The Politics and Coverage of Terrorism: From Media Images to Public Consciousness

Abstract

This article presents a typology that explains the variation in media coverage for different kinds of terrorism. The relation o f a terrorist act to power is the focus of the typology. Grievance terrorism is fomented by groups seeking power or redress of grievance. I t receives substantial media coverage. Perpetrators of such terrorism are portrayed negatively. Institutional terrorism is employed by powerful entities to maintain or preserve the status quo. Amount and tone of coverage of such terrorism are contingent on the intended targets of such terrorism and on whether the media rely on those institutions as sources. The article addresses the political implications (i.e., public consciousness about terrorism and compliance with government policies) of such differences in coverage.The mass media, especially television, have come under fire for how they treat coverage of terrorist events. Generally, criticism centers on how the news media "allow" themselves to be exploited by terrorists, how the media "encourage" terrorism, and the "effectiveness" of terrorist tactics publicized by the media. The conventional wisdom reflected in these criticisms, however, does not hold up well when research on media coverage of terrorism is examined.The critical review of the literature presented here will dissect the conventional wisdom about media coverage of terrorism. This review results in a reconceptualization of media coverage of terrorism through a typology of terrorism that makes basic distinctions in how the media approach the subject of terrorism. The central concept informing the typology is the role of social power. The role of power is important in two aspects of this topic: (1) a terrorist incident's relationship to powerful elements in society and (2) the relationship of media to powerful institutions in society and their role in shaping the way individuals think about their world.Our first consideration concerns the relationship of a terrorist act to the dominant institutions in society. The fundamental question in this regard is, does the terrorist act serve to challenge or reinforce existing power structures? Grievance terrorism is identified as terrorism that challenges power or seeks redress of grievance. On the other hand, institutional terrorism seeks to maintain power and the status quo.Beyond the expression of power as part of the terrorist act, a second consideration necessary to understand the media's coverage of such acts is the media's own role as a powerful institution in shaping how people think about the world. Included also is the media's relationship to other powerful institutions in American society -especially the political and economic institutions that are powerful determinants in structuring the lives of individuals on a mass scale. This triangu-253

When the “Fortress Crumbled”: The Israel-Jenin Story in U.S. News Media

“…Both types are constructed differently by mainstream news media. Whereas grievance violence is portrayed as terrorist, sensational, and often stripped of its historical and social context (Steuter, 1990; Wittebols, 1991), its institutional counterpart is not even depicted as terrorism or conveyed as government efforts to protect national security and interests (Nacos, 2002; Wittebols, 1991). For instance, Chechen rebellion against Russian repression as well as Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation are commonly conveyed as illegitimate acts of attacking civilians and threatening social order and stability.…”

In the Shadow of a Leader

“…Being ''their'' story, professional frames predictably took priority over national frames (Nossek 2004), and ethnocentrism is, after all, an enduring news value (Lee et al, 2001). For another, the tight USÁIsraeli alliance speaks to a structural explanation for this phenomenon: the news' tendency to align with government policy lest government is provoked to not supply them with information crucial to their sustenance (Schudson, 2003;Wittebols, 1991).…”

“…Political violence, sometimes used interchangeably with ''terrorism'' (a tendency that has been problematized by some, including Laqueur, 1987), is typically classified along two basic lines: grievance/bottom-up and institutional/top-down violence (Tuman, 2003;Wittebols, 1991). Grievance violence is typically performed by marginalized*or at least self-perceived as such*groups that seek to expose an issue, attain power, or alert attention to a cause.…”

“…Both types are constructed drastically differently by mainstream news media in general. Whereas grievance violence is constructed as a theater of terror (Weimann and Winn, 1994), amplified, sensationalized, and often stripped of its historical and social context (Steuter, 1990;Wittebols, 1991), its institutional counterpart is not depicted as terrorism in the first place or euphemized as, say, government efforts to protect national security and interests (Nacos, 2002;Wittebols, 1991). For instance, Chechen rebellion against Russian repression as well as Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation are frequently conveyed as illegitimate acts of attacking civilians and threatening social order and stability.…”

Media and the institutional perspective: U.S. and Canadian coverage of terrorism

“…The distinction between these two types of terror is discussed more fully elsewhere. 2 Another factor in understanding media coverage of such acts is the media's own role as a powerful institution in shaping how people think about the world and the media's relationship to other powerful institutions in American society-especially the political and economic institutions that are powerful determinants in structuring the lives of the citizens of the United States. This triangular relationship (media, political, and economic institutions) has been developed fully in recent work by several scholars with respect to both a general perspective on media 3 and, more specifically, in the area of coverage of terrorism.…”