Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Point of discussion:

If terrorism's power isn't through the people killed but, rather, the fear created amongst those that find out, is it immoral for a state to censor all reports concerning terrorism and effectively rob them of their power?

I think this is a tricky 'un; since we can hardly refuse to report about soldiers dying out in Afghanistan... that's immoral and disrespectful in itself.

But repeated coverage on terrorism by the media arguably inflates the problem and provides free PR.

Maybe word would worm its way out eventually, I don't know.

But can a compromise be reached? Report on the event when it happens but censor all further mentioning of it?


I suppose I might have arrived at these thoughts because I'm one of those miserable sods who thinks democracies shouldn't enter conflicts because the public are too temperamental and weak: The public will be fervently pro-war but once the body bags come back, they'll throw aside any strategic arguments and demand the boys come home. They get peeved at any notions of escalations or taking the fight to the enemy. I'd use Vietnam as an example but I fear a detailed discussion of that might severely derail the thread. At any rate, democracies certainly 'don't have the balls' for real fights. I doubt the UN'd be happy if NATO started carpet-bombing Afghanistan or indiscriminately napalming the hillsides.

It's hard to cover up a Terrorist attack, TBH.

Someone's gonna blow a whistle, show a top secret document, and everyone's gonna go crazy.

Not to mention witnesses to these attacks!

So in other words, no truefacts, just goodfacts?

1st, if you don't report it, someone friendly to the bad guys will, and they will define and control the message to best fit their agenda. They are good at it.

2nd, the executed act doesn't scare people, the threat of future acts does. Reporting news accurately, and the authorities explaining what happened and what is being done to mitigate against future attacks as well as to bring retribution to the perps is important.

3rd, democracies engage in war and war like acts all the time. The authority's ability/willingness to properly explain WHY and justify the cost is important. Several bad guys didn't think the US had it in them to play a long game, many of them are dead or in hiding. Images of burnt bodies hung from bridges fired up the public and they demanded retribution. Faluja fell. The change of tactics and concurrent 'surge' into Iraq was relatively well sold to the US public and decently supported by the public. It is when the gov't DOESN'T effectively communicate the why and the cost that the public gets weary. Hiding info from the public is very rarely a good thing.

I would think the paranoia fostered by a culture of censorship, when combined with the reality of leaks, would ultimately make terrorist attacks as described by OP more effective than otherwise.

Frazzled wrote:So in other words, no truefacts, just goodfacts?[/quote

Well, that's the world we're living in now. Just ignore the man in the $1,000 suit who helped the underwear bomber get through customs, and the police officers who cover their faces so they can sneak into peaceful protests and try to incite them to violence, and the Israeli Mossad agents high-fiving while airplane supposedly being piloted by "Arabs with box-cutters" flew into buildings, and all of FDR's provocations that led to the Japanese wanting to attack a certain Hawaiian naval base. It's all for your own good.

Yes, terror attacks should be reported. Because as everybody knows, something is news-worthy if it's a rare occurrence. A government that censors terrorism is a government that cannot deal with terrorism.

Good points I'll admit. I feel fairly persuaded.

Henners91 wrote:

I'm pretty sure the Show yourself reincarnation is farther down the page.

AustonT wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

I'm pretty sure the Show yourself reincarnation is farther down the page.

It got locked.

I am Sadface at the lock. But it was amazing while it lasted.

It is not the reporting of terrorist attacks that make them a success.

It is our reaction to these events that make them a success.

It is my personal oppinion that every "attempted" attack has actually been successful, based on our reaction to them.

CptJake wrote:Hiding info from the public is very rarely a good thing.

Very few statements are less true.

It is true that good message control is vital to any possible government, but that involves concealing information, actively or otherwise, as much as it involves telling the truth. Certain things do need to be discussed, but generally only those things that are likely to be popular, or likely to be noticed. The surge is a good example of the latter, a good example of the former is bin Laden.

dogma wrote:

CptJake wrote:Hiding info from the public is very rarely a good thing.

Very few statements are less true.

It is true that good message control is vital to any possible government, but that involves concealing information, actively or otherwise, as much as it involves telling the truth. Certain things do need to be discussed, but generally only those things that are likely to be popular, or likely to be noticed. The surge is a good example of the latter, a good example of the former is bin Laden.

Rubbish. Unless there is clear national security issues then it is not up to the govenment to decide what is and is not of interest to the public, and in the case of national security all infomation should be relased as soon as the risk has dissapated.

Just take a look at the case of Abdel Hakim Belhaj, passed to the Lybian govenment with full knolage of the UK government by MI6 because they thought they could hide it. Govenments being able to hide infomation only leads to coruption. We should be able to know what our govenment is doing on our behalf, and in our name, and if not, why not.

Electro wrote:
Rubbish. Unless there is clear national security issues then it is not up to the govenment to decide what is and is not of interest to the public...

Sure it is, they have the information after all.

Electro wrote:
Just take a look at the case of Abdel Hakim Belhaj, passed to the Lybian govenment with full knolage of the UK government by MI6 because they thought they could hide it. Govenments being able to hide infomation only leads to coruption. We should be able to know what our govenment is doing on our behalf, and in our name, and if not, why not.

Well, often it does, but more often it leads to governments making good decisions that their people wouldn't be able to make.

dogma wrote:

Electro wrote:
Rubbish. Unless there is clear national security issues then it is not up to the govenment to decide what is and is not of interest to the public...

Sure it is, they have the information after all.

Dogma is right like, what the feth are the government for if not running gak?!

I am busy drinking and shagging, I dont want them phoning me every time there is an issue, I WANT them to decide gak as long as it leaves me free to do things I enjoy!

As a result, I can definitely see both sides of the argument.

feth it, Ill let higher paid people than me decide, ie- The heads of fething Government!

I think terrorists, and their supporting organizations factor in the free PR by major news media into their plans. Not in a calculated way, but I'm sure they do.

I'm not sure if we give the attacks in third world countries any attention worthwhile (I don't really pay attention), but the second an industrialized, modern nation suffers a terrorist attack, the whole world knows about it....

Reporting failed terrorist acts is a good thing as it shows the capabilites of our govenment and shows future terrorist how hard it is to attack us.

My problem with news coverage is when they report of the weak points of military tech, e.g. This vehicule has a crippling weak spot here. While this may help in the long term, in the short term it means that enemy forces know exactly how to kill british troops. ( in the days of the internet it doesn't matter were you are, if its reported you can watch it, unless you are in China)

BluntmanDC wrote:Reporting failed terrorist acts is a good thing as it shows the capabilites of our govenment and shows future terrorist how hard it is to attack us.

My problem with news coverage is when they report of the weak points of military tech, e.g. This vehicule has a crippling weak spot here. While this may help in the long term, in the short term it means that enemy forces know exactly how to kill british troops. ( in the days of the internet it doesn't matter were you are, if its reported you can watch it, unless you are in China)

I suspect the relevant folks in China get to see what they need to in order to judge vulnerabilities...

CptJake wrote:1st, if you don't report it, someone friendly to the bad guys will, and they will define and control the message to best fit their agenda. They are good at it.

2nd, the executed act doesn't scare people, the threat of future acts does. Reporting news accurately, and the authorities explaining what happened and what is being done to mitigate against future attacks as well as to bring retribution to the perps is important.

3rd, democracies engage in war and war like acts all the time. The authority's ability/willingness to properly explain WHY and justify the cost is important. Several bad guys didn't think the US had it in them to play a long game, many of them are dead or in hiding. Images of burnt bodies hung from bridges fired up the public and they demanded retribution. Faluja fell. The change of tactics and concurrent 'surge' into Iraq was relatively well sold to the US public and decently supported by the public. It is when the gov't DOESN'T effectively communicate the why and the cost that the public gets weary. Hiding info from the public is very rarely a good thing.

I agree with your points in theory.

That being said I find it amusing that you used Iraq as an example since the justification for that war was a lie perpetrated on the public to scare them into supporting the action.

dogma wrote:

Electro wrote:
Rubbish. Unless there is clear national security issues then it is not up to the govenment to decide what is and is not of interest to the public...

Sure it is, they have the information after all.

Electro wrote:
Just take a look at the case of Abdel Hakim Belhaj, passed to the Lybian govenment with full knolage of the UK government by MI6 because they thought they could hide it. Govenments being able to hide infomation only leads to coruption. We should be able to know what our govenment is doing on our behalf, and in our name, and if not, why not.

Well, often it does, but more often it leads to governments making good decisions that their people wouldn't be able to make.

What is the point in democracy if the govenment can hide what they want to. Government should be "of the people, by the people, for the people".

I also belive that the govenment should not have the right to decide what is in the interest of national security, but that should be down to an independant group (normaly the judiciary) to make those choices.

It dose worry me when people think they are govend by betters. Our ellected officials are our peers and equals. The govenment should act on the will of the people. If you take a look at the most open govenments in the world they are also the best places to live.

mattyrm wrote:

dogma wrote:

Electro wrote:
Rubbish. Unless there is clear national security issues then it is not up to the govenment to decide what is and is not of interest to the public...

Sure it is, they have the information after all.

Dogma is right like, what the feth are the government for if not running gak?!

I am busy drinking and shagging, I dont want them phoning me every time there is an issue, I WANT them to decide gak as long as it leaves me free to do things I enjoy!

As a result, I can definitely see both sides of the argument.

feth it, Ill let higher paid people than me decide, ie- The heads of fething Government!

I think all terrorist acts should be reported to Matty personally, then him and his crack team of commando's who where convicted of a crime then didn't commit could go out and "Take care of business" as long as Matty says at the end "I love it when a plan comes together" =o]