Terrorism and the media

So just a quick thought on the behaviour of the media following the terrorist attack in london earlier this week.

Now as i am sure everyone knows some guy drove into a bunch of people in london then stabbed a police officer, 4 people died, about 40 injured. To those involved this is tragic, its horrible to have people lost in such senseless violence but lets be very cold for a moment and put this into perspective. Last year there was about 700 murders in the UK, so about 2 a day, and over all just a little more than half a million of us brits died last year.

So when you actually look at this in the contest of the bigger picture 4 murders in one day in London really is not statistically significant, it wasn't like the events of 7/7 or the Paris attacks. Yet the media totally lost their collective minds over this and run near constant news on it for 48 hours. I almost feel like this is playing into the hands of the terrorists who commit these acts, it gets them attention, it advertises the method of terror used and it creates further panic for the public at large. Sure stuff like this should be reported, i can understand it being the top headline in the 6 o'clock news but I really feel like the media were very guilty of making this into a much bigger story than it really needed to be.

Might just be me, but I thought i would shear.

Okay, we know there are many more civilians in the M.E countries being killed by our best missiles and arms we have provided to those doing the killing. We're even doing it ourselves in some quarters.

But this was an attack on our Democracy wasn't it? After all the Government ministers have reinforced British values throughout their various press conferences.

A Police Officer lost his life in the line of duty and ISIS have confirmed Khalid was part of the crew.

Innocent lives lost and a revamp of Parliament's security, because let's be honest, it was a long time time coming.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

News Media is about ratings and "if it bleeds, it leads" it's about keeping the advertisers happy with yuggge numbers of viewers. Capitalism run amok.

www.psychologytoday.com...

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I almost feel like this is playing into the hands of the terrorists who commit these acts, it gets them attention, it advertises the method of terror used and it creates further panic for the public at large.

I agree. Definitely. It also makes them seem much bigger and stronger than they really are. They love taking the credit.

Sure stuff like this should be reported, i can understand it being the top headline in the 6 o'clock news but I really feel like the media were very guilty of making this into a much bigger story than it really needed to be.

Do you think at least some of the reporting is intended to promote the terrorism somehow? Not necessarily in support of terrorism, but perhaps for the psychological effect on the public? To keep us scared... or fighting over immigration... or to justify militarized police... something like that?

I do. There may be more than one agenda at work, but I have no doubt there are agendas involved.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I've been a critic for years of the ways the corporate news reports school shootings. Its well known in social psychology academic circles that they're responsible for inspiring the perpetual copy cat cycle with school shootings (google: social contagion effect school shootings).

Last year when I finally sat back up and got caught up with the times, and saw those crazy islamist attacks int he EU, I had the sneaking suspicion the MSM over there might be up to the same journalistic shenanigans as we've been seeing here with ours and the school shootings.

Do note that the school shooter phenomenon is a strictly US thing.

Also note that the MSM did the same ol same ol with the Orlando shooter, and the BLM inspired shooters last summer.

I have to agree.

I think the prospect of a vehicle running into people is still fresh, in regards to the France incident. Now that you the UK had one, I can see why the media would be all over this.

Would you say this is a product of over hyped sensationalize media or looking to produce an image of something that isn't there? granted when one thinks about it, they are almost one and the same...

Interesting and thought provoking thread.

S+F

Out of sight, out of mind?

The murder of innocent victims for a religious ideology is a grave injustice. A radical Islamic terrorist ran over pedestrians indiscriminately. He stabbed a police officer to death on the parliament grounds. ISIS claimed responsibility. Looking the other way will solve absolutely nothing.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I havent seen their reporting of this one.

What I'm getting at isn't saying not to report, but how they report. There's tons of good pages in that search query that explain it (and for even better results add "PDF" to the search string).

Of particular note is if they plaster the perps face, the perps name front & center. If they make a celebrity out of 'him' then that's a key facet of the media establishing a perpetual copycat effect.

The general idea was well known well before Columbine. Consider NATURAL BORN KILLERS (1994). Quentin Tarantino originally wrote the screenplay. Oliver Stone altered it quite a bit to the effect of Tarantino calling it 'a different movie' or something like that. The original script was more towards what was the side show element in Stone's piece: THE MEDIA (personified as "Wayne Gail" [Robert Downey Jr.]].

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

My comment is about the notion that reporting on terrorist attacks plays into the hands of terrorists, or that it is statistically insignificant when compared to other murders.

I too hate the fanatical way the media handles certain crimes. Especially those that carry a message generated to cause a strong social impact.

My greatest fear is that we will become so desensitized to the events that we will start to consider them normal.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I figured, I just didnt want anyone thinking I was insisting that merely reporting events is the problem.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
One aspect of this, surely, is that we now have 24-hour news media who need to fill their time. The last big story will be under the "Breaking news" banner until something else comes up. The old News At Ten would have spent half an hour on the story, but a 24-hour channel will keep going for 24 hours.

I agree with Olaru12 on this. It's just the news. And in answer to everybody that thinks they went over the top with reporting to create a public outcry or as a desensitising objective think on this.
The British press is self regulating and if they had that agenda they would be showing blood and gore, limbs torn off, dismembered bodies. Now THAT would cause an uproar. But they don't do they?
I think that the British press are more renowned for under-reporting because if they reported the bare truth there really would be armed retaliations for these acts.
But as long as you all keep chiming in "oh they are only random acts so move along notching to see here" and when the SHTF, which it will, then you can chime in and say" but they didn't tell us about that".