We noted the other day that allied forces have been wreaking havoc with the PR arms of Al Qaeda.In turn this has contributed to a decrease in the number those volunteering to fight the infidels in Iraq.
So the al Qaeda recruiter, often working out of a local mosque, makes a free trip to Iraq, ending in a glorious death for the cause, sound like a solution. But over the last year, the number of such volunteers has declined from 120 a month, to about 40. The main reason for this is bad news, and some survivors, coming back from Iraq. Not many of these losers make it back, but the word gets on to the Internet, and this has caused quite a commotion on pro-terrorist web sites and message boards. There’s also been a sharp drop in pro-terrorist combat videos coming out of Iraq. This is largely due to the death or capture of the people responsible for getting those videos onto the Internet.
If you can’t romanticize self-destruction you won’t have a lot of volunteers for suicide missions.
Of course it’s not only the true believers who help recruitment efforts, it’s also the media! The Washington Times reports on a new study:
Periods of intense news media coverage in the United States of criticism about the war, or of polling about public opinion on the conflict, are followed by a small but quantifiable increases in the number of attacks on civilians and U.S. forces in Iraq, according to a study by Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university’s Kennedy School of Government.
Abe Greenwald observes:
But maybe the media executives who’ve been so eager to run photos of flag-draped coffins and the journalists who start each day thinking of a fresh way to cover America’s demise could keep this in mind.Particularly now. We are in the midst of a “five years on” media riot. The number 4000 is suddenly everywhere. Yes, a free press is a cornerstone of our democracy. But it shouldn’t be exploited for the sole purpose of lamenting out military efforts. The success of the troop surge was barely acknowledged for half a year, and yet the 4000th U.S. casualty in Iraq made it into the headlines at the speed of light.
Of course if Katharine Graham’s 1986 essay about freedom vs. terror is any indication, we should simply trust the media to do the right thing.
These problems of covering terrorism are serious. But in spite of them, I believe the benefits of full disclosure far outweigh any possible adverse consequences. I believe the harm of restricting coverage far surpasses the evils of broadcasting even erroneous or damaging information.American democracy rests on the belief, which the centuries have proven true, that people can and do make intelligent decisions about great issues if they have the facts.
Graham’s essay isn’t bad and its conclusion, that government ought not to interfere in reporting is reasonable. Still in subsequent years we’ve seen how the media has failed to act responsibly.
In a recent article, in Graham’s own Washington Post, Hamas is no longer a terrorist organization, but a “radical Islamist movement that has declared its intention to destroy Israel.” Or “it’s considered a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel.”
And with Hamas so defined, it doesn’t take much for the Post to honor its representatives with op-ed space. Graham had written
The point is that we generally know when we are being manipulated, and we’ve learned better how and where to draw the line, though the decisions are often difficult.
Nowadays her heirs are willingly playing a role in the manipulation.The pliability of the media and many government isn’t lost on members of Hamas. In its brief against CAIR, the Investigative Project reported the following conversation (via memeorandum):
Awad: What is important is that the language of the address is there even
for the American. But, the issue is how to use it.
….
Omar Ahmad: There is a difference between you saying “I want to restore the ‘48
land” and when you say “I want to destroy Israel”.
….
Awad: Yes, there are different but parallel types of address. There
shouldn’t be contradiction. Address people according to their minds.
When I speak with the American, I speak with someone who doesn’t know
anything. As for the Palestinian who has a martyr brother or something, I know how to address him, you see?
Terrorists know their audiences. If allowed to communicate effectively, they will be more effective in spreading their terror. If their communication efforts are stymied, they won’t be as effective. Israel was correct in its recent decision to ban al Jazeera. France was right to ban Al Manar. And the coalition forces seemingly have made a difference by targeting the propaganda arm of Al Qaeda.
But when the media or governments legitimize terror groups, they help them. I believe that Katharine Graham’s essay was in response to Margaret Thatcher’s quote:
Democratic nations must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.
I don’t remember if Thatcher was threatening government restrictions on the media or just asking the media to act responsibly. Her message is one that has been too often ignored by the media in recent years as the media has often been full partners in allowing terrorists to re-brand themselves.
If the West is to turn back the Islamist challenge, it must not just fight on the battlefields but on Madison Avenue too.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
