What if the media would stop reporting on terrorism?

[Deleted]

Terrorists want to breed terror > create hate towards immigrants > creates more people to join the terrorist cause
also the entire idea of "terror" is fueled by people talking about it day in day out.

What if the media just stopped reporting on it?

Nomore beheading video's. Terrorist attack? Sucks, but no media coverage AT ALL so only "locals" and ofcourse trough the internet some people will hear about it, etc..

What would happen? Would it help? Would it make things worse as in their starvation for attention they start doing more crazy shit? What do you think?

[May90]

I guess terrorist attacks against common citizens would stop, since they would serve no purpose, and only attacks aimed directly at the government would pass.

That said, in the age of Internet and social media, this just doesn't seem doable.

[AwkwardSquirtle]

The problem is that the media isn't one entity. It's a mass of entities competing with each other. You can't not cover something because the competition might, and then they will do better than you.

[Dextroden]

The problem is that the media isn't one entity. It's a mass of entities competing with each other. You can't not cover something because the competition might, and then they will do better than you.

Not to mention, social media is still a thing. It's going to be reported on by the people jumping on Facebook or Twitter that are in the area or can see it to warn other people not to go there.

[Tempguy]

People would think that terrorism was defeated.

Yes people are that dumb. If the media began reporting that raping toddlers would extend your youthfulness 20 years, there would be a whitehouse . Gov petition to legalize that shit.


Also, too much exercise can cause cancer.
Source: Pick a major news studio.

[Deleted]

You can't terrorize without people knowing of your terror. Terrorists win when word of their actions is spread around. Do the math.

[Venant]

I guess terrorist attacks against common citizens would stop, since they would serve no purpose, and only attacks aimed directly at the government would pass.

That said, in the age of Internet and social media, this just doesn't seem doable.

You make a good point, since the media has almost completely stopped reporting on terrorist attacks in the middle east terrorism has completely stopped in that region. Furthermore, since the media has stopped reporting on the war in Syria, the war in Syria has actually ended.

And you know, since Islamic terrorism is so clearly inspired by western mistreatment of Muslims, maybe the media should stop reporting on this. Maybe the European governments could just go around killing everyone in migrant ghettos and open up a bunch of concentration camps, they could simply do a media blackout and run with the official story that all the Muslims were relocated to somewhere else. I think the Germans did something like this in the past, and it was incredibly effective since the media helped for years to cover it up.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't terrorize without people knowing of your terror. Terrorists win when word of their actions is spread around. Do the math.

I suppose it worked in North Korea where the media simply didn't report on the famine, so therefore the was no famine even though a large number of people were suspiciously starving to death. Maybe we also need re-education camps, you know to deal with those people who disagree with the state supported version of reality.

[Independent voter]

If it was a 100% blackout I think it would be highly effective.

The problem is that it will be all over twitter and facebook these days. You could never get all those private civilians to cooperate.

[Nathreim]

It would still happen. They want to kill or convert us all they don't give a shit about if the get on TV.

[RickJamesLich]

People would still be aware of the terrorist acts. Anyone that goes to a social media website would be aware, and then they could tell their friends. There's really no way to avoid reporting the major ones. Like 9/11, I think people would be way more outraged if the media tried to keep something like that secret. Really when you think about it, there's almost no way possible you could even do that.

[Belize]

It'd be akin to burying your head in the sand.

A.k.a do nothing.

[May90]

You make a good point, since the media has almost completely stopped reporting on terrorist attacks in the middle east terrorism has completely stopped in that region. Furthermore, since the media has stopped reporting on the war in Syria, the war in Syria has actually ended.

People committing terrorist attacks on the Middle East count on the reaction of Middle Eastern media, not Western ones. And, trust me, Middle Eastern media do report on terrorism there.

[Forogil]

Terrorists want to breed terror > create hate towards immigrants > creates more people to join the terrorist cause
also the entire idea of "terror" is fueled by people talking about it day in day out.

Shouldn't we first ask if that perception is true?

There are two perceptions on how terrorism works:
One is that it simple works by scaring people away from an action; there are lots of examples where this fails - and even creates the opposite reaction (did 9/11 get the US out of Saudi Arabia, or the V1-terror-bombings of London during WWII cause the British to surrender?)

The second is that the reaction to the terror will be so violent that the counter-reaction to that will win it for the terrorists (I first associate this with Rote Armee Fraktion). Has this ever worked?
What we seem to be seeing after the priest-killing is that the counter-reaction goes directly against the terrorists.

I still don't see the need to show the beheadings etc; but still report that it happened. Cover-ups are rarely successful; and they often backfire.

[Berengil]

It would still happen. They want to kill or convert us all they don't give a shit about if the get on TV.

Exactly right. Tactics might change to hitting targets that in some way absolutely can't be ignored.

But, in the end, this struggle only ends when the only memory of terrorism is in the minds of people in Hell. (Apologies to Admiral Halsey for borrowing a turn of phrase)

[Deleted]

I suppose it worked in North Korea where the media simply didn't report on the famine, so therefore the was no famine even though a large number of people were suspiciously starving to death.

Out of sight, out of mind. If you never hear of anyone dying of starvation, and you're not starving yourself, and there's no reason to even assume anyone is dying of starvation as there are no people disappearing or anything like that, then you aren't going to think people are starving to death. However, you don't need media to know what's happening to yourself or your neighbors. If they're starving to death, it makes no difference what the media reports on.

If the media stops bombarding people with specific details about terror acts on a daily basis, then those terror acts will terrorize less people. It's a tactic. To affect as many people as possible. The media enables terrorists to affect as many people as possible. It's not really that complicated.