One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Terrorism and the Media
Feb 8, 2017 17:45:40   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/us/politics/terrorist-attack-media-coverage-trump.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

32 years ago the quintessential conservative icon, Margaret Thatcher said “we must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.”

The terrorists she was referring to was the Irish Republican Army and the "oxygen of publicity" on which they depend was a reference to media attention. In his New York Times editorial published this morning, Scott Shane was pointing out the contrast between what Thatcher was suggesting then and what Trump is saying today. The conservative, Thatcher was highlighting the fact that the entire point of terrorism is to attract attention. Indeed, as Shane mentions the rise of modern terrorism in the late 19th century coincided with the rise of print media. I contrast, right-wing Trump is blasting the media for not giving them enough attention.

So who's side is Trump on anyway?

I was in agreement with Al Gore and many others in 2001 when in reaction to the 9/11 attacks asserted that such attacks should be treated as a crime where every effort is made by law enforcement to investigate and apprehend the perpetrators. I don't see any benefit to freaking out the public unless, as was the case with the Bush Administration, the point is to create enough public paranoia and outrage to excuse government actions that the public would otherwise never agree to.

Reply
Feb 8, 2017 19:02:54   #
Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton
 
straightUp wrote:
I was in agreement with Al Gore and many others in 2001 when in reaction to the 9/11 attacks asserted that such attacks should be treated as a crime where every effort is made by law enforcement to investigate and apprehend the perpetrators.


That was one of the (very) few things that came out of Al Gore's mouth that I fully agreed with. What happened on September 11, 2001 was a criminal enterprise and should have been treated as such. All the posturing and tough talk might have looked good on the evening news but the reality was more like a bunch of immature children lashing out at people and places that had no hand in the events of that fateful day. The whole situation would have been much better handled with the use of Congressional letters of marque and reprisal targeting specific individuals.

straightUp wrote:
I don't see any benefit to freaking out the public unless, as was the case with the Bush Administration, the point is to create enough public paranoia and outrage to excuse government actions that the public would otherwise never agree to.


Bingo! You nailed it!

Reply
Feb 9, 2017 04:58:53   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
Yeah... so.

mic drop

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.