Terrorism and Censorship

Definition: Violence undertaken, in part, to win publicity for a cause

Significance: The emergence of the mass media as a dominant force in society presents governments and news organizations with the problem of handling news coverage of violence that is done to obtain publicity

"Terrorism" is a controversial term without a clear and widely agreed-upon definition; neither the United States nor the United Nations has adopted official definitions of terrorism. The Rand Corporation has helped to clarify the problem of defining terrorism by classifying terrorist incidents in terms of the nature of each act itself, and not by the identity of the actors or the cause to which they subscribe. There is at least some general consensus as to the elements involved in terrorist acts: First, the acts include violence or the threat of violence. Second, the acts are often coupled with specific demands. Third, the targets of the acts are often civilian. Fourth, political motives are behind the acts of violence. Fifth, the perpetrators are usually members of an organized group. Sixth, the act has a coercive purpose beyond the immediate infliction of physical damage. Seventh and finally, the goal of the act is to achieve maximum publicity.

With regard to issues of censorship, terrorism presents two problems: the problem of terrorist recruitment material being spread through channels such as the Internet, and the problem of terrorist success in publicizing their causes through saturation news coverage following high-profile terrorist acts. Some governments have made efforts to counter the former problem by blocking certain terrorist websites within their borders, raising concerns about government suppression of free speech. Regarding the latter problem, governments in democratic societies have very little control over the nature and content of news stories reported by the mass media; however, there have been calls for news outlets to voluntarily limit their coverage of terrorist acts—in other words, to engage in a degree of self-censorship.

Nature and Sources of Terrorism

Terrorism does not require great levels of expertise, large quantities of materials, or even extensive personnel support, so small terrorist groups can prosper. In fact, only four or five members are needed in order to make up a viable terrorist subgroup. The terrorist mixes zealous devotion and brutality with sufficient knowledge of weapons, terrorist techniques, and media relations. Many terrorists are willing to die for their particular cause. Such individuals obtain money and mobility using funds from robbery, kidnapping, extortion, or government support.

One of the earliest extensive public reports on terrorism was compiled in 1986 by George H. W. Bush during his term as vice president of the United States under Ronald Reagan. Bush’s report found that 50 percent of the total worldwide terrorist incidents were carried out by groups located within the Middle East. Many of these acts involved militant Islamic groups supported or sponsored by countries such as Libya, Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. Incidents in Western Europe by groups such as the Provisional Irish Republican Army, the Italian Red Brigades, the French Action directe (Direct Action), and the German Red Army Faction made up approximately 25 percent of the total worldwide acts. The remaining 25 percent occurred in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Many of these groups were Communist and had political goals of changing the nature of capitalist society. In the twenty-first century, however, especially following the attacks of September 11, 2001 in the United States, radical Islamist terrorism has taken center stage in the public consciousness worldwide. Separately, in the United States, an increasing number of mass shootings with no clear political goal, starting with the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, became a source of great public concern.

Terrorism and Censorship

Modern communications technology provides terrorists with the mechanism for propaganda and psychological warfare. Furthermore, media coverage of terrorist acts has the potential to turn a group of criminals into media celebrities by providing a platform for the political causes or grievances expressed by the group. In nations with closed political systems in which the mass media are under the control of the government, the problem of terrorist propaganda is minimal. In other words, these governments have the power and authority to completely censor coverage of terrorist acts from official news outlets. In nations with open political systems in which the mass media are apart from direct government control, however, news coverage of terrorist acts has been a matter of concern for decades. In 1978, for example, US deputy attorney general Benjamin Civiletti told Congress: “Under the First Amendment, the US government has no right to prohibit or limit coverage of a newsworthy event. However, it is appropriate to seek voluntary media cooperation in minimizing risks to life and to point out that certain media actions might exacerbate a dangerous situation.”

The Iran Hostage Crisis

On November 4, 1979, fifty-two American citizens were seized at the United States embassy in Tehran, Iran, and held hostage by supporters of the Iranian government for 444 days. Media coverage of the Iranian hostage crisis was extensive, with most major network shows opening their broadcasts each night with phrases such as “America held hostage” along with an exact tally of the number of days Americans had been held in captivity in Iran. As noted terrorism scholar Abraham Miller commented, “In the context of the Iranian hostage crisis, the question becomes, with respect to television and the press, whether event-oriented sensationalism is inextricably linked with mundane commercialism. Iran proved once again beyond any doubt, that terrorism is quintessentially the propaganda of the deed.” As the Iranian hostage crisis demonstrated, terrorist propaganda can at times help sell newspapers and increase television viewers. Events like the Iranian hostage situation continue to provoke debate over the proper balance of news coverage of terrorist incidents.

The Unabomber Manifesto

Most often the question of censorship and terrorism centers around government control of the news. In the case of the Unabomber, the controversy involved the question of voluntary censorship on the part of the free press. Theodore Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, was a serial mail bomber who killed three people and injured twenty-three others between 1978 and 1995. Kaczynski agreed to stop sending explosives through the postal service if the New York Times and the Washington Post would publish a 35,000-word manifesto that articulated his anarchist and anti-industrial political philosophy. Upon the recommendation of Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI director Louis Freeh, the newspapers shared the cost of publishing the manuscript as a special eight-page section. Publication of the manifesto led to Kaczynski's arrest in 1996, after relatives recognized his style of writing and thought.

The decision to publish the manuscript touched off controversy among journalists, criminologists, and political commentators. The papers were criticized for acceding to terrorist demands and potentially encouraging others to blackmail the news industry. Members of the newspapers as well as members of the law enforcement community defended the decision, claiming that publication could lead to disclosure of the identity of the Unabomber—which it did.

According to the Bush report on terrorism: “The solution to this problem is not government-imposed restraint that conflicts with the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech and press. The media must serve as their own watchdog. Journalistic guidelines have been developed for use during wartime to protect lives and national security, and in some circumstances should be considered appropriate during a terrorist situation.” The Bush report also suggests that certain media practices, such as saturation television coverage, political dialogue with hostages or terrorists, coverage of staged events, involvement in negotiations, payments to terrorist groups or supporters for interview access, and detailed coverage of military or police response plans to terrorist situations, should be avoided.

Bibliography

Greenwald, Glenn. "What's Scarier: Terrorism, or Governments Blocking Websites in Its Name?" The Intercept. First Look Media, 17 Mar. 2015. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.

Hern, Alex. "ISPs Criticised over Deal to Filter Extremist Material Online." Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 14 Nov. 2014. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.

Miller, Abraham H., ed. Terrorism: The Media and the Law. Dobbs Ferry: Transnational, 1982. Print

Simon, Joel. The New Censorship: Inside the Global Battle for Media Freedom. New York: Columbia UP, 2014. Print.

Vice President’s Task Force on Combatting Terrorism. Public Report of the Vice President’s Task Force on Combatting Terrorism. Washington: GPO, 1986. Print.

Wilkinson, Paul. Terrorism versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2011. Print.