“Publicity is the oxygen of terrorism”
-Margaret Thatcher
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it really make a sound? The same can be said for a terrorist attack that is never reported. Terrorist knowingly chose media savvy targets to increase the publicity of the attack. Photos, news reports, and streaming video all broadcast across the globe increase the impact of terrorist activity.
Reportedly Timothy McVeigh selected his target in Oklahoma City based primarily on its location. He chose it because there was plenty of open ground to facilitate media coverage of the event. Imagine if the 9/11 disaster was never reported, this disaster shook the globe. However, if it was not for mass media the effects would have been rather localized, and even when reports surfaced their effect would not have been the same as real time coverage. The notion of suppressing such events from the media in this day and age is ridiculous, but not implausible.
Obviously a 9/11 scenario would be impossible to keep secret, but if we think back to anthrax scares and other minor (in comparison) terrorist attacks the possibility of a media black out would be all to easy.
While the possibility of media blackouts on terrorist activity is real and plausible, is it justifiable? Would the population be safer and healthier if they were kept in the dark? Would terrorist give up on small scale activity, or would this only serve to increase large and sensational attacks? These are the questions that are being raised at the highest levels of government, but what right does the government have to put an end to freedom of press?
The US has already ruled (Bransburg v. Hayes 1972) that the US constitution does not guarantee the press right to access, when the same is denied to the public at large. As old as this ruling is, it has far reaching implications if the government decides to fight terrorism by this means. Police or military barricades would be erected immediately in any case of terrorism, if the threat is of a chemical, biological, or nuclear nature the access to the site would be restricted, and the media potentially banned.
These measure would allow for more control on the information released, wide spread panic and fear would be limited and controllable, the sensational effect of the terrorist attack would be limited, and immediate care for those involved could begin unimpeded by a hysterical population. Would the cost out weigh the benefits? Are these benefits actually realistic? Unfortunately, if governments decide to employ such methods in the future we may never know if we benefited from it.
References
-Disaster Nursing and emergency preparedness for chemical, biological, and radiological terrorism (2003).
Comments