How quickly the shocking becomes the norm
By Cori Dauber
ABC starts with Iraq tonight, because an IED was so powerful a Bradley, "one of the most heavily armored vehicles" the US has, was blown up and 7 service men killed, the most killed in one convoy since October. (A story is always better if it can be defined as a milestone.)
All recent violent episodes are listed, and the reporter notes ominously that "only 14 of the provinces" (that's out of 18) are ready for the elections. Get that? 14 of the 18 are ready, but the addition of that one word, "only" changes the entire meaning of the sentence, and instead of the vast majority of the country being ready, suddenly the information is presented as if it were the minority of the country, "only" 14.
In what other context would you describe 14 out of 18 as "only?"
But that isn't really what I wanted to talk about here.
The piece includes two pieces of footage taken from enemy web sites of attacks on convoys, American forces being attacked and blown up.
The enemy in Vietnam was fighting a largely guerrilla war. They were willing to engage American forces in skirmishes, firefights, which meant that television, defined by images, could follow American units, and be assured of getting footage within enough time to make it worth their while, that was spectacular enough to air. (Although the notion that most of the footage aired during the "living room war" was bloody, or gory, or particularly less santized than anything aired today is a myth.)
This enemy is less cooperative. Firefights are rare. Following American troops is unlikely to produce such footage. This enemy likes the tactics of terrorism, even if they are targeted at combat troops, which means they are not technically terrorism per se: they are meant less to kill than to intimidate, to create psychological pressure through the use of violence. Unless one is tipped, counting on getting footage of such attacks would be random luck, which leaves footage of the aftermath, which means footage of stuff burning, which is so similar from one incident to the next that (unless there are Iraqis cheering or something) it all just blurs together. Ho hum.
Of course, at some point here, the goal of the terrorist and the goal of the media organization converage. The best way for the terrorist to maximize the impact of what he does is to get images of what he's accomplished onto the airwaves. It's all about ratings, baby. No images, no ability to influence anyone out of eyeshot of the event.
The media organization needs spectacular images.
Lo and behold, a perfect convergence of strategy and messenger.
The terrorists now preposition cameras before their attacks, whether attacks on convoys, or on mess halls. Then, just like video of beheadings, they download these images onto the web, where anyone can access them.
And the networks began to take their footage. At first this was done through deals done in dark alleys, it was announced with great fanfare, and the shock value of the images was as much from their source as from their content.
Quickly the terrorists realized they had a taker with an insatiable appetite for imagery, the more spectacular the better, and so they needed a more efficient delivery system.
The web had never failed them before and it didn't this time either.
While there is enormous angst over images of bodies, these images, images remember, of Americans being killed and dying, seem to engender no angst whatsoever, apparently for no reason beyond the fact that their bodies are not visible.
But the real reason the use of these videos, now apparently normalized and causing neither controversy nor second thoughts on the part of media outlets, should be giving everyone pause, is that the centerpiece of a terrorist strategy is the ability to get the message out, and there is no more powerful way to do it than through images.
The media is being used.
And they seem neither to notice nor to care. |
