I have often taken issue with journalists who engage in behavior that motivates more violence and terror. For instance, their oft—criticized custom of referring to terrorists as "freedom fighters," "militants," or "activists," and their perspective of the Palestinian—Israel conflict as the story of liberation, rather than Israelis defending themselves from destruction.

This pattern of behavior encourages acceptance of terror, and risks becoming hagiography of murderers in its more extreme manifestations.

Obviously many riots and massacres are planned with the media in mind. Is it a coincidence that the some of the people kidnapped recently by terrorists in Iraq were immediately released, when their kidnappers were informed that they had abducted  their allies, journalists?
 
Terrorism as theatre —— as spectacle —— is a mind—set that has taken hold among the murderers of the world. This has been stoked by the media, which sees it as a form of entertainment: a modern day equivalent of the hangings that were so well attended by people centuries ago, or even the Roman Coliseum.

Now we can watch the "infotainment"  from the comfort of our homes, without having to worry about the pickpockets of yore, or the social approbation of others. The journalists don't criticize or condemn; they make celebrities of these people. The ratings go up in tandem with the brutality of the crimes. 

A vicious —— in all senses of the word —— circle is formed. More violence, more media attention and thus more violence...ad nauseum.
 
Many journalists and editorial writers have blood on their hands.
 
Here a journalist takes issue with the media's reluctance to display atrocity photos of the recent victims of the Fallujah massacre. His self—examination should go deeper.

Posted by Ed   04 10 04