The events of September 11 ricocheted around the world from satellite to satellite. News spread instantly from the New York studios to London, Rome, and Moscow and from al Jazeera’s airwaves to Islamabad, Riyadh, Baghdad, and Kabul. The al Qaeda catalyst triggered massive coverage in the Western news media with hundreds of stories highlighting the grief, suffering, and shock of the victims and their relatives; condemnation by the Bush administration and public officials; speculation about the underlying causes and possible consequences of the events of 9/11; and expressions of sympathy from world leaders. Months later, the reverberations and aftershocks triggered by these events continue to impact international relations, domestic policy, and public opinion. The specter of al Qaeda operations bringing a new form of terrorism to the world has sparked a major debate over the definition of terror, its social and political roles, the ethics of counter- terrorism operations, state complicity, the dangers of future terrorist activities, the failure of democracy in Middle Eastern states, and the underlying reasons fueling religious fundamentalism.
One important issue arising from these events is the role and effects of mass media coverage of terrorism. Journalism often attracts controversy, not least where news coverage becomes part of the contest to define the social meaning of events. Reporting terrorism—whether the destruction of 9/11, suicide bombers in the second Intifada, or violence in Chechnya—raises significant questions about how far news coverage can meet journalistic standards of ‘balance’, ‘truth’ and ‘objectivity’ in cases of extreme political conflict. Debate has centered around two questions. First, does media coverage err on the side of group terrorists, lending them legitimacy and credibility, as well as unintentionally encouraging further incidents through a ‘contagion’ effect? Alternatively, do journalistic conventions err instead on the side of governments, due to an over-reliance upon.......
