Terrorism as a concept can be hard to define, as well as this with the many varying types of terrorism it can be difficult to fully understand the extent of the issue. Furthermore, some might claim that in recent years with the rise of media online, there has also been a rise in terrorism in society. With this, different counter-terrorism strategies, such as CONTEST – the UK strategy – have been introduced. However, these types of strategies often fail to include the importance of the media in aiding terrorist organisations. Having said that, one also needs to look at the possibility of whether the media only helps the terrorists or if it is an important tool to stop and apprehend terror suspects.
The UK government defines terrorism as “the use or threat of action designed to influence… [or to intimidate] … for the purposes of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause” (Terrorism Act, 2011). From this, it could be understood that terrorism is there to spark a reaction from a group in society such as the whole of the public or a small minority. From a more academic definition terrorism can be defined as “a special form or tactic of fear-generating, coercive political violence…without legal or moral restraints, targeting mainly civilians and non-combatants” (Schmid, 2011, p86). From both of these definitions, there are some constant themes and similarities that can be seen; the premeditation of the event, political motivations, the threat of violence and the targeting of civilians or non-combatants. However, as Wilkinson (2016) states, terrorism is not a synonym for political violence, yet it is its own form of violence. Therefore, the lack of one consistent definition of terrorism provides many issues of its own in that one can’t simply define it as a universal criminal act – mainly because different societies have different definitions of criminal acts. For example, in Sudan being gay would be punishable by death, in Morocco one would be imprisoned, yet in the UK gay marriage is legal. From this example, the reason as to why there is not a universally accepted definition of terrorism becomes clearer. As well as this, terrorism is not always concerned with the death of civilians or non-combatants, as attacks on famous landmarks would also be considered an act of terrorism, however, this does still come under the definition of a threat of violence. Until all different societies can agree on the definition of a criminal act and what is criminal, an objective and internationally accepted definition will not occur – ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’.
Some see terrorism as a socially constructed concept shaped by subjective perceptions and perspectives of one who is categorising the event (Greene, 2017). As well as being a concept that can only be understood within specific contexts, the term can also be seen to delegitimise the action(s) it aims to describe and/or understand. Furthermore, the definitions and labels that arise are argued and decided on by the political elites in society, highlighting the effects of power within the ideals of terrorism. As Browne and Silke (2010) argue “terrorism, fundamentally, is about influence”, the smaller and radical groups in societies aiming to influence the lives of the majority of citizens, whether through violence itself i.e. planned and executed attacks such as the 7/7 bombings in London, or through the threat of violence i.e. continued messages sent out to the world containing ‘warnings’ and ‘promises to injure citizens’. However, neither of these two ways would have any influence on the lives of people in society without the media ensuring that they are aware of the threats against them, “without awareness, there is no impact” (Browne and Silke, 2010). With this terrorism has the ability to influence and shape contemporary societies as well as how they change and develop, depending on their response to the perceived threat to their norms and values.
As well as looking at terrorism as a whole, many have tried to break it down into different types, whether this is classifying it by the methods used, motivations behind it or the ‘actor’. Such categories include state terrorism and non-state terrorism, the former shown in events such as the ‘Rainbow Warrior’ attack in 1985. Whilst many would believe that non-state terror incidents are worse, it is actually the attacks that are state-sanctioned that cause the most damage to societies – mainly because they have more weapons and resources at their disposal. Another key distinction that Wilkinson (2016) argues between, for differing types of terrorism is whether they are international i.e. involving ‘citizens, property or international legal obligations’ or if the attack is internal, i.e. confined within the borders of a single state with no foreign citizens or property involved. Yet with the rise of the internet and the ability to connect with individuals all over the world these attacks are becoming more international, even if carried out by internal citizens the motivations and ideologies are being fed by international groups.
Many have started to argue for a ‘new’ form a terrorism that differs in three ways, firstly the goals and motivations of the perpetrators (terrorists) have changed, secondly the methods used have become more dangerous and lethal, and lastly the organisation of the groups. As Crenshaw (2006) argues this new organisation has started the resemble a ‘’franchise operation” where the members communicated at large distances, reaching over borders to try to challenge the values of the West and their allies. The organisation is made up of smaller groups in horizontal networks rather than the traditional vertical/ hierarchical organisation patterns that were previously seen in terror groups. As well as this when thinking back to the change in motivations, attacks are no longer seen to be a reaction to political views, instead they are a result of religious doctrine and beliefs based within the religious texts. As well as this Jenkins (2006) points out that terrorists do innovate, and share methods, tactics and instructions through the large networks they have created, resulting in trends and attacks that have become bloodier and harder to predict. With this there has also been a development in the actors/perpetrators themselves, they are no longer bound by national ties with a focus on territory. Instead, they are acting transnationally with own channels of funds (Duyvesteyn, 2004). Yet there is also a critic of this ‘new terrorism’ Kurtulus (2011), the features of this ‘new’ and ‘contemporary’ terrorism, are not actually new but are a return to earlier motivations of terrorism, and rather could be considered a return to the original reason for the violence, religion and religious teachings. Furthermore, with reference to the seemingly changed organisation method of terrorism, there is still a hierarchy within the groups. However, what can be agreed upon is the introduction of new technologies that have aided terror groups in their planning of such events, but what also needs to be considered is whether this technology has helped stop attacks.
Within the past 20 years terrorism has developed massively and what many describe as terrorism today has changed from the way it used to affect society even if the organisation and motivations are still the same. As Laqueur (2000) points out even the worst incidents of the past only affected a few people, whereas looking at some more recent events these attacks affect huge numbers of civilians, for example, 9/11. These big differences in the effects of the attacks can be seen to have contributed to the rise of social media, other media outlets and the culture surrounding it. As well as this the media and access to the internet has created a society that has an increased global connectivity, as well as more interactivity between states, individuals and groups. Some ways these developments are taking place is through the way in which groups recruit members as well as the way they spread propaganda over the world. Due to the rise of the internet, terrorist groups are able to create links miles away from where they are based, which is different from previous ways of creating local links. Furthermore, it has become easier to access weapons of mass destruction, and with people becoming more and more skilled in technology, to track these weapons has become much more difficult. All in all, “there has been a radical transformation…in the character of terrorism” (Laqueur, 2010, p4).
For many terror organisations and the individuals within these groups, the media is the key to winning the ‘war’, as unlike traditional wars it cannot be won through the defeat of an enemies’ forces. Browne and Silke (2010) say that with the media exposure terrorists hope to be able to gain the opportunity to spread their message and their reasoning behind each attack, which in turn results in the claiming of responsibility for events e.g. when the media reports an attack they try to contextualise the event and place blame/responsibility on a specific group. This is why in many news reports and coverage of terror attacks some heavily repeated lines include ‘so far no one has claimed responsibility’ and ‘ISIS (or other organises accepting responsibility) claims responsibility for this attack’. As well as this, Nacos (2016) goes on to argue that due to the way terrorism thrives on communication between members as well as their need for publicity to spread propaganda, contemporary/modern terrorists have “exploited … all features of the internet, especially social media networks”. With the amount of information everyone has at their fingertips the media can very easily unite or divide societies based on the way they choose to show or represent an event. So, it needs to be understood that western media culture differs from media in the middle east, due to some of the values ingrained into Western society such as freedom of expression, where for some the right to publish views that could be seen as controversial are normal, in some of these middle eastern countries publication of such offending images can create an uproar of protests that could in turn, turn deadly. The reason this difference is brought up is to show the importance of media in the way it can influence the tone and reaction of a country because for many the media and live news broadcasts are the only source of information they will receive. As a result, the way the media communicates a piece of news is very important as it can change the way an attack is dealt with and reacted to by the public. However, in an opposing stance to the way the media can influence public opinion, Nacos (2016, p24) claims that that people tend to search out and “rely solely [sic] or mostly on … sources that fit their own views”, taking this it can make one wonder to what extent the media will change someone’s opinion if they are only looking for validation of previously existing thoughts. Carrying on from this it is clear that whilst for the majority of the western world the media is a positive tool to connect with friends and family around the world, for others it is a dangerous tool used to intimidate others.
The media enables ‘moral panics’ a term coined by Stanley Cohen, to describe the exaggeration of events in society. It can be defined as representing a disproportionate reaction to a threat to specific societies and their norms and values, this also means that the coverage of such an event can create widespread panic and anxiety in the public as well as fear. This by no means is arguing that terror attacks should be kept quiet and away from the public, yet the continued footage that is repeated on the news helps to sensationalise an event almost legitimising the attack. As Anita (2007) argues terrorist organisations try to manipulate the free media for their own goals, and therefore to an extent the media gives terrorism the global reach it desires. Furthermore, the media then allows terrorism to influence political decisions in different countries based on their responses to the attack and issue. Gadarian, S.K, (2010, p469) states that “threat and fear are … politically consequential” the attacks open up a forum for the public to criticise the political elite through the information circulated by the mass media. Society looks for guidance and reassurance and this is done by the introduction of policies and counter-terrorism strategies, the UK strategy is called CONTEST and has four keys objectives, the pursue, prevent, protect and prepare, as well as this the government also recognises that it needs to focus on long-term factors that have allowed terrorism to grow and develop in societies, and to do this work with other government sources and programmes. Yet, what can be taken form this is the lack of the mention of the importance of changing the way the media reacts to the events in society, whilst the government cannot and should not influence the media and the ability of free speech, something should be done to prevent the media being used as a tool in terrorism. However, there have been examples of when the Government has interfered in the media and the exposure it gave to terror groups; the UK government banned the broadcasting of particular groups, specifically groups with links to the IRA, however supporters were still able to publish in written media outlets, this shows that the media cannot simply be controlled through bans but the media should also become self-aware of the effect it has on society. “The impact that the media has … to increase or decrease support for terrorism cannot be underestimated” (Browne and Silke, 2010, p107), on the other hand, the media is needed in moments after an attack as a way to protect society to ensure people aren’t putting themselves in direct harm.
Overall, whilst the understanding and definitions of terrorism have changed, much of what we know about terrorism has not; the motives are still the same, and so is the aim for exposure and to spread their message as far as possible. Further to this, the media is a key tool used by terrorists, whether this is in the recruitment of international members or for planning attacks themselves. The media does also aid Governments in stopping this at point, for example, through some strategies that have been used to go through the internet to find evidence of radicalisation. As well as this, the media helps to inform and calm the public as well as reinforcing norms and values within those specifically targeted societies. It also helps push for changes in policies regarding terrorism as social change comes from the majority of society pushing for changes, therefore without the media informing society, it could be argued that societies would stay still with little development in important aspects. Therefore, whilst the media is important to society, it is still one of the most important tools to terrorists when spreading their propaganda and message, so a balance between how useful it is and how detrimental so society needs to be found.