| Today’s threat of what u.S. President George W. Bush coined as "terror against the civilized world" has become a mythically unstoppable monster under the bed. It has become a near-invisible threat consisting of fanatical terrorist cells discreetly positioning themselves in a neighbourhood near you. Distant bombings and local political rhetoric have defined it as tantamount to the greatest of threats – and therefore fears – facing western democracies. Many of us have accepted the social paradigm shift it created, so terror is a new part of our daily lives.
But such terror does not prowl alone. It has allies. They were there beside the murderers that killed in Bali, Jakarta and Casablanca, and it did not miss a wink in Istanbul or Madrid. The ally to terror is threefold – the U.S. government, the media and all of us, as media consumers.
THE MEDIA
With such headlines as "Why the Qaeda Threat is Growing," from Time to "Terror Fears Spur Warnings," by CBS, the news media is not only giving in to terrorist demands, they are providing the bullets. The prescription is simple: a few demented men supply a small dose of death and injury to tiny pockets of the population, newspapers and television inject repetitive, negative one-sided headlines to the world. The medicated result is a toxic level of mass hysteria for the patient, or in this case, the news subscriber.
Headlines around London following the Madrid bombings proclaimed that a terrorist attack was now imminent on London trains, as quoted from the very authorities meant to reassure, the police and public train authority. Since the September 11 attack on New York and the subsequent support of Britain in the Iraq war, London was considered a strong terrorist target, but this possibility did not change the way any of my friends in London lived. However following the attack on Madrid and the subsequent fear-drumming by the press, a colleague of mine, who for years caught the train into London, told me she thought the train was now too dangerous. The bus was now her safer, albeit slower option. Realizing the missed angle, London’s Evening Standard newspaper proclaimed in a follow-up story: "Pubs, Buses are terror targets too." In other words, forget public transportation our any extracurricular activity – but buy our newspapers first.
During my time in Madrid immediately following the terrorist attacks of March 11th, I witnessed a CNN news reporter mistake a traffic jam as a spontaneous motion of solidarity on Plaza De Cibeles as drivers tried to honk their way out of midday gridlock. But I also witnessed millions of Spanish citizens come out in the pouring rain as they took back their terror-marked streets in a demonstration of peace. I witnessed a nation’s resolve and strength, one that stood tall and defiant against the masked face of terror. The peace demonstration was often near silent yet it spoke louder than any terrorist cell ever could. Its message was at the very crux of what the war on terror needed: a foundational beacon of support and confidence against the darkness by the very people so recently and directly affected by its madness. Forget the political rhetoric; the people were speaking that night. This was good news from Madrid, but how many of us are going to remember it? With a fresh bombardment of terror news every day, not very many.
THE MEDIA CONSUMER
Bad news sells. Good news, it seems, is not worth the paper it is printed on. But before we gather our pitchforks and riot against the occupiers of the printing press, we must step back and look at the sinister and even less accountable third party in this, our dark age of fear.
Unfortunately, bad news sells because there is a market for it. Terrorists and mainstream media may be the pill pushers, but save for a few of us who have managed to come clean, we are the news-swabbing information addicts.
We, as consumers, wish to negate ignorance and be well versed with our terrorized world because, after all, these horrific current events affect our immediate lives. But it is our fetishistic scopophilia, or voyeuristic "pleasure in looking" at families suffering, populations starving, wars raging or white-collar criminals swindling that keeps us entertained.
Most of us have no direct connection to distant atrocities or the immediate ability to take truly decisive measures against them. We read and watch because it entertains.
AMERICAN EMPIRE
The fourth element in this, our periodic table of terror, is the American empire. When it speaks, we listen. Its words influence our actions. Our war on terror was baptized by the current leaders of this empire, the Bush administration, and while Osama bin Laden may be the terrorist’s spiritual leader, whether we like it or not, U.S. president George W. Bush is our own. His words are the judge and the jury on the war’s progress. In Spain on the eve of what may have been an effectively orchestrated terrorist-driven administration change of Spain’s pro-hawk conservatives to the peace-loving Socialists, the Bush administration stated that the American people would not falter the same way the Spanish voters had. Spain’s electorate showed weakness in the face of terror in an attempt to appease al Qaeda and avoid further bombings. Or you may alternatively believe that the Spanish public brought down Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar because they never supported Spain’s campaign in Iraq or the later fact that Aznar was part of the coalition of the concealing, providing half truths and evidence that only fit a pro-war argument.
Opinion to these possibilities lie in your perspective, which likely also has an opinion on whether it is the Spanish or, in actuality, the American people who have buckled in fear under the weight of terrorist demands. Perspective, it would seem, has all the answers, and right now, it is the American one that matters most. The majority of Spanish say they did not appease the terrorists, but the rest of the world, fronted by America, disagrees.
As reported widely in the press, American C.I.A. director George Tenet recently informed the U.S. senate that capturing bin Laden would not diminish the threat of terrorist attack because terror cells had morphed. Regional terrorist groups now had no direct communication or affiliation with bin Laden. Tenet stated that the perceived catalyst for this adopted aggression was the Iraq war. It is now believed that the aftermath of Iraq has left the so-called coalition of the willing more susceptible than ever to a terrorist attack. If America says the war has not been won yet, then the war continues, because only American, the gatekeeper, can end it – unless we individually decide to pull the cord on the this psychological terror game.
Do small groups of man-men want to kill us? Yes. Will they be able to inflict mass death and destruction at a world scale? No. Can our worrying really do anything to assist those attempting to prevent another attack? No but it may allow administrations to convince us in policy that is against our best interests.
Regardless of whether or not you agree, the mechanism at play between terrorist, media, viewer and the American Empire can no longer be ignored. In this war, each is dependant on the other for survival. If one disappears, the boxed relationship collapses: the terrorist would be without voice, the media without viewers, the consumers without a story, and the empire without a people to rule over.
If we, as consumers, individually choose to continue this puzzled relationship it is critical to remember that with truth comes an angle manipulated to serve a particular cause. With little chance the news will offer us a more balanced story, it is crucial we remember that today’s daily terror has been created. It does not physically exist to the seemingly real extent many of us have learned to fear. The war on terror is in fact a battle for our perspective, and its complete psychological control. |
Copyright ©2004 FFWD. All rights reserved.