Tony Blair on terrorism and modern media

Tony Blair on terrorism and modern media

: Tony Blair calls for firm support of the work in Iraq and the war against terrorism in an interview with The Observer. After talking about the terrorists’ kidnapping of a Briton…

However, he hoped the public would understand that terrorism in Iraq ‘is to try to stop the country getting better, to murder anybody who tries to help its reconstruction and its democratic process. And our response, surely, has got to be to stand firm’.

Blair called on those divided over the war to rally behind a fresh battle for the control of Iraq: ‘I can understand why people still have a powerful disagreement about the original decision to go to war. But whatever that disagreement, surely it is absolutely clear we have to stay and see it through. Because the consequence of not doing so is that global terrorism will get a tremendous boost.’

Downing Street has been privately alarmed by the sophistication with which hostage taker Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has played on western public opinion. ‘What these terrorists understand is that they can use and manipulate the modern media to gain enormous publicity for themselves and put democratic politicians in a very difficult position,’ he said….

Asked if the war on terrorism had really delivered a safer world, Blair suggested things were often darkest before dawn: ‘There was more bloodshed in 1941 than in 1938.’ The intensity of the insurgency showed, he said, how much was at stake.

He’s right about staying the course (and, yes, I wish I could vote for him in November).

He’s also right about the terrorists’ ability to manipulate modern media — and modern media should be grappling with what to do about it. Playing the hostage videos, one after the next, is not necessarily the responsible or moral choice, for it gives the terrorists what they want: publicity. If Hitler released a press release, would you print it verbatim? Just because the terrorists in Iraq put out their press releases on video, that doesn’t mean you need to air the images on TV. Video is the ideal format for manipulating video media; the terrorists have learned that.

We are also entering an era of unfiltered media and that, too, is an issue. Back to that Hitler PR example: In the days of filtered (that is, published, edited, time-delayed) media, what Hitler had to say would have been cut up and quoted in stories. Today, in the age of go-to-the-source media, you can put your message on a web site and it can be quoted in the same media (TV on TV) and linked to directly.

On the one hand, some bloggers and some on cable news have said that we need to see the full horror of what these terrorists are doing and so they argued that the threatening and beheading videos should be seen.

But you also have to be aware that when you do that, you play into the hands of the terrorists; you give them just what they want: publicity. Does that make you complicit?

All this is quite counterintuitive — you’d think that the terrorists would realize that this should hurt them, make them look like the murdering slime they are. But this is a counterintuitive world with the most countercivil people: They don’t care about bad PR. They don’t care if we hate them for they hate us; in fact, if we hate them, it’s a badge of honor. So the worse we think of them, the better it is for them. And playing their videos accomplishes that goal.

But playing their videos too much eventually desensitizes us to the horror of their crimes. The sameness of the videos and of the reports of terrorist bombs killing civilians in Iraqi marketplaces or outside Iraqi police stations is becoming numbing. And that, too, suits the terrorists just fine; it dilutes our resolve to fight them.

We need to be aware of how the terrorists are manipulating modern media, as Blair said. What exactly we should do about that, I’m not yet sure; I invite discussion.

But I do know one thing: We start by calling terrorists terrorists.

16 responses to “Tony Blair on terrorism and modern media”

  1. Michael Avatar

    I don’t think they are “manipulating” the modern media – they are simply using it the way it is intended to be used. Our current media system is built upon the premise of capturing and captivating audiences with an ever-increasing display of visual titilation, stimulation, and provocation. Presidential campaigns understand this, so they tailor their “in-person” events to accomodate the visual & sound-bite nature of our media. So do the terrorists. By saying the terrorists “manipulate” the media makes it sound as if the media is some pure realm where such videos shouldn’t (or otherwise wouldn’t) be shown. That’s just not the case. This is our media system, and the terrorists are simply “using” it, not “abusing” it.

  2. James D Avatar

    You know, I sometimes wonder how Al Queda will ever top 9/11 – anything less than the mass destruction of 9/11 proportions will arguably be seen as a step back in the World Wide Jihad. An explosion at McDonalds or something just won’t make a similar ‘expression’ than the tragedy of 9/11.
    In looking at one of terrorism’s main tenets of ‘generating media buzz,’ I’ve surmised that the best-bang-for-their-buck target would be the US celebrity system. More specifically, I think of the award shows which have many celebrities in one location as prime targets.
    If they could hit the Academy Awards or Grammies infront of a world wide audience, well that would could be equal to a 9/11 (in generating buzz), especially if it takes out A-List celebrities.
    These events are planned well in ahead (easy to plan for) and also have the symbolic component of hitting the decadent West right where they are most moraly corrupt – the celebrity culture.
    They do not need to have any new knowledge or agents like chemical WMD or dirty bombs. They can use the same proven methods that are being used around the world.

  3. ronbo Avatar

    Outstanding post.
    I really don’t understand how Reuters, the BBC, etc. can claim with a straight face that calling baby-killers terrorists somehow compromises their journalistic integrity when clearly the opposite is true.

  4. Kris Avatar

    James D., Wouldn’t any sort of nuclear bomb, however limited, top the Trade Center terrorism? I wonder if they are holding out for this.
    Jeff, Last night, when CNN showed a clip of the funeral service for one of the beheaded men, he was described as “one of two Americans murdered” in Iraq. MURDERED? They may not have to show the visuals of beheading, but can’t they at least tell us the truth? How does telling us that the men were beheaded by terrorists play into the hands of terrorists?
    K.

  5. Michael Avatar

    Kris – what is untrue about saying he was murdered? perhaps they decided not to detail his decapitation to be a little sensitive to the fact that they were showing his funeral service.

  6. too many steves Avatar
    too many steves

    It should be said that the tactical point of Terrorism is to terrorize the enemy as a means to further a cause. Zarqawi seeks to achieve his objective this way. As horrific as it is for the victims and their families, the gruesome murder of a few people will not directly weaken the strength of the Coalition, in military terms.
    What the Terrorist seeks to do is influence the political climate sufficiently to undermine the people’s commitment to their government’s undertaking in Iraq (and elsewhere). He wants us all to be so thoroughly disgusted that we screem, in unison: “Do what you must to make it stop!”.
    By showing these images over and over again, by endlessly interviewing the bereaved family members, the media are complicit in advancing, albeit inadvertently (I hope), the cause of the Terrorists.
    I don’t know the answer, reporters must report but there must be a better way.

  7. James D Avatar

    Kris: A nuke or more likely a dirty bomb would be equivilant. But what is more likely or easier to do? Acquire the components, compile them and import a dirty bomb into the US or use a fertilizer car bomb or plane to destroy a building within the US?

  8. Kat Avatar

    They just arrested four in Britain for trying to buy components for a dirty bomb –something called red mercury. Want to guess what their reigion or cult was? I’d bet my money that the scum were muslim terrorists.

  9. Ernest Miller Avatar

    It isn’t at all clear to me that the videos are primarily for the consumption of the Western audience. Sure, the terrorists are happy for the publicity, but the videos are released in Arabic with speech and allusions meant for a generally non-Western audience.
    As for transparency, the more the better. We need more primary documents, not less. I think we should have free and open access to all the video from the presidential campaigns, for example, readily accessible and useable by anyone who so chooses.
    Of course, one should be very wary of then making content-based decisions on what primary documents should and should not be released. Will people make bad decisions? Yes, but others will be free to point the bad decisions out.
    In any case, if bloggers are to do more than media criticism, they have to have access to the same materials reporters do.
    For example, with regard to CBS memogate, both Jeff and I took the statement from CBS regarding the investigation panel to task for focusing solely on the process of the story being broadcast. We both noted that the investigation was not chartered, at least in the statement, to look into the aftermath. No news organization reported that the next day, except to my knowledge, the WSJ. Without access to the primary documents, neither Jeff nor I would have been able to say much about the charter.
    A minor example, but this is why bloggers need access to primary documents. Who knows what people will be able to find, even in the horrific videos of the decapitations.

  10. Michael Avatar

    Insightful, Kat. Thanks.

  11. Faramin Avatar

    Kat,
    As I’ve said many times before, I don not speak as a Muslim but I have noticed that you can’t spend your day without having some idiotic comments about Muslims. Can you? Your comments even are predictable. All your comments are the same: They are all empty. You are a bitter sick person who serioulsy needs professional help.
    Say something intelligent for a change. ;)

  12. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    Ernie:
    I agree with you on transparency and documents; have from the start. But I’m troubled — and agree with Blair — that we need to be conscious of the manipulation of media and decide what to do about it, not just go along passively.

  13. Kat Avatar

    Why stop art calling them terrorists–they are driven by the muslim ideology, so call them what they are–muslim terrorists. They are that in Darfur, in Indonesia, in Europe, in America, and in Israel. Why pretend we don’t know who they are.
    Sure, Faramin–then do you speak as a terrorist?

  14. Cog Avatar

    Stamp this post on Ed Cone’s forehead.