The busy, relentless lives of those living in New York and New Jersey were disturbed recently by two terrorist bombings, which sent two dozen people to the hospital and a wave of terror throughout the United States. Both attacks were carried out by at least one suspect, Ahmad Khan Rahami, who was promptly arrested in New Jersey without taking any more victims. Despite an apparent lack of religious or political motives, the young man added himself to a growing list of terrorists who have attacked Western countries in recent months, especially in European capitals. Hinting at both a dreadful and a deadly pattern, these latest bombings came 15 years after the attacks of 9/11, and only ten months after the attacks on Paris on November 13. As the first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump demonstrates, the growing repetition of terrorist attacks in the West has not only become the center of attention of domestic and international news coverage, but also a major priority of American politicians.
But does terrorism seriously jeopardize the national security of Western states? Are we right to put terrorism at the forefront of our political battles, yielding an amazing amount of energy towards documenting, monitoring, and fighting an entity as resilient as it is volatile? Of course, challenging the menace that terrorist groups pose is important, in that it reveals much about why and how this evil came to be in the first place. To challenge the notion that terrorism has become a pervasive bane of modern life is to question the role of Western media and politicians in validating and reinforcing the coercive power of terrorism; it is to the ways in which media and political coverage of terrorism have contributed to its empowerment.
Terrorism, when stripped of media coverage, recognition, and attention, is often powerless. Clearly, this is not to say that terrorist attacks are short of devastating effects, as the Bataclan massacre or 9/11 attacks can attest. But without widespread visibility, terrorism is virtually deprived of its principal source of power: the spreading of fear. Political analyst Bruce Hoffman has notably defined terrorism as the “far-reaching psychological effects” caused by the “deliberate creation and exploitation of fear.” In keeping with this definition, terrorism is not defined by the violence it uses, but merely by its psychological impact on society beyond the immediate victims.
The unceasing coverage of the Paris attacks, from the broadcasting of gruesome pictures of the Bataclan massacre to the outrageous surveillance camera video footages of Le Petit Cambodge restaurant shooting, objectively contributed to an overwhelming atmosphere of fear and apprehension in France and in the rest of the West. What’s more, the endless flow of information about potential upcoming attacks, in French and international news outlets respectively, makes for a constant state of widespread societal anxiety. Westerners are repeatedly warned about the probability of undergoing further attacks, like on public beaches this summer, as well as at the events of Euro 2016. But how beneficial are these constant warnings and reminders?
Surely the anticipation of future terrorist attacks is a very legitimate concern, from which the government cannot shy away. Countries targeted by ISIL and its affiliated organizations must not only take security concerns very seriously; they must improve security in the face of serious and recurrent threats — as France’s minister of interior Bernard Cazeneuve’s recent comment about three terrorist attacks foiled by the DGSE demonstrates.
But why is the West excessively affected anyway? One explanation could point to the reminiscence of the colonial and past and current claims of Europe and the United States in the Middle East — a past often recalled by the propaganda of the Islamic State. Another simpler explanation, however, could be that the Islamic State has a special incentive to target a societal framework, to which it is animus, that is especially vulnerable to the exploitation of fear.
Days after the Paris attacks, onlookers could see many signs scattered across the crowded avenues of the capital, reading “the republic is stronger than hatred” and “not even afraid.” If France’s response to the Paris attacks was a brave statement that refuted the politics of fear of the Islamic State, the subsequent reaction of the French and international media was very different. Covered by hundred of newspapers and news outlets (some of them, like BFMTV, streaming 24 hour-continuous reports of the attacks), the Bataclan massacre and nearby restaurant shootings received uninterrupted national and international attention for months. To cite a few, on September 5 Francais.rt published the article “Daesh Would Have Plotted a Larger Attack.” The major news outlet 20Minutes likewise issued the article “Six Months After the Attacks, Focus on the Investigation” in June 2016. Contrary to the initial protests that kicked off across the country, media coverage of the attacks cultivated an unavoidable context of terror, yielding a formidable energy in giving ISIL both visibility and authority. Representative of Western media practices in regard to terrorism, constant and obsessive news coverage of the Paris attacks hence granted power to the Islamic State where there was none.
Le Deuil National, which paid tribute to the victims of the attacks nationally, was a necessary step in the nation’s healing process. The media’s reaction in face of these events nevertheless rebutted a nation-wide effort to forget and forgive. When in grief, the people of France proclaimed the power of love over fear and hatred. But the media’s attention to the peaceful protests that scattered throughout the country soon faded away. Instead, market-driven and compulsive news outlets found greater interest in the scary and suspenseful investigation of past and prospective attacks, which would not let compassion fatigue finally set in.
Giving preference to images depicting violence — the ones prompting emotion — the media swiftly abandoned the much less lucrative covering of peaceful protests. When it could have stimulated what appeared to be a surprising wave of tolerance toward French Muslims, the media in fact stimulated terrorism in what it is best at: its ability to create power where there is very little. According to Hoffman, terrorist strikes as a mechanism of coercion are ultimately limited in their capabilities if they cannot create enough leverage though far-reaching psychological effects of fear. This is precisely what Western media has helped consolidate: a system of wide-spread fear from the vague menace of terrorism.
Some journalists, like Anderson Cooper, have nevertheless deliberately refused, in a meaningful form of protest, to indicate terrorists’ names or show their pictures. Following the Orlando killing, Cooper’s choice hints at some understanding in the profession of the problematic consequences that stem from the obsessive coverage of terrorist attacks in the West. In light of this emerging awareness, the media industry will hopefully start to realize the consequences: Impetuous and excessive reportage of terrorism leads to strengthening the very incentives of terrorist organizations to target the West, as well as the incentives of individuals like Ahmad Khan Rahami to seek a form of guaranteed macabre fame in committing autonomous terrorist acts in the first place.
Very accurate analysis