It’s the day after the incident in New York City where a man has driven his vehicle down the pavement near Times Square, killing one person and injuring 22 others. This horrific incident has mirrored the latest preferred modus operandi of would be violent extremists, where vehicles on busy city streets are the preferred weapon of choice. The same method has been used recently in London and Nice among others. In the immediate aftermath of the New York attack everyone simply assumed it was the next incident in a pattern, and that vehicle attacks had come to America.
A day later however, it transpires that the perpetrator, Richard Rojas, is not a terrorist but rather a mentally unstable, drug addled criminal and who now claims that at the time of the attack, he was hearing voices in his head. As a consequence, the interest of the media in him, his motivations, and his crime has plummeted dramatically.
By comparison, the day after the attack on Westminster Bridge in London carried out by Khalid Masood, a self-confessed and indeed known violent extremist sympathizer, the story was still trending heavily in the media, and continued to do so for several more days.
It is this different level of interest and level of media reporting between two incidents of very similar character and nature, but with very different motivations, that is of significance.
It is well established and accepted that a high level of media coverage and detailed analysis by a wide variety of experts and pundits is a key aspect of the modern violent extremists’ arsenal. The attack itself is of course the primary objective of the violent extremist, direct action against their real or perceived enemy is the most basic aspect of their raison d’etre. However, the media coverage that follows the outrage, serves the purpose of amplifying the action, and raising the profile of what is in reality, a limited attack in one location - as violent and tragic as it may be - to the status of a global event.
News reporters, editors and producers would argue, not unjustifiably, that they have a moral and professional obligation to report fully, and faithfully on newsworthy events around the world, and that they are simply fulfilling their mandate by keeping the public informed of incidents that have an impact on their lives.
They would argue that the threat posed by a lone lunatic such as Richard Rojas is limited and unlikely to have any wider effect other than the crime itself and the unfortunate victims, whereas, the actions of Khalid Masood form part of a greater and more strategic threat, and as such, is deserving of a greater level of focus and analysis. Once again, common sense would seem to dictate that this perspective is sensible and correct.
However, it can also be argued that by covering the London attack, and other similar attacks, in such detail and by engaging in days-long analysis exploring the background of the attacker, his path to violent extremism and his motivations for carrying out the attack, the media is in fact fulfilling several of the key strategic aims of the violent extremist.
Firstly, the reporting of the attack serves to provide a degree of legitimacy to the cause that has motivated the violence in the first instance. And the longer and more detailed the reporting, the greater the level of legitimacy.
Secondly, the voracious nature and reach of the modern 24-hour news cycle means that the attack, regardless of size and impact, is global news almost as soon as it happens. The violent extremists are getting a massive payoff for a very small investment in effort.
Thirdly, the nature and structure of 24-hour news means that simply in order to fill airtime, news oganisations re-hash the same facts and footage over and over until there is something new to report, or alternatively, they put experts and pundits on the air to pick, and speculate at the facts to create the impression of an ongoing news story. By considering only their need to keep their viewers hooked in to watching their feed, news organisations become the unwitting accomplices of the violent extremist. The media provide the very oxygen that fans the flame of their misguided cause and serve up hour after hour of the violence-porn upon which nascent violent extremists thrive.
There can be no greater failure for a would-be violent extremist than to die in sad obscurity. For their twisted destiny to be fulfilled, they must go to their death with their name on the lips of everyone. By hyper-reporting on their deed, the media fulfils this ambition and provides the motivation for the next generation.
Clearly, in the liberal democracy to which most of the world aspires, the media must fulfil its fundamental function. It must report on events and it must inform the public of what has transpired in a transparent, and factual manner. It can even be argued that in this information age, there is also a responsibility incumbent upon the media to provide thoughtful analysis of events that serve to further inform the public.
Indeed, these are not new concepts. In the age of print media, the front page was always reserved for the most important news events of the day, reflecting the ‘state of play’ as it was at the moment of going to press. The middle pages were reserved for more thoughtful and researched pieces, giving the news consumer a view of events that had been subjected to careful consideration and careful fact checking.
Today, in a world of global 24-hour news networks, driven by ratings and revenue, there is the need to fill every hour with the very latest news. There is little room for fact checking, consideration, and thought. The emphasis is rather on hyper-reporting on events. Squeezing as much airtime out of the available facts, as few as they may be, to ensure that they are ahead of the competition, or at least on a par.
When it comes to violent extremist acts, the media should carefully consider and balance their responsibility to inform, with their responsibility to do no harm. They need to think if what they are doing is perhaps fulfilling a need of the violent extremist, more than they are the need of the public to be informed. It can be argued that the deeds of violent extremists are little more than crimes in the mould of that committed by Richard Rojas in New York, and that reporting on acts of terror should be handled as just what they are, crimes against the community.
No one is suggesting that the media should not report on terror incidents, they should and they should do so clearly and in full. However, they should also add one additional element to their editorial consideration……. RESTRAINT.
Commentaires