Leaders and journalists worldwide agree that terrorism poses an enormous threat. But while searching for defense, they often fail to examine the concept’s construction.
While no standardized definition of terrorism exists, the word’s root is undeniable: terror.
Journalists examine possible acts of terror through the lenses of many different definitions. But an event only qualifies for this examination if it incites terror, thus fulfilling the word’s essential requirement.
And for one to feel terror toward something, he or she must first be aware of it. Therefore, for terrorism to function on a global scale, public awareness is vital. Mass media plays an invaluable role in propagating terrorism.
Susan D. Moeller examines this idea in her book Packaging Terrorism. “One could, in fact, neatly sum up the most essential element in our experience of terrorism in one phrase: fear-mongering,” she writes.
Popular films add depth to fear-mongering, bringing terrorism out of the newsroom and into an emotionally-charged public understanding.
One does not need to have lived through the events at the Munich Olympics to perceive their gravity after watching Steven Spielberg’s “Munich.”
Portrayals not only of violence, but the emotional power terrorists exert over victims serve as “the oxygen of publicity” to terrorism’s flame, according to Moeller.
But does this represent a lack of responsibility on behalf of filmmakers?
One must consider the film industry’s objective. While goals vary from director to director, movies are typically produced to create profit through fulfillment of some public desire.
In “Fear in the News: A Discourse of Control,” an article published in The Sociological Quarterly, David L. Altheide and R. Sam Michalowski discuss the audience’s “expectation that danger and risk are a central feature.”
Viewers don’t care about a story unless it contains a threat to be conquered.
Furthermore, filmmakers like Spielberg cite motives beyond profit. “I didn't make this movie to make money,” Spielberg says about “Munich” in an interview with Time magazine. “I made the picture out of just pure wanting to get that story told.”
While admirable of directors to help to fill a void of knowledge within society, that void’s existence indicates failure on behalf of the press.
Films about terrorism do propagate fear. But so do films about haunted houses.
The difference lies in prior knowledge. While the average viewer finds it unlikely that his attic holds a demon, the constant inundation of threatening terrorism news renders him less uncertain his workplace contains a bomb.
News media responds to acts of terror far before the entertainment industry does. They set up the framework within which the public understands terrorism.
Phrases like “radical Islamist” and “Islamofacism,” excessive coverage of selected events, and even the tone of reporters’ voices all generate fear. Fear, for media, is the norm, rather than an exception.
Broadcasters should devote time spent on repeated coverage or dramatic music instead to a more thorough explanation of events.
If filmmakers appealing to public hunger for fear weren’t working alone to spread awareness, movies would become a place for informed citizens to stimulate emotions after reading the paper, and the world would be one step closer to overcoming terrorism.
Reach Alex at algrego1@asu.edu.
