Terrorism can be established as one of the most dangerous threats of recent times. In the context of the widespread informational technology, combined with the role of mass media in the process, this issue obtains a raising controversy. In that regard, the issue of media coverage is specifically important to consider in situations involving hostages, as the media either covering a news report or responding to the terrorists’ demands is in a position to influence such situations, especially with the rise of publicity-seeking crimes. Accordingly, the decision to provide terrorist access to the media is an important issue that implies several considerations.
According to the Hostage Negotiation Study Guide (2003), structured groups such as terrorists use the media to “maximize the propaganda effect… for political or social change.” (“Hostage Negotiation Study Guide 2003”). In that regard, hostage situations imply one of the choices at a hostage situation is containing the area and negotiating, where one of the objectives is to minimize the “media publicized effectiveness of the terror. In such situations, media along with any other requirements such as food, water, etc, become negotiable utilities. (“Hostage Negotiation Study Guide 2003”).
Nevertheless, access to media might seem like a controversial issue even as a negotiable subject with the terrorist. One of the aspects to consider in the context of media as an objective in itself, rather than merely a means for communications. Confirming such assumptions, the media critics even state that, “without press attention’ terrorism as such would cease to exist”, wherein the absence of the media “the deed would pass unheralded or unrecognized.” (Narcos).
In this case, a parallel can be drawn between the widespread mass media technologies that facilitate broadcast and publicity to the whole world and the most known terrorism and hostage cases of the last decades. Through this parallel, it can be seen that media is working mostly for the interests of the terrorists, where if it is not for the publicity of their demands, the media would act to emphasize the human aspect of the terrorists and the hostages and thus strengthen the individual versus the national interest dilemmas for decision-makers. (Narcos).
On the other hand, one of the interests to consider when the issue of hostages and media manipulation arises is the “public’s basic right to know and be informed through a free press.” (M. Cherif Bassiouni). In that regard, fulfilling this right, if the matter of providing the media access to terrorists is in the media’s hands, some issues should be considered, such as the facts that preventing violence, determining the legitimacy of the grievance, and the effect of reporting the news is not the reporter’s concern. (Ghetti).
Accordingly, many guidelines should be followed regarding media access, which includes limiting media access to the scene, limiting information, and the most important aspect, which is self-regulating and referring to one’s ethical and moral aspects in weighing every decision, along with acknowledging the parties involved in and influenced by this decision.
It can be seen that media became a major part of people’s life. In that sense, it should be always remembered that media should seek the benefit of the people as their first direction, rather than ratings and popularity. When the life of people and the stability in the society are at risk, the best guideline would be to measure the outcome of each decision made in terms of its benefits and harms.
Works Cited
Ghetti, Michelle W. “The Terrorist Is a Star!: Regulating Media Coverage of Publicity-Seeking Crimes”. 2007. ExpressO. Web.
“Hostage Negotiation Study Guide 2003”. 2003. Learning for Life. Web.
M. Cherif Bassiouni. “Media Coverage of Terrorism: The Law and the Public.” The Journal of Communication 32.2 (1982): 128-43.
Nacos, Brigitte Lebens. Terrorism and the Media : From the Iran Hostage Crisis to the World Trade Center Bombing. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.