The media and terrorism: Cases
For unrelated projects I have been working on an assessment of the interaction between the media and terrorism. I don't really have the time to write a very thoughtful post now -- any useful thoughts of mine belong in the two papers I've been working on (one of these is already available, though it's in Hungarian). I can, however, put together something (to which I can keep adding later on) that might be interesting. Here are some noteworthy cases connected to the topic in focus. These can serve as ammunition for some important debates -- perhaps in class, if you are a colleague. These are the cases I used as examples in my own work.
1. Burhan Ozbilici's photo (AP) of Mevlüt Mert Altıntaş as he is holding up his index finger, gun in the other hand, having just killed Russia's ambassador to Turkey, Andrey Karlov. The victim is seen behind him, lying on the ground. This was named photo of the year in the World Press Photo 2017 contest. Altıntaş is in the centre, Karlov is in the periphery in the picture. The viewer's interest is inevitably focused on the perpetrator -- any effort at understanding what happened is thus also focused on the perpetrator's own reasons rather than anything else. Could this have something to do with the widespread criticism in the media of Aleppo's siege by Syrian forces who were supported by Russian air strikes at the time? And a bit of identification with the perpetrator's motive of "revenge for Aleppo"? Is this photo effectively a monument then to terrorism (independently of the intentions of the photographer who just happened to be there to take it)?
2. The example of Herostratus who burned down the Temple of Artemis on the island of Ephesus in c.356BC. Knowing he did this to become famous, the authorities on the island wanted his name to go unremembered (and obviously failed in trying to achieve this). Should damnatio memoriae be considered at least in the form of minimising coverage related to, say, lone wolf terrorists' actions who often act, at least partly, with Herostratus' motive?
3. The Unabomber (Ted Kaczynski) approaching the New York Times and the Washington Post to have his manifesto published, back in 1995. Penthouse offering to do it after the NYT and WaPo refused first. Kaczynski then declaring Penthouse was not prestigious enough for him and his essay on industrial society. The NYT and WaPo eventually giving in, to prevent more of Kaczynski's mail bombs from going off. The essay being available up to this day (not that it would make much of a difference if it was deleted from the NYT and WaPo sites now).
4. Handling information and materials of potential value as evidence related to an ongoing investigation after a terror attack. CBS and NBC outing the Manchester attacker's name, the NYT publishing photos used by British police at the time, from the scene of the attack. When is this acceptable, if it may be acceptable at all? The case also shows, by the way, the relevance of transnational media space. UK media complied with government guidelines here, US media didn't, and the result is the same - British media consumers as well as media consumers worldwide, including people of relevance for the investigation, with awareness of the leaked information.
5. Bernard O'Mahoney's role in securing the conviction of the British "nail bomber" David Copeland. As an investigative journalist, O'Mahoney deceived Copeland by posing as a woman and starting a correspondence with him, duping him into giving up more information about himself. That wasn't the first and only time O'Mahoney did something like this. The letters they exchanged with Copeland were used as evidence in Copeland's trial. Is it an acceptable way of producing evidence? Could it endanger an investigation if the media interferes with the process (and the chief suspect) in this way?
---------------
Alright, as mentioned, I may add more cases here in the future, this is an open-ended post.
1. Burhan Ozbilici's photo (AP) of Mevlüt Mert Altıntaş as he is holding up his index finger, gun in the other hand, having just killed Russia's ambassador to Turkey, Andrey Karlov. The victim is seen behind him, lying on the ground. This was named photo of the year in the World Press Photo 2017 contest. Altıntaş is in the centre, Karlov is in the periphery in the picture. The viewer's interest is inevitably focused on the perpetrator -- any effort at understanding what happened is thus also focused on the perpetrator's own reasons rather than anything else. Could this have something to do with the widespread criticism in the media of Aleppo's siege by Syrian forces who were supported by Russian air strikes at the time? And a bit of identification with the perpetrator's motive of "revenge for Aleppo"? Is this photo effectively a monument then to terrorism (independently of the intentions of the photographer who just happened to be there to take it)?
2. The example of Herostratus who burned down the Temple of Artemis on the island of Ephesus in c.356BC. Knowing he did this to become famous, the authorities on the island wanted his name to go unremembered (and obviously failed in trying to achieve this). Should damnatio memoriae be considered at least in the form of minimising coverage related to, say, lone wolf terrorists' actions who often act, at least partly, with Herostratus' motive?
3. The Unabomber (Ted Kaczynski) approaching the New York Times and the Washington Post to have his manifesto published, back in 1995. Penthouse offering to do it after the NYT and WaPo refused first. Kaczynski then declaring Penthouse was not prestigious enough for him and his essay on industrial society. The NYT and WaPo eventually giving in, to prevent more of Kaczynski's mail bombs from going off. The essay being available up to this day (not that it would make much of a difference if it was deleted from the NYT and WaPo sites now).
4. Handling information and materials of potential value as evidence related to an ongoing investigation after a terror attack. CBS and NBC outing the Manchester attacker's name, the NYT publishing photos used by British police at the time, from the scene of the attack. When is this acceptable, if it may be acceptable at all? The case also shows, by the way, the relevance of transnational media space. UK media complied with government guidelines here, US media didn't, and the result is the same - British media consumers as well as media consumers worldwide, including people of relevance for the investigation, with awareness of the leaked information.
5. Bernard O'Mahoney's role in securing the conviction of the British "nail bomber" David Copeland. As an investigative journalist, O'Mahoney deceived Copeland by posing as a woman and starting a correspondence with him, duping him into giving up more information about himself. That wasn't the first and only time O'Mahoney did something like this. The letters they exchanged with Copeland were used as evidence in Copeland's trial. Is it an acceptable way of producing evidence? Could it endanger an investigation if the media interferes with the process (and the chief suspect) in this way?
---------------
Alright, as mentioned, I may add more cases here in the future, this is an open-ended post.
Comments
Post a Comment