Insurgents/terrorists/who-the-fuck-knows also kill thousands of non-Westerners each month for all sorts of reasons that have little to do with hurting our feelings or staking out column inches in the WaPo.

Insurgents/terrorists/who-the-fuck-knows also kill thousands of non-Westerners each month for all sorts of reasons that have little to do with hurting our feelings or staking out column inches in the WaPo.

Terrorism is by definition a political exercise. Political exercises rely on publicizing a political message. Though undoubtedly many acts of terror are geared towards directly intimidating more specific entities (killing judges in Colombia, for example), using the media to generate fear and influence policy - say, US withdrawal from Iraq - is a major component of any terrorism strategy. The media is not the ends, it is simply a fundamental component of the means. The media can calibrate how it delivers information to influence serving the terrorists' ends.

So I'm not sure what your point is, or how you view "hurting our feelings or [merely] staking out column inches in the WaPo" to be the fantastic lesson of my post. in fact, given that terrorism is definitively political - differentiating it from simple murder - your comment makes almost no sense.

Agree re: the media as the means.

However, irrespective of how the issue is framed, thousands of killings take place each month which seem to have little to do with breaking our resolve or influencing our policy, and rather more to do with local power struggles, sectarian reprisals, and kidnapping and extortion. That's just my impression and I could be wrong, but it seems you're talking about "re-contextualising" a small proportion of the violence (i.e. terrorism against the Coalition) which ignores the fact of widespread killing that has little to do with cowing the West. I guess I don't see the point.

seriously,

Well, sure. I don't think anyone's arguing that isn't true. OTOH, many clearly DO murder people for WaPo inches; Al Qaeda makes a point of that in their mission statement.

But you're actually arguing for Bill's point. The media does, in fact, "recontextualize" every death in Iraq to somehow be an American setback.

TallDave, certainly contextualisation/framing is inherent in reporting. But it's hard to make deaths in Iraq look like anything other than bad news, and more importantly, why would we want to? If the situation's bad, you fix the situation, and you don't do that simply by ending each report of deaths in Iraq on a happy note; "Three thousand executions in Baghdad this month, but hey -- elections!"

thousands of killings take place each month which seem to have little to do with breaking our resolve or influencing our policy, and rather more to do with local power struggles, sectarian reprisals, and kidnapping and extortion.

First of all, you make an assumption that I am somehow arguing that all important terrorism relates to US foreign policy and needs to be treated with special gloves. The second specific link above is referencing that specific paradigm in the context of a more general point, that's hardly my point, so you're being contrary to a phantasm.

The study cited in the first link is an objective analysis by economists that shows a causal link between terrorism and the media, regardless of any specifics about Iraq. Read it.

Second, by definition, the acts that you describe fall into two categories:

1. Terrorism designed to influence political events OTHER than US interests in Iraq.

2. Not "terrorism." Terrorism is a political lever that seeks influence by intimidation, so necessarily relies on the media. "Crime" is not "terrorism." "War" is not (necessarily) "terrorism." You continue to incorrectly apply the definition of "terrorism."

That's just my impression and I could be wrong, but it seems you're talking about "re-contextualising" a small proportion of the violence (i.e. terrorism against the Coalition) which ignores the fact of widespread killing that has little to do with cowing the West. I guess I don't see the point.

No. If all terrorism, regardless of its purpose, were reported in a more uniform way - uncritically reported, rather than used as an outsized bludgeon to project failure in a much more complex narrative, you'd have appropriately contextualized reporting.

But, I'm not advocating a narrow recontextualization only specific to Western interests, because ... the media has already recontextualized it for their chosen narrative. I'm advocating the use of context, the kind that you sometimes see when a domestic news outlet dispassionately analyzes some of that foreign terrorism that has no direct influence on US political interest. Exactly the stuff that you keep mentioning.

But it's hard to make deaths in Iraq look like anything other than bad news, and more importantly, why would we want to? If the situation's bad, you fix the situation, and you don't do that simply by ending each report of deaths in Iraq on a happy note; "Three thousand executions in Baghdad this month, but hey -- elections!"

I realize that you're using hyperbole to make a point, but this is still a silly fallacy/misrepresentation of my argument:

I'm not advocating ending "each report" with a positive story, rather an overall contextual examination of how much positive or otherwise neutral reporting one sees vs. bloody bylines and "news analysis" that projects failure. Question: how many human interest stories have you seen on Iraqis that are struggling to implant Democracy? Given that this is an overwhelmingly popular concept in multiple opinion polls, you'd think that would get more play.

But curiously, most Americans have very little perception of the popularity of Democracy in Iraq. I wonder why.

How many front-page splashes of random violence have you seen vs. reports on stories that represent progress?

Tel me - of overall violence: how many reports of deaths are focused on terrorists or criminals killing civilians or soldiers, vs. reports of military personnel killing terrorists and insurgents? That coverage is far, far from equitable.

You obviously don't see much of a current disparity, and that's not terribly odd - if your only news sources are major dailies or cable news outlets.

If I didn't read firsthand reports from milblogs or blog aggregations of the more infrequent positive or neutral news stories, I'd have almost no idea that anything was taking place in Iraq other than violence and the occasional update on the formation of a government. This is a fundamental failing of mainstream news outlets in providing a contextual narrative, and it rewards violence by and for the subsegment of violence that is terrorism, in practical effect.

As to your argument about the violence that isn't terrorism - no the domestic media doesn't feed that - but it sure uses it for domestic political narratives and assessments.

But it's hard to make deaths in Iraq look like anything other than bad news, and more importantly, why would we want to?

Fair points. But the media consistently blames America for them. Generally, they don't blame police for burglaries.

If the situation's bad, you fix the situation

And therein lies the crux of the problem: it's not a bad "situation." It's bad people doing bad things. But the media won't say that, because they feel that would be "unobjective."

See, it's much more conveniently (and morally relativist) to say "the security situation in Iraq is bad," because that's (ostensibly) morally neutral (but in reality, it places blame on the Coalition). It's much harder for Western media to say things like "Some very bad terrorists in Iraq did some very bad things today, and the Coalition did its best to stop them."

Bill, I also haven't seen anything in any mainstream news coverage to suggest that Iraqis don't want democracy, because it's tautological, uncontroversial and hardly needs pointing out. People having hopes of a decent life is not news; people being executed in the thousands most certainly is.

Similarly, you're right, I don't see many reports of Marines killing insurgents and terrorists (unless of course they happen to be the current "no. 2 al Qaeda operative in Iraq"). So what? We don't measure our success by the mere fact of killing insurgents, we measure it by the stability of Iraqi society, by how well Iraqis are able to realise their democratic hopes. By and large, the news coverage simply reflects this.

The media did seem rather shocked that Iraqis wanted democracy back in Jan 2005.

So what? We don't measure our success by the mere fact of killing insurgents,

But we do measure defeat by the deaths of U.S. troops. Why the double standard? Moreover, where is the coverage of our war heroes? The two names people know best from this war are Jessica Lynch and Lynndie England, a victim and a thug respectively.

we measure it by the stability of Iraqi society

That's a novel metric. Did we measure our success in WW II by the stability of Japanese and German society? Seems to me we measured it by who was getting their ass kicked.

TallDave, the issue of blame seems irrelevant to me. In my opinion, news from Iraq (however bad) is meant to help me decide whether or not we're achieving our goals and what we ought to do next. When I read that three thousand people are being executed in Baghdad each month, the immediate question isn't "Who do we blame?"; it's "What do we do to fix this?"

TallDave, the issue of blame seems irrelevant to me

So too with our media. And that's precisely the problem.

the immediate question isn't "Who do we blame?"; it's "What do we do to fix this?"

Surely you would concede the answer to one has a lot to do with the other.

TallDave, It's not a double standard at all. People don't care that insurgents are killed. It's just not that interesting and anyway it's assumed to be happening all the time. People care about what the war costs us, and what we're achieving. Again, I would suggest that the news coverage reflects these concerns.

And I suspect that finding that a "novel" metric places you in the minority, and comparison with WW2 is pointless given the disparity of our goals in the two wars, beyond simply "kicking ass".

"Surely you would concede the answer to one has a lot to do with the other."

That's true, but I mean blame in the sense of "ultimate, overarching responsibility for every bad thing that happens in Iraq" that you seem to be saying the media lays at the U.S.'s door.

Bill, I also haven't seen anything in any mainstream news coverage to suggest that Iraqis don't want democracy, because it's tautological, uncontroversial and hardly needs pointing out. People having hopes of a decent life is not news; people being executed in the thousands most certainly is.

I very, very strongly disagree. A popular narrative is pushed that the efforts to democratize Iraq are unwanted interference. Further, setbacks are presented as arguments for failure and the hubris of the Bush admin, when failure in practice equates to dashing the hopes of the majority of Iraqis who want Democracy.

Given that these narratives are at odds with each other - showing the concerted effort to democratize as a noble endeavor vs. the folly of the administration - the media, on average, prioritizes the failure narrative.

Your assertion that it "hardly needs pointing out" is bizarre, especially as Americans fail to view the war as "worth it."

Similarly, you're right, I don't see many reports of Marines killing insurgents and terrorists (unless of course they happen to be the current "no. 2 al Qaeda operative in Iraq"). So what? We don't measure our success by the mere fact of killing insurgents,

This is not a comprehensive view of success, no. But you seem to have an affinity for all-or-nothing assessments - everything is "this" or "that." But yes, PART of our success is contingent on killing insurgents.

And again, your assumption that everybody inherently understands that we are regularly wacking thousands of insurgents and terrorists is odd. I barely see mention of the results of our efforts (comparatively), and as milbloggers have pointed out over and over (and over) again, the portrayal in the media is one of soldiers as victims and sitting ducks taking IED's, rather than aggressors that take the fight to the enemy. And kill lots of them. Which, popular Vietnam-obsessions or no, are a vital component of breaking an insurgency, by virtue of sheparding fighters towards political outcomes.

I believe that your perception of the average perception of how this war is being conducted, fed by the current reporting environment, is drastically off. Even in this basic premise ...

we measure it by the stability of Iraqi society, by how well Iraqis are able to realise their democratic hopes. By and large, the news coverage simply reflects this.

... I very strongly believe that the media is failing to do their job, if we define it as drawing an accurate picture.

People don't care that insurgents are killed.

I care when our guys win a fight. The military cares. The insurgents care. Who are you claiming doesn't care?

And I suspect that finding that a "novel" metric places you in the minority,

It is novel. What war was ever judged on the basis of "stability of the society?"

and comparison with WW2 is pointless given the disparity of our goals in the two wars

What disparity? In both cases the basic goal is to defeat the enemy by killing/capturing him. The fact one is a counterinsurgency doesn't change that; we fought insurgents for years in Germany. The only difference is the media supported that war, and wasn't invested in hyping bad news and supressing good. That's why Audie Murphy was better known than the Dachau Massacre.

That's true, but I mean blame in the sense of "ultimate, overarching responsibility for every bad thing that happens in Iraq" that you seem to be saying the media lays at the U.S.'s door.

Well, if your argument is we shouldn't assign that sort of blame, then you're just repeating my argument re the media.

In all seriousness, is anyone keeping a dead jihadi/insurgent count? I would really like to see one. Currently, I assume it's typical Arab-West death ratios - 10:1 (while I'm using Arab real loosely, see Afghan-Soviets, and Black Hawk Down), but if I could cite actual numbers that would be much better.

I think with that kind of kill ratio in the public sphere, the American public would find the ongoing operations much more acceptable.

"... I very strongly believe that the media is failing to do their job, if we define it as drawing an accurate picture."

Back in my younger days, when I was sure I was the one to set the world straight and stop the madness, I determined the best way to do it was to be an intrepid, truth to power journalist. I was destroyed (and actually got up and walked out of class, lol) when the seasoned news pro teaching Intro to Journalism informed us on day one that the primary job of any news media was to sell advertising. But it has made me understand the media better, nothing is more important than ratings. Nothing.

The real problem with the original post here, from INDC, is that it is essentially mendacious. Not only does it reflect just a small part of the findings of Dr. Frey and his co-author, and one of the least important ones at that, but it distorts the meaning of his findings.

Consider a review of his book:
"Surveying empirical results on the effects of terrorism on the economy and society, Bruno Frey demonstrates the strength of an economic approach to terrorism, which will be of great interest to social and also political scientists, public policy scholars, international relations experts and researchers, and above all, economists. The alternatives to deterrence illustrated in the book are advantageous for the general public and politicians, and the actuality that a positive policy is better than a coercive policy will be of great appeal to educators."

No one would deny that terrorists seek to instill fear into the populations they attack, nor that they value the publicity of the resulting media coverage. (Terror is, after all, a political weapon.)

But it would be wrong to give up our Freedom of the Press by restricting reporters to publishing only "good news stories," as INDC seems to suggest, merely to avoid terrorists getting media coverage; the loss is worth more than any conceivable gain. (Even without media attention, terrorists groups will still mount attacks; that's how asymetric war works.)

Frey's most important suggestion is not to curtail media coverage -- he doesn't even hint at such a step -- but instead to offer more "carrot" than "stick" to people who might be inclined to join terrorist groups of one brand or another. Such an approach would eventually starve terrorist cells into ineffectiveness.

Sure, we all salivate a little at the thought of a terrorist being bombed and killed. But the way we're going about it now -- the "flypaper" theory -- clearly hasn't worked for us. So take a closer look at Frey's work, read his book, and avoid slap-dash editorializing, okay?

BuzzK -

I immediately stopped reading your comment after the last word in this sentence fragment:

But it would be wrong to give up our Freedom of the Press by restricting reporters to publishing only "good news stories," as INDC seems to suggest,

Re-read the post and try again.

Very interesting and professional site! Good luck! nokia6630

Follow your dreams, you can reach your goals. nokia6630