News What the hell is wrong with the media? Interviewing fu<king terrorists

[JohnDubYa]

I think you completely missed my point. Oh well.

 

[Monique]

I know what you meant, serial killers also take power out of such interviews.

What you have to think about it is that you are voicing these terrorists' opions through those interviews, I'd rather have verbal terror than them targeting civilians to get some attention.

As I said, I can't comment on the content since I didn't see the interview, just a thought.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I know what you meant, serial killers also take power out of such interviews.

No serial killer is going to unite others in his cause by giving an interview. Furthermore, few serial killers are looking for interviews as rewards for their crimes.

What you have to think about it is that you are voicing these terrorists' opions through those interviews, I'd rather have verbal terror than them targeting civilians to get some attention.

Here, terrorists are being granted interviews because they kill. So in effect, we are rewarding them for their crimes by giving them a voice when they wouldn't have otherwise. This sends the message to other terrorists that attacks against civilians will give them similar exposure.

Are you really naive enough to think that a terrorists is sufficiently satisifed with voicing his statements in an interview that he won't kill again?

 

[Artman]

Take the media completely out of the picture, and terrorism wouldn't work. If you blow up a building and only you and a handful of people know about it, who did you terrorize?

Like it or not, we're in a war. The press should be more responsible, not try for sensational, which is exactly what that interview was intended to be.

 

[russ_watters]

Take the media completely out of the picture, and terrorism wouldn't work. If you blow up a building and only you and a handful of people know about it, who did you terrorize?

Like it or not, we're in a war. The press should be more responsible, not try for sensational, which is exactly what that interview was intended to be.

That's a catch-22 that the media is not equipped to deal with. The media only plays ball by accident: they were used by the military in both Gulf wars as a propaganda tool and they didn't even know it.

 

[JohnDubYa]

When the World Trade towers come down, the media obviously has to report it. But they do not have to allow a terrorist an opportunity to try and increase sympathy for his cause.

 

[the number 42]

But they do not have to allow a terrorist an opportunity to try and increase sympathy for his cause.

This sort of argument seems to overestimate the terrorists' powers of persuasion, and minimise the importance of letting the public's come to their own conclusions using their own common sense.

 

[Artman]

This sort of argument seems to overestimate the terrorists' powers of persuasion, and minimise the importance of letting the public's come to their own conclusions using their own common sense.

What conclusion did you hope to glean? What is news worthy about this terrorist? How do we even know he is who he said he was if his face was blurred? This is sensationalism, not news. The public doesn't need this kind of reporting.

 

[JohnDubYa]

The terrorist isn't trying to win an election. All he needs to do is convert a few nuts to his cause, and such interviews are one one way of acheiving this goal.

This is like saying I should be allowed to call for violent acts against the President. After all, the majority of the population won't follow my urging, so what's the harm?

That is the very reason why the terrorist agreed to the interview in the first place. They're not trying to educate the public about both sides of the issue.