terrorist acts in the media, we can give a simple example of Al-Qaeda. We could talk about other groups such as: Boko Haram; Islamic State; Taliban; Ansar Al Sunna, etc., some of which are political or extremist groups (I will not use the term fundamentalist, because all groups should be, to better base their knowledge on what they defend) that, in order to defend their causes and achieve their objectives, resort to violent acts and attacks on property (public or private), as a form of intimidation. In the media, Al-Qaeda produced spectacular terrorist acts in the view of some experts, because it used methods and means considered unusual in the terrorist world, managing to expose its deeds in an unprecedented way in the media. Furthermore, it made it possible for the entire world, through the media, to see messages that had previously been recorded by Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri, and these messages were released at crucial moments. The Internet was also used to maintain communication between various members of the organization, to plan new attacks and to recruit new members. In addition to Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State also uses the same methods to spread its ideals and claim responsibility for some of the attacks it has perpetrated, as part of its strategy to sow fear among the population in order to force governments to give in to what it wants. It was found that in Mozambique (Cabo Delgado), when Ansar Al Sunna decided to join the Islamic State in 2020, videos of individuals being beheaded began to circulate in the media and on social media, this was part of the terror strategy. Bin Laden had stated that rhetoric and satellite propaganda can be on par with bombs and cruise missiles. For this reason, this organization has invested so much in advertising and media since the beginning, knowing the potential of these components, in what they could create in people.

In this wave of ideas, a dilemma has been observed in the media channels, which has to do with how to manage information of a terrorist nature, because for the agents of the media in the exercise of their functions, which is to spread information to the largest number of people, the media can at some point serve as a means (channel) to spread the terrorist message, or in other words, the media, by exercising its informative function without realizing it, may be serving the interests of terrorists. But on the other hand, the media cannot fail to exercise what is its main function in a democratic society, since, in a democratic society, we have the media as the fourth power (freedom of the press, which comes after the tripod of democracy), which plays a very important role in the functioning of this type of political system, because without the main function of the media, effective democracy can be jeopardized. Faced with this very important dilemma, a pertinent question arises that deserves all the care and delicate treatment: how to maintain the normal action of the media (informing the people), without making the terrorists achieve their objective?

At some point, there have been opinions about placing certain limitations on the exercise of the media function with regard to events linked to terrorism. The first question arises: should these limitations be placed by the government, or should it be the responsibility of the press itself, of its own free will? Both options have their weaknesses. The first option raises fears of censoring information. The subsequent action raises certain doubts about the function and credibility of the media. However, should self-regulation of the media involve the absence of information about terrorism or not? The issue also divides opinions: on the one hand, there are those who argue that placing restrictions or not disseminating information is worthwhile, because it limits the publicity of the terrorist phenomenon and allows the services that fight against terrorism or the defense and security forces of each country to do their job effectively. On the other hand, there are those who believe that the absence of information about terrorism is a way to undermine the credibility of the media and the values ​​that guide a society that lives democratically.

In my opinion, in a democratic society, the issue of terrorism cannot be ignored, both by the media and by the general public. It is an issue that should be debated by everyone. I believe that just because it is not reported as news does not mean that the phenomenon will cease to exist. Because not reporting a news story about a terrorist attack in a certain region with a certain (low) number of deaths and injuries could provoke a second, more serious attack (with many deaths and injuries) to attract the attention of the media, then by reporting it there may not be space for the second event, because at some point the terrorists will have achieved one of their objectives in the eyes of the media. Those who defend the idea of ​​not reporting on the phenomenon of terrorism also argue that interviews with terrorist leaders should not be conducted, because doing so would be contributing to terrorist publicity. There are those who disagree with this idea, because everything depends on the specificity of the voice given to these participants. According to the norms of journalism, several sides should be heard, not just one, especially when it involves completely different points of view and objectives (terrorists and government or defense and security forces), so as not to give priority to one side. The media should broadcast the terrorists' messages, after censoring the information and balancing the information with other sources. Broadcasting a terrorist's message framed in a certain context (after an attack, for example), is different from broadcasting the message in its entirety. And it is also necessary to remember that the mission of the media is not to prove right by one or another side of the "conflict". The media should provide unbiased coverage of the facts and provide the public with the necessary information. It is up to the public to make its own judgment.

2025/12/3