Terror loves publicity; media are innocent

PHOTO | AFP An image grab taken from AFP TV shows a Kenyan soldier on September 21, 2013 inside the Westgate mall in Nairobi.   AFP

In Summary
Those in the know must have earlier been puzzled that the love affair between the Fourth Estate and the Executive could continue to blossom even in the face of the Westgate terrorist attack.
The government must be told to hold its horses for the simple reason that terrorism happens before the media record its consequences.
If the government wants less of the terrorist reports, it must do more to fight terror, and prevent terrorists from succeeding and being reported.

By Ouma Oduor
More by this Author
When police chief David Kimaiyo fired his now famous salvo at the media, the remaining jigsaw puzzle fell into place.

Those in the know must have earlier been puzzled that the love affair between the Fourth Estate and the Executive could continue to blossom even in the face of the Westgate terrorist attack. No romantic bubble between the government and the media ever fails to burst the moment terrorism comes into the picture.
Journalists and terrorists have a symbiotic relationship. Stories about terror sell to avid audiences, while they generate the publicity craved by terrorists. Terrorism only makes sense when its targets are selected for maximum propaganda and publicity value.

COVERGENCE OF INTERESTS

But the ethical aspect of this unintended complicity is always a dilemma. There is no way of avoiding this convergence of interests. As Margaret Thatcher once declared, “publicity is the oxygen of terrorism”.
So in accusing the media of flirting with terrorists, Mr Kimaiyo — and I think he should allow the police spokesman to work — was walking a well-trodden path.

When Boko Haram first struck, Nigerian authorities too argued the media sensationalised the attacks, making the militants achieve their objective of getting wide publicity to instil maximum fear.

At first, the Executive’s concerns seem noble. Kenya is experiencing terror of the Westgate magnitude for the first time, so there is the temptation to view it as peculiar to this country.

Sooner or later, someone in authority will even hold the media responsible for Al-Shabaab attacks, and accuse them of being the greatest impediment in the war against terrorism. That would be myopic.

The government must be told to hold its horses for the simple reason that terrorism happens before the media record its consequences.

CHERISHED TRUTH

And even as the terrorists seek publicity, the government too, seeks to downplay the consequences, often through ill-crafted propaganda.

You probably remember the tale about KDF soldiers being ordered to fetch mineral water. All these should be weighed against the reporters’ cherished guiding news value: the truth.

Moreover, it has not been established that publicity alone is the driving force of terrorists. Poverty and historical injustices including racial, ethnic, religious and class discrimination have similarly been cited.

If the media report terror attacks, they are only acting within the confines of their professional mandate. It would be irresponsible to convey the impression that they provide sufficient conditions for terrorism to thrive.

Even the journalists themselves have never been spared whenever terrorists execute their evil schemes. The Westgate terrorists, for example, did not spare TV and radio journalist Ruhila Adatia.

If the government wants less of the terrorist reports, it must do more to fight terror, and prevent terrorists from succeeding and being reported.

Even if we were to agree that there are bound to be some excesses, given the advent of social media, these affect all spheres of life, including societal morals. It is not limited to terrorism.

Someone please tell the Executive that this is not the time to divorce the Fourth Estate. The Press will always reserve a special place for the Executive, even as it flirts with terrorists. Marriages are supposed to be for better or for worse.