terrorists and the media

last semester i read about terrorism in the media during a reading for international terrorism. Bruce Hoffman, author of one of our books, focused on the medias role in terrorist conflicts. the entire chapter was aimed at explaining the symbiotic relationship the two players have in the international information market. one example he used was the PLO in Palestine during the mid 20th century. This resistance group was the first to discover the use of the media to further their cause. during a hijacking, the PLO invited news cameras from around the world to film their crimes and show the world what they were doing. now it is obvious why this is good for the media, and good is an understatement. it was media gold. middle eastern hijackers armed with automatic weapons landing three jumbo jets in the desert and holding hostages for multiple days allowed for a 24 hour terrorist watch. i believe the statistic they came up with was that during the few days during the event some sort of new coverage was aired every 7 min, or so. my point is that it was unquestionably a media field day. what did surprise me however was that this turned out to be a monumental boost for the PLO. they were very careful to show that they were civil to the hostages and provided food and water during the ordeal, so instead of the world looking down on them as dogs (as would be expected), for the first time the PLO was able to broadcast their message to an international audience without ever being directly interviewed on camera, a feat which they had not accomplished in over twenty years of pleading to leaders around the world in different diplomatic arenas. another point made by Hoffman was that the medias involvement caused panic among the masses. updated coverage 24 hours a day left ample time to milk the story and media outlets took full advantage of it. when new updates were not available, they would air the heart touching interviews of family and friends of the hostages and day and night held live debates over what Washington should do. in the same situation without media involvement, decision makers in Washington would have been able to think critically about the situation and respond accordingly; however, the public demanded action and the safety of the hostages were of chief concern. now obviously that would have been taken into full consideration in any form of hostage taking but the push for swift action forced Washington into a quick decision to give into terrorist demands instead of buying time for negotiation. international prisoners were released worldwide, over 500 i believe and almost fully because of the swarming media attention to the event. not to long after, another , less successful take over was attempted by the PLO with the goal to up the media coverage even more. in 1972 the olympic games were held in munich germany and a hostage takeover occured incuding olympic athletes taken by PLO forces. their demands were the release of 234 prisoners, again worldwide. a rescue attempt failed and within 24 hours, 11 israeli olympians, five terrorists, and a German policeman were dead. the event was estimated to have been watched by over 1/4 of the worlds population and again landed the PLO on the front page.

the reason i wanted to talk about this was because, since then, terrorist takeovers, bombings and attacks have shown a disturbing trend; media notification close to or shortly prior to incidents. there are cases in which terrorists have been known to calmly take over a building and the wait for news crews to arrive before shooting their guns in the air and throwing people around. they have learned how the west responds to the media and the ammount of pressure cameras can put on governments to act prematurely and it is not a good system. i am not proposing an alternative because we are so set in our ways, im not sure if a simple once exists. i would simply like to put this out there and see how all of you feel about it. so... let me know.

thanks guys