ATTENTION:
BEFORE YOU READ THE ABSTRACT OR CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPIC BELOW, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!
INFORMATION:
YOU CAN GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COSTS N5,000 ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420
WHATSAPP US ON 08137701720
ASSESSMENT OF NEWSPAPER COVERAGE OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF TERRORISM
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
- Background of the study
Modern terrorism is newspapers terrorism. The newspapers are attracted by extreme terrorist acts not only because it is their duty to report on any major event but also because the dramatic and spectacular aspect of terrorism fascinates the general public. Today’s terrorists exploit this and act in a way which will attract maximum attention around the world.
Terrorism should not affect the importance of freedom of expression and information in the newspapers as one of the essential foundations of democratic society. This freedom carries with it the right of the public to be informed on matters of public concern, including terrorist acts and threats, as well as the response by the state and international organisations to them.
The fight against terrorism should not be used as an excuse by states to restrict the freedom of the press. As far as journalists are concerned, they should avoid playing into the hands of the terrorists by restricting the dissemination of graphic photos and over-sensational information.
Introduction
The most severe, brutal and shocking terrorist attack of modern history, the destruction of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City by kidnapped civilian airplanes on 11 September 2001, were transmitted live on television and thus reached a new dimension of newspapers impact on society. The brutal decapitation of Iraqi hostage, Nick Berg, was available via the Internet on homes through the world. Terrorism is not a new phenomenon, but the permanent presence of acts of terrorism on the newspapers in daily life and their global reach have increased the need for re-thinking the role of newspapers in the context of terrorism.
Modern terrorism is newspapers terrorism. The newspapers are attracted by extreme terrorist acts not only because it is their duty to report on any major event but also because, at the same time, the dramaturgy of terrorism attracts large scale attention. Today’s terrorists have picked up this dynamic and take action not only to make their victims suffer but also to create maximum attention around the world. Terrorists have become “newspapers competent” by knowing and applying the principles of attracting newspapers attention in most of their activities. Not only do they now own the necessary technical equipment such as video cameras and Internet facilities, they also usually know how to time and create those images which can guarantee a maximum impact through the newspapers. This dynamic could lead to the conclusion that a major option for the prevention of terrorism would be not to allow journalists and the newspapers to report on terrorist activities or events or at least to inhibit coverage as much as possible. Several countries indeed have chosen this option and it is difficult in those countries to have access to information or events that are related to terrorist activities.
Modern democracy is however characterised to a high extent by its freedom of expression and the possibility to access relevant political or societal information. As soon as information related to terrorism is blocked by governments or other political or societal institutions, terrorists may have gained one of their goals, namely to compromise the values of modern democracy. Thus, political institutions, as well as the newspapers, are faced with the basic dilemma that on the one hand newspapers coverage may be instrumentalised by terrorists in order to get maximum attention while, on the other hand, if such information is inhibited, the basic principle and value of freedom of expression and information is under threat.
Although this major principle may be generally accepted, many details need to be considered when addressing newspapers and terrorism. One of the major questions when dealing with terrorism is its definition. Two “schools” compete here. One defines terrorism in terms of the actors of terrorist attacks; the other defines terrorism in terms of the actual attacks themselves. Over the years this question has always been central to the analysis and treatment of terrorism. For the newspapers the labelling and determination of precise motives is important even if this is not the same as a criminal justice procedure. It may therefore be more suitable to deal primarily with individual events and if necessary describe the actors involved as criminals. Not everyone who may be sympathetic with terrorist activities, but has not been involved himself or herself, is a terrorist per definition. The terrorist attacks themselves may easily be described by comparison. They usually involve extreme violence against individuals or larger groups where mostly innocent people are hurt or killed. Any situation outside a “normal” war which includes extreme violence and may be motivated by whatever simple or sophisticated or ideological political goals may be called terrorism, especially across Europe in countries with an emerging or already established democracy. All in all, for Europe, the notion, which has been used in some debates, that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” probably does not apply. Yet it is also a fact that in a few cases terrorist activities may have increased the success of non-violent but same-goal oriented groups such as IRA and SIN-FEIN. There is indeed a preference among journalists and European politicians to limit the word “terrorism” to events and not to apply it to a whole, e. g. ethnic, group or even to a major part of a certain group which has not directly been involved in violent attacks against society and its citizens.
Concentrating on the terrorist events themselves and not on the motives when reporting on terrorism may of course limit the number of people who may be called terrorists. Journalists can cover any aspect of political violence including supporters and groups which may be sympathetic with terrorist goals. But it can be dangerous to “over-generalise” the label “terrorist” to include a larger number of people and who may be drawn deeper into terrorist tendencies exactly because they are already labelled as such. In fact, political integration into the democratic system with convincing means of trust and education may be a more efficient way of preventing a terrorist “periphery” from growing into violence than creation, at an early stage, of a whole out-group of “enemies” by classifying every member of a certain grouping as terrorists without distinguishing between actual attackers and others only loosely linked with these attackers.
- Statement of the problem
There may have been previous researches in this subject. This work gives further explanations and analysis in assessment of newspaper coverage of socio-economic consequences of terrorism. One should also consider that terrorism may also actually be supported by the fact that “normal” criminal activities when labelled “”terrorism” receive a certain, if negative glorification and attraction for those who appreciate being (anti-) heroes. Many so-called terrorist activities are more based on normal criminal behaviour than on political motives. That does not make them better or worse for the victims or the political system but it may create a different context or connotation for them in the newspapers and limit the probability that their actions are perceived as being rewarding for a higher, ideological goal. Many, if not most attacks in the context of “terrorism” serve goals other than to reach or realise political objectives. They are about money, attention, status, other advantages, or just about keeping a group alive and intact. An early-1980s study on German terrorism demonstrated that most terrorist events occurred when the group cohesion and group structure of the violent gangs was threatened to collapse and disintegrate. Planning and realizing an assault strengthened the group and put it back into a stable, if clandestine structure.
- Objectives of the study
- To understand the socio-economic consequences of terrorism
- To understand the relationship between activities of terrorists and socio-economic development, household income and standard of living
- Research questions
- What are the socio-economic consequences of terrorism
- What is the relationship between activities of terrorists and socio-economic development, household income and standard of living
- Research hypothesis
H0: There is no relationship between relationship between activities of terrorists and socio-economic development, household income and standard of living
H1: There is a relationship between relationship between activities of terrorists and socio-economic development, household income and standard of living
- Definition of terms
POLICY: between freedom of expression and avoiding offering terrorism a platform;
INFORMATION: between the use of graphic images and the accurate text and context;
EMOTION: between personal involvement and the need to act and react impassionately;
ETHICS: between market considerations and professional responsibility beyond competition;
PROFESSION: between the traditional craft of journalism and the increasing production and distribution through non professional channels;
EVENTS: between the complexity of almost every terrorist attack and the need to simplify in order to gain attention and facilitate comprehension;
SOCIETY: between the public pressure to act and being honest about the limited means of reacting completely successfully;
DRAMATURGY: between the need to introduce “new” information and aspects permanently and caution in evaluating the situation too early;
LANGUAGE: between the universal symbols and icons (violence, power) and the culture-specific connotations (e. g. “martyrs”);
CHANNELS: between pluralistic opinion distribution and consensual policy on terrorism.
HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERIAL(S)
After paying the appropriate amount (#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to
08068231953 or 08168759420
(1) Your project topics
(2) Email Address
(3) Payment Name
(4) Teller Number
We will send your material(s) after we receive bank alert
BANK ACCOUNTS
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 0046579864
Bank: GTBank.
OR
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 3139283609
Bank: FIRST BANK
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:
08068231953 or 08168759420