Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Bin Laden's unpaid media push

By Judy Cannon - posted Tuesday, 9 February 2010


Former UK prime minister Maggie Thatcher hit the nail right on the head but her words have been largely ignored or just forgotten. She told the American Bar Association in July 1985 that "Democratic nations must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend".

In April 2004 a lone journalist voice, Peter Preston wrote in the London Guardian that terrorists were getting high on the oxygen of publicity, saying “now, almost every day, a great barrage balloon filled with the stuff keeps rising”. He was critical of the then world leaders, politicians and “spooks and cops who fill new canisters every time they open their mouths in public”.

Recently, the Sydney Morning Herald, as did many other media organisations, published details and a video photograph featuring the Jordanian suicide bomber who killed eight people at a CIA outpost in Afghanistan. Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi was shown in a video broadcast on Al Jazeera satellite television with the Pakistani Taliban leader and took the opportunity to denounce his ''enemies'', Jordan and America.

Advertisement

The BBC reported that a tape said to be from al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden warned United States President Barack Obama there will be more attacks if the US continues to support Israel. This was reported even before the authenticity of the audio tape had been investigated. We’ve heard from this man many times: but should we care what he thinks? Why should the media as a whole act as his unpaid, worldwide promotion agency? That’s crazy.

Mentioning these incidents again, unfortunately, adds further oxygen to his publicity puff, but hopefully in a good cause: to get another discussion rolling. The question: Is there a way to follow Maggie Thatcher’s words to quell the oxygen of publicity and sustain a free press at the same time? What other options do the media have?

I once worked on an evening paper with a significant circulation in a heavily British Navy area. The newspaper’s policy was to ignore illegal blasts of any sort - the IRA was re-activating at the time - on the basis that reports about blasts would only encourage more, or even copycats. The times then were different, the idea of Fifteen Minutes of Fame and the Internet were yet to arrive; debates were not solely Left-Right slanging matches and people could actually think above, beyond and around party politics.

Publicly condemning acts of terrorism, as the UN has done consistently, in company with affected governments, seems to have had little impact on the recruitment of would-be bombers. Criticism and harsh words so far appear not to have dented indoctrinated faith - or is it indoctrinated fear? A wall of dogmatic faith - religious, political, totalitarian or plain patriarchal - seems to readily repel questions about legality, morality, justice.

In some situations, it is physically dangerous for a person to query or dispute. The ironically-named “honour” murder of women who question authority is one example. Fear, as well as propaganda and blinding resentment, must be an element to persuade an individual to walk a bomb into a market where many innocent people, including children, are buying food for the family. So if suicide bombers cannot be distracted from their murderous plans by care or compassion for others, can they be turned to thoughts of care for themselves? After all, they too are going to be blown to bits, and know so beforehand.

How can a start be made and what part, if any, can the media play?

Advertisement

On behalf of the United Nations, UNESCO has the task of advocating the basic human right of freedom of expression, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and its corollary, press freedom.

But the United Nations also uses a system of embargoes when member states cross accepted international values. Are embargoes possibly an effective avenue?

UN embargo history does not make encouraging reading. An overview of UN arms embargoes over ten years up to March 2006 commented that: “Despite the fact that every one of the 13 United Nations arms embargoes imposed in the last decade has been systematically violated, only a handful of the many arms embargo breakers named in UN sanctions reports has been successfully prosecuted.”

The UN, loaded already with so many obligations, seems unlikely to be able to undertake the task, at the necessary level, of influencing would-be bombers. It could also be vulnerable to accusations of religious interference.

Some western governments in the past have used D Notices to squash stories regarded as dangerous if published in times of war. Again, a highly controversial measure, especially when bureaucrats or the military are seen to hold undue influence. And, in the present circumstances, can we be judged to be “at war” as understood in the past? The US certainly thinks it is a war. So could D Notices be a useful mechanism to restrict “the oxygen of publicity”? Would the media see the need to honour it?

Adrienne Wilmoth Lerner, in encyclopedia.com, writes: that a D Notice (defence notice) refers to an alert given by intelligence services or the armed forces to the media, warning them of sensitive content that could damage national security or defence if reported in part or in whole. “In Britain, the system is somewhat voluntary and various media corporations are not obliged to report or refrain from reporting, potentially sensitive issues.” D Notices also cover media broadcast content via radio, films, television, and the Internet.

D Notices were employed during the Gulf War after several government and military officials from various nations complained that intense media coverage let Iraq prepare for every American strike. She comments, “In late 2002, a new rash of D Notices was issued for information coming from military operations in the Middle East. Some journalists hold that D Notices are too often issued for subjects that are merely unflattering to government, rather than a matter of national defence and thus are a form of soft censorship.

“On the whole, media companies and individual journalists are increasingly opting out of cooperating with D Notices advisories, when possible. However, there is always the possibility of professional disciplinary action, or legal punishment, such as suspension of broadcasting privileges or a steep fine, for refusal to heed some especially sensitive D Notice warnings.” There is a voluntary system of D Notices in Australia.

Don't panic. Fear is al-Qaeda's real goal, writes Fareed Zakaria in the Washington Post (January 11, 2010). Fareed Zakaria is editor of Newsweek International. He says when responding to the attempted bombing of the airliner on Christmas Day, US Senator Dianne Feinstein voiced the feelings of many when she said that to prevent such situations, "I'd rather overreact than underreact":

“This appears to be the consensus view in Washington, but it is quite wrong. The purpose of terrorism is to provoke an overreaction. Its real aim is not to kill the hundreds of people directly targeted but to sow fear in the rest of the population. Terrorism is an unusual military tactic in that it depends on the response of the onlookers. If we are not terrorised, then the attack didn't work. Alas, this one worked very well.”

After the former Howard government introduced anti-terrorism legislation, seen by many as a threat to the freedom of the press, concern about where Australia was going prompted action by an alliance of newspaper executives, usually in hot and ruthless competition. Known as the Right to Know Coalition, they got together to defend free speech, saying: “Australia’s Right to Know is a coalition of 12 major media companies formed in May 2007 to address concerns about free speech. The coalition is working with the Commonwealth and state governments to establish new policy and best practice to improve Australian’s relatively poor world ranking for freedom of speech.” The alliance created keener awareness within the public about what was being legislated and the importance of freedom of speech.

It is perhaps too far-out to suggest that this or similar media coalition, with international counterparts, could, would or should encourage any collective censorship to ban reporting of acts of terror. Much as it would likely be highly effective. But it is possible a concerted media effort could be organised to try to constructively influence would-be bombers - to care about themselves. There is an opportunity here. Could a similar alliance, and parallel international organisations, be prevailed upon to undertake a collective attempt to influence would-be suicide bombers on the basis they should think first of themselves, of their families, of their own potential? Misguided, murderous, misinformed and misled, they are people too.

There need be no attempt to convert anybody to a particular faith, philosophy, way of life or set of principles, only an effort to convince young people for their own sake - so keen often to be seen as heroes - not to take part in any murderous action. That sacrificing their own life is too big a price to pay for the oxygen of publicity, no matter the cause.

In an excellent article under the title, “We need a smarter way to fight the jihadi elite”, Anne Applebaum writes in the Washington Post (January 12, 2010), that there is a need for another kind of anti-terrorism strategy. She describes an international jihadi elite which engages in constant debates - in Internet chat rooms, in the halls of publishing houses, in mosques. She asks: “Are they hearing enough counterarguments? Are we helping the people who make the counterarguments?”

This seems the most sensible way to go. Do we, for instance, also need to move into universities and colleges to warn students that suicide bombing is not an answer - a life sacrificed for only Fifteen Minutes of Fame when it could have been used so much more constructively?

Much to my private dismay, conference speakers, debaters and activists are, are at times hired - and paid - by organisations to present a particular line in both formal and informal settings, such as seminars. Should an army of volunteers be gathered to go to conferences, meetings, schools, rallies and religious assemblies to present another view to potential bomber-suiciders? The media could certainly report them.

And can we convince politicians, eager for re-election or perhaps electorally desperate, to abstain from using the race or faith card? Not to use fear of terrorists for their own political ends? At the moment, this, and easily understood innuendos, happen unforgivably often. Maybe voters should stand up and say: no race or faith card rhetoric or else!

Can we further persuade law-abiding clerics that there is a much greater need to persuade young people to care about their own life and living it? According to the BBC, Al-Qaeda terrorist cells have trained women suicide bombers, of ''non-Arab'' appearance travelling on Western passports for attacks on Western targets. But in February when at least 50 people were killed and more than 100 injured in a suicide bombing in northern Baghdad, Iraqi police said a female suicide bomber detonated an explosives belt as she walked among female Shiite pilgrims, the ABC reported. Al Qaeda and Sunni extremists are thought to target Shiite Muslims to destabilise the Shiite-led government. and two suicide bombers on motorcycles in Pakistan struck a bus and hospital, targeting Shiite Muslims in Karachi for the second time in six weeks, killing 23 people and wounding 75 others, the ABC reported, also in February.

And how can it be that the elders, who offer hatred and death to the young, truly care about them. Why do they not, instead, volunteer themselves? It seems England and Japan are prepared to lead a $500 million effort to lure fighters from the Taliban with jobs, security and amnesty in an effort to bolster a proposal by Afghan President Hamid Karzai to reintegrate low-level Taliban figures. Australia is to contribute $25 million. Is this too an opportunity to persuade there are other ways?

A social worker informs me that in some circumstances when young people threaten suicide, they somehow, irrationally, do not fully realise that really they will be dead if they suicide. It seems some truly do not understand that. Illogically, they somehow expect still to be around - to watch the resulting grief or effects.

For some future suicide bombers it is already too late. But a significant contribution the media could make to vulnerable young people would be to carry an ongoing collective, persuasive message to the upcoming generation, which sadly is likely to include potential bomber-suiciders: spell out that there are more persuasive reasons to stay alive; that there are many ways to express an opinion, that there are people who care about them. Why be born to be blown to bits?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

12 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Judy Cannon is a journalist and writer, and occasional contributor to On Line Opinion. Her family biography, The Tytherleigh Tribe 1150-2014 and Its Remarkable In-Laws, was published in 2014 by Ryelands Publishing, Somerset, UK. Recently her first e-book, Time Traveller Woldy’s Diary 1200-2000, went up on Amazon Books website. Woldy, a time traveller, returns to the West Country in England from the 12th century to catch up with Tytherleigh descendants over the centuries, and searches for relatives in Australia, Canada, America and Africa.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Judy Cannon

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Judy Cannon
Article Tools
Comment 12 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy