Comments on: Media Coverage Fuels Terrorism

By: Robert Prather

Robert Prather — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:48:43 +0000

Indeed, itâ��s probably all we can hope for from social science.

James,

I think that statement's exactly right. If this weren't a one-off study, it would provide the groundwork for getting closer to actual causality. As close as we can, anyway.

By: DL

DL — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:57:21 +0000

See if I have it right. We get our panties in a wad now if some terrorist is called a terrorist? Just a while back the same folks were ranting because they weren't being called terrorists -just insurgents.

I understand the thinking - "Don't glorify their heinous acts by giving them the success they want." What if their religious motives were challenged each time they were shown to be the godless destroyers of innocent life that they are.

What if a picture of Mohhammed were to be juxtaposed next to the bloody remains of an innocent child with the question-Did Mohammed really want this? overlaid. They might not seek such publicity.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:38:05 +0000

Robert: That sounds reasonable enough. Indeed, it's probably all we can hope for from social science. My main concern would be whether other variables are factored into the equation.

By: Robert Prather

Robert Prather — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 06:02:43 +0000

James,

I'm familiar with Granger Causality and it doesn't prove actual causality. GC is a time series technique used in forecasting that determines if, say, newspaper sales over time are correlated with terrorism over time, plus a lagged terrorism variable, and possibly a second lag on the terrorism variable.

If the lagged terrorism variables pass their t-tests, then terrorism is said to Granger Cause newspaper sales.

In short, the statement they made is too strong.

By: G A Phillips

G A Phillips — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:36:12 +0000

RA, just what I was thinking, I think the liberals are the greater enemy and I would mark down 3/4 of our war dead to the aid and comfort they give to the terrorists.

By: RA

RA — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:18:31 +0000

People who cause an increase of terrorism against Americans (ACLU, Democrats, the MSM) are traitors. Its time we start shouting this at those who are culpable.

By: Herb

Herb — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:33:21 +0000

I don't think the media gives a tinkers damn about who or how many people are killed as long as they get their story or make a headline.

The real question is:

How much blood will satisfy the blood thirsty reporters before they stop their promotion of the terrorist bombings, beheadings, and shootings ?

The second question is:

How much blood is already on the hands of those who insist on reporting the slaughter of our troops and the innocents ?

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:25:07 +0000

JB: That makes some sense, although it's unenforcable. The names are virtually meaningless, though, for the jihadi groups. Indeed, the myriad groups chopping people's heads off in Iraq rather run together in my head.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:24:23 +0000

The solution is not government censorship (talk about your unintended consequences). The answer is for the media to be as cognizant of being manipulated by terrorists as they are of playing to racial stereotypes (when is the last time you read "the alleged criminal was described as a large, black male"), manipulation by those with a vested interest (politicians, bureaucrats, business, etc) or anyone else who seeks to make the press it's useful idiots. The short term gain of some sales increase by more sensationalist coverage is most likely lost by the long term loss of sales by those who see more sympathy with those causing the terror than with those trying to stop it.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:23:16 +0000

I thought the idea of just using a generic "terrorist" label, instead of identifying which group was claiming responsibility, had some real merit though.

Make all of these acts seemingly anonymous and you're making the bag guys do their own PR work. That means they have to be out there communicating more and, consequently, more vulnerable to tracking down.