WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

Weapons of Mass Destruction

[Name of the class]

[Section No]

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Introduction

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and large explosive (CBRNE) means used as a terrorist tool (Lambers, 2002). Several terrorist groups are known to have used, acquired, or attempted to acquire WMD. However, the aim of this study is to discuss the effect of media has had on terrorist situations and what the U.S. has done to monitor and bankrupt terrorists.

Effects of Media

The reporting of terrorism provides one of the biggest challenges for the mass media in democracies. (Alexander and Latter, 1990) Terrorism is defined as the use of violence in order to promote a political cause. The media have an obligation to report on politics as well as violent events, but reporting on terrorist acts does more than just broadcast news about explosions, airline hijacking, and other violence. This reporting also gives publicity to the terrorist organizations and their aims. As a result, reporting on terrorism presents the mass media with a difficult dilemma. News organizations must balance their role as information providers with their function as gatekeepers of civil society and social order. At the same time, failing to examine the complex social and political causes of terrorism makes it difficult to find ways to stop terrorists.

Media coverage of terrorism can have several different effects on media outlets, terrorist groups, and the general population. First, coverage of terrorist events can provide a huge source of sensational, visually compelling news. This helps media outlets in competition for ratings, revenue, and prestige. At the same time, it leaves journalists open to charges of providing extensive publicity for a terrorist campaign.

The media have a great deal of power in defining whether terrorists are simply criminals or have some sort of legitimate political grievance to justify their acts of violence. The tone as well as the level of sympathy for “terrorists” varies a great deal in different countries. For example, African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela was labeled a terrorist by the South African government at the same time he was called a freedom fighter by the international media for his campaign against the racist regime. Eventually this “terrorist” became the elected leader of the country.

As the media coverage of Mandela suggests, it is easier for those removed from the violence of political unrest to make dispassionate judgments about whether violence is justified for a political ...