There is a well-documented mutually symbiotic relationship between the media and terrorism–each side benefits. In this case the media benefits from increased viewership from terrorism headlines. Terrorist organizations benefit from the press on their organization, activities, and ideology.
A good example of someone utilizing this relationship was Osama Bin laden. Bin Laden often tried to interact with the media but was ignored or censored. So he decided to commit an event so shocking that no one could ignore him. Following the devastating attacks on 9/11 every single word said by bin Laden was broadcast, repeated, and discussed. Although an event like 9/11 is rare, when a terrorist event like this happens it usually leads to a burst of terrorist acts. This leaves one to wonder how much the media contributes to such a burst.
Terrorism is an exceedingly difficult term to define. However, its commonalities are that an act of terrorism is usually an act of violence or intimidation, committed against a symbolic or civilian target, for the purpose of furthering a political, religious, or social goal. Viewing terrorist content through media platforms has psychological effects on audiences that can either reinforce stereotypes or motivate people to desire an end to violence. Some argue there should be more regulation of the media and censorship of terrorist content while to protect viewers and curb violence. Others however view this as too much of a hindrance on free speech and free press, hurting democracy in the long run.
There are three main policies of censorship: laissez faire, statutory regulation, and voluntary self-restraint. A free-market approach is the most risky. Censorship through statutory regulation requires trusting the government not to overstep its bounds. Strict anti-terror legislation in Russia, Turkey, and Egypt have been used to control citizens and government opposition. Voluntary self-restraint relies on the media being able to reign itself in, a task it often finds difficult to do.
In a comparison of the United States and Australia’s censorship policies, I found that Australia has more federal oversight and media regulation while the United States has more terrorist events. From 2000-2019 the United States experienced 641 terrorist events while Australia experienced only 47.
Both the federal legislation and the actions of the broadcasting authorities were stricter in Australia. The tables below summarize the federal legislation content analyzed for each country.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority provides content guidelines on its website for Anti-Terrorism Standards for broadcasters. Some of the prohibited content includes recruitment of terrorists, solicit funds for terrorists, and advocating in any way for the doing of a terrorist act. Penalties apply regardless of if the broadcaster is aware they are in violation of the standard. This helps to hold broadcasters accountable for review of their content. There is an informational content exception, which includes news reports and educational documentaries. The Federal Communications Commission for the United States on the other hand has no source for standards on terrorism related content. Instead on their website, in response to complaints against extremist views, the FCC states they cannot censor most broadcast material due to freedom of speech concerns.
As for media self-regulation, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat all have policies in their community guidelines addressing terrorism and hateful speech. However I found it exceedingly difficult to find any form of written policy on terrorism or written policy on censorship of any kind for Traditional Media Organizations. A reporter at Fox 55 Fort Wayne informed me that most organizations don’t have a written or uniform policy, these questions of judgement usually come from News Directors or higher ups. He pointed me to the Society of Professional Journalists. The code of ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists contains four overreaching principles one of which is to minimize harm, but there is no mention of censorship, terrorism, or extremism.
There does seem to be a correlation between media regulation and terrorist events. We can say increased polices of restraint on media could curb the number of terrorist events. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that sample size was only two countries. Other factors, such as these being two western, developed, former-British-colony countries, could be at play. Replication of this study on a larger scale and also replication for states with different characteristics would be beneficial to the ongoing discussion around media and terrorism.
CJ Louive is graduating in May 2021 with a Bachelor of Science in Public Affairs majoring in Law and Public Policy along with minors in Spanish, Criminal Justice, and Psychology. She will be attending McKinney School of Law in the fall, where she plans on pursuing a legal education that will help her continue to Lead for The Greater Good. Find her LinkedIn here.
Leave a Reply