Media not to blame for causing terrorism
COMMENTARY
Sarah McClellan

Is terrorism caused by the media? It seems logical: Terrorists want an audience, they blow something up, the media then blows it up on the front page of every paper in the nation and the audience is created. This logic is flawed.

David House, senior editor and reader advocate for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, said media coverage can perpetuate terrorism, but is part of a free society.

“The choice is either not saying a thing about terrorism and what they’re doing, or do we live in an open society where we are free to exchange news among ourselves?” House said.

International politics professor Ralph Carter said the purpose of terrorism is to publicize a cause.

And it is the media’s job to report the news.

That coverage can be used by the terrorists, but do you not want to know about an embassy bombing or two planes flying into the World Trade Center?

“The press gets a bad rap for sensationalizing but they’re the only watchdog we have left,” says political science professor Donald Jackson.

But there is room for restraint in terror coverage.

“The problem is that it has to be on the front page or big news channel or it gets buried in the quantity of information,” Jackson said.

“If it gets sensationalized, that plays into the hands of the terrorist group,” Carter said.
Controversy swirled about the May 28, 1998, interview between ABC’s John Miller and Osama bin Laden. Miller, who was led to his interview through the mountains of Afghanistan by Islamic militants, was criticized for not giving the location to the Clinton administration.

“Osama bin Laden is no fool,” said international politics professor Manochehr Dorraj. “He assumed his location would be given when he came to the interview.”But Didi Wendel, a political science instructor, thinks Miller should have given the location.

“All reporters live with the dilemma between their professional ethics and their personal ethics, and in some instances ... these are at odds with each other,” Wendel said. “If faced with such a dilemma, one must take the higher road, even if it costs him or her professionally.”

But since a journalists’ professional and personal ethics may be inseparable, would it have been the “higher road” for Miller to reveal bin Laden’s hideaway?

No. At the time of the interview, bin Laden was not such a sought after target.

There was no proof yet that bin Laden was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, or any other terrorist attack. Miller could not have foreseen the damage bin Laden would cause in the future. Giving his location would have damaged Miller’s credibility as well as any American journalist who needs to interview an enemy leader.

Wendel said Miller should not have done the interview.

Reporters, she said, must decide if a story serves a purpose other than drawing ratings.

And she said that the only purpose Miller’s interview served was “giving Osama bin Laden a stage and free, world-wide airtime to promote his grievances.”

Wendel is right that the media gives terrorists a way to get their message across, but interviews with terrorists are a critical part of the story.

Regardless of media coverage, terrorism and other forms of violence will always be a part of the political scene.

Terrorists are not idiots. If they are closed off from reporters, they will find another way to be heard.

Photo editor Sarah McClellan is a senior political science major from Canyon. She can be contacted at (s.l.mcclellan@tcu.edu).