You seem to have the idea that terrorism is some ultimately effective weapon. This is not true.
No, I don't think it's a particularly effective tactic. At the top of this discussion I made some comments on when I might consider terrorism acceptable in an attempt to foster a discussion on that (rather than on what an axe-wielding baby-killer I am <g>). One of the criteria I mentioned then and several times since was that it would have to have a good chance of working. The key reason I disapprove of the Palestinian version of terrorism is that it has proven itself ineffective. If terrorism is promising in terms of effectiveness, then there's some chance that it can be justified. If it is not effective, then it absolutely cannot be justified, IMO.
Since nobody wants to play analyst with me, I'll cut to the chase myself, strictly FWIW.
If terrorism is absolutely wrong, then the media should treat it the same way it does axe murder, with disapproval. Further, we must teach our kids about patriotism--inculcating them with love of country and willingness to defend it but making clear that their defense of their country must never go so far as to target enemy civilians. Better to give up their nation and culture than to target civilians.
If terrorism is not absolutely wrong, then we have a few choices.
One is to pretend that it is anyway. Since such a rule benefits the top dog and we are the top dog, it is in our interests to promote the "big lie" that terrorism is absolutely unacceptable. We should insist that the media spread this propaganda for us. Of course, if we are ever in the position of not being top dog, then we reserve the right to flip flop about terrorism being absolutely wrong.
Another is to come up with a consensus on what subsets of terrorism are absolutely wrong and ask the media be judgmental on them and neutral on the others.
Another is to ask the media to be neutral about terrorism as a tactic and about particular conflicts recognizing that people will interpret such acts in large part based on which side they're on.
Or to be neutral about terrorism as a tactic but let the US media takes sides in given conflicts not based on the use of the tactic but based on which side the US favors recognizing that the media of other countries may take a different side.
Or we can different media outlets fostering different biases laissez faire.
Options off the top of my head. |
