How far has new media changed the historical relationship between terrorism and the media?

Introduction

For many years the terrorists were inhibited by how they could communicate with a broad audience, even a generation ago the preferred method was to attempt to exploit the mass media of newspapers, radio and TV. Success via this method was always going to be limited as the terrorists had little influence over the editorial output which served only a fraction of the communication needs. By the late 1980’s the public fascination for the ‘freedom fighter’ image was declining amid criticism from the public, self-policing policies and government-imposed restrictions, the tide of ‘free’ publicity through the media was ebbing. With these restrictions and editorial manipulation, the terrorist groups realised their mass media messages would become counterproductive; more effective methods of communication without constraints were required to spread terror and its power to a broader audience.

The technological revolution of the1990’s handed terrorists the answers to liberating themselves from the shackles of mass media. Internet, video production and affordable broadcasting equipment would “break the stranglehold over mass communications hitherto enjoyed by commercial and state-owned media.” (Hoffman, 2006)

Terrorists Exploiting Cyberspace

This new media, cyberspace and clouds, made it possible for the terrorists to cross nations and continents unfettered allowing groups to operate in a way they could only previously dream of. This freedom would change the ways the groups could spread their propaganda, freely distributing content with the possibility of attracting supporters, training fighters and encouraging attacks in relative safety and autonomy from the democracies they seek to destroy provide.

Matusitz (2013) suggests the mass media are now almost left behind, arguably now a tool of the state propaganda machine it has been largely replaced by the more effective and flexible ‘new media’. No longer are the terrorists ‘weapons’ of choice limited to hijackings, kidnappings, guns and bombs, the new-age terror is conducted via computers, mobile phones and the internet. The symbiotic relationship once shared with the mass media is now migrated to the ‘new media'. This new relationship, unlike the old mass media, is predominantly under the 'control' of the terrorists.

Never has communication for the terrorists been so easy and secure, with complete control over the content and context of the message they can direct their “ideology of hatred, intolerance, and violence” (Matusitz, 2013) to the audience when and how they desire. As once the terrorist enjoyed the freedoms of terrestrial media, so they now enjoy ‘cyberspace’. So successful has the exploitation of online media become virtually every terrorist organisation has a virtual space. The control states exerted on the mass media of old has proved difficult with new media; the very nature of new media, a notional environment, often makes ‘illegal’ activities difficult to detect, disrupt, control and legislate.

Definitions of Media

Logan (2010) defines the ‘new media as being “those digital media that are interactive, incorporate two-way communication, and involve some form of computing”, whereas he defines media, ‘old media’, as forms of communication that in “their original incarnation did not require computer technology”.

The crucial difference here is, new media allows the senders and receivers to disseminate information enabling some form of interactive communications through digital technology. The software tools used for this communication are typically messaging applications, social networking sites, podcasts, received and transmitted on smartphones, computers and the internet allowing the sender and receiver to create, upload, modify and distribute images, information, and ideas.

Johannessen's (2016) study concluded; in some cases, the two genres can complement each other due to the nature of mass media broadcasting to the masses, and ‘new media’ narrowcasting “mainly reaching activists and sympathisers. It presents a wider range of genres, arguments supported by links to other sites, multimedia content and the ability to mobilise a large audience”. He further suggests Social Media, in 2016, was moving towards ‘maturity’, and arguably that point has almost been reached as states express a desire to regulate and rule new media.

Zhihui and Fan (2016) discuss a change in the way media is consumed by the public, bored of the formulaic ‘storytelling‘ the younger generation has turned to the digital devices seeking entertaining ways to view the media. “Information technology devices allow readers to access information without the limits of time and space, further reducing the attractiveness of the print media.” Not only has the manner in which the message portrayed changed but also, Zhihui and Fan suggest, has the relationship between the readers and reporters, whereby a component of the news is now reliant on the contributions from ‘citizen journalists’. The important fallout from this seed change is “Editors are not the only gatekeepers for media outlets. In the age of information explosion, it's the users that decide what and when to read.” The terrorists now have its own key to open the floodgate of propaganda on ‘new media’.

Terrorism as a Communication Process

The terrorist aims to cause fear amongst the audience through acts of politically motivated violence. As the recent melee of attacks in the UK and Europe have shown, though these acts frequently produce few fatalities, terrorists have historically relied on the mass media to publicly communicate these acts to a broader audience beyond those in direct involvement. The audience, both as groups and individuals, communicate with each other through various mediums, where feedback is transmitted back to the terrorists via multiple hard and soft channels. Communicating fear is the terrorist’s aim, and as Matusitz (2013) suggests “the goal of most terrorism is not killing but change, usually a change in the audience's behaviour or beliefs. As such, terrorism seeks to modify the behaviour or beliefs of the public." Therefore, to be effective, the message must be communicated to as many groups and individuals as possible through the media.

Hoffman (2006) described the relationship between the media and terrorism as being ‘symbiotic’, a cooperative and collaborative union; deliberate or otherwise assisting the terrorist message to reach a larger audience than would otherwise have been possible. Matusitz (2013) quotes Dr. Theodore John ‘Ted’ Kaczynski, the so-called Unibomber, as an example of this relationship, where his demands to have his “his fifty-plus page, 35,000-word essay titled “Industrial Society and Its Future” (aka, the Unabomber Manifesto) be printed word-for-word in a major newspaper or journal. He stated; if his wish was met, he would terminate his bombing spree.” Kaczynski got his way in 1995 when the document was published in the New York Times and The Washington Post; this ultimately led to his arrest and conviction. Ultimately the terrorist wants and needs publicity to carry the message, attract support to flourish; the mass media were willing accomplices as they sought sensationalist and shocking stories to sell newspapers, outsell the competition and increase circulation, terrorism undoubtedly sells. Currently, new media has allowed the terrorist to create and develop their own media channels; targetting the masses, specific groups, individuals and the vunerable.

Hoffman (2006) further suggests; the tactics of aircraft hijackings, bombings and assassinations in the 1960’s were attributable to technology advancements in mass media, notably the possibility to live broadcast events over continents. Now, recent advancements in communication technologies, available to most of the world, offer new opportunities for the terrorist propaganda machine; updated and with upgraded ability to shock and frighten. The lone terrorist no longer requires a news media team platform, the act can either be captured with their own device or by one of the millions of citizen journalists eager to capture and network the carnage to a hungry online audience. The ability to upload video and files is simple for terrorists as well as for the citizen journalist; the results ‘just a click away’ for those seeking materials or those targeted and often vulnerable individuals. These technologies have been embraced by the ‘new' tech-savvy members of such groups as Al Qaeda and ISIS, for example, the UK born hacker Junaid Hussain, where they have invested time and effort in modern technology and communication. No longer are inspirational sermons and operations recorded on analogue equipment and couriered to affiliated media outlets for broadcast, the process today is much simpler; high-quality handheld devices offer digital recording, live streaming, digital editing and remote uploading to new media platforms for narrowcasting or broadcasting.

New media offers the terrorist the freedom to operate in a virtual world, circumventing the mass media's editorial controls, communicating directly with its desired audience and supporters, drawing in recruits, elements the mass media cannot afford. The globalisation of the terror-net allows instant connectivity and personal contact, to interact in chat rooms, share information and join the ‘match.com' of like-minded individuals. In this environment, the terrorists have discovered an ideal ecosystem for nurturing the disaffected and disillusioned youth looking for an identity or a cause. “Al Qaeda has, and always had, a specific aim: to arouse the sleeping body of the Islamic Nation, a billion Muslims worldwide, to fight against Western power and the contaminations of Western culture. In support of this aim, the 9/11 attacks were designed ‘to force the Western snake to bite the sleeping body and wake it up.” (McCauley & Moskalenko, 2011)

To reach the “sleeping body” of support, and potential fighters there has been the challenge of overcoming the language barrier, it is pointless preaching if no one understands. Digital technology has allowed groups such as ISIS to spread multilingual propaganda with the objective of reaching far beyond the ‘caliphate’ to mobilise the disaffected youth. This strategy appears to have had limited success where “Danish researchers found “the foreign fighter flow to Syria [was] younger than for past conflicts, with typical recruits being between 16 and 25 years old—a prime social media age.” (Bipartisan Policy Center, 2018)

Social Implications of New Media

“New media technologies are having a major impact on society as a whole. The integration of such technologies into settings within society, such as the household, is having a major influence on social interaction between individuals.” (McGrath, 2012) The privatisation of the home the new media offers is something the mass media could never do. McGrath (2012) a social researcher, describes how she thinks the new media is allowing terrorist organisations the channel into people’s private lives, unmolested by even family and friends. Social media is invading everyday life to an alarming degree, frequently and significantly changing societal behaviour. Family life has undoubtedly been affected, the fragmentation of some households has been marked as has the change in cultural norms of communication. "When all of the above social changes are combined; social isolation, individualisation and privatisation, it is clear the presence of new media technologies within the household are having a negative effect on communication.” (McGrath, 2012) It appears, from this research, the propaganda available through the new media has the potential to radicalise individuals even when surrounded by their peers and families, something that would be infinitely more challenging using the mass media.

Though it could be argued neither new media or mass media can be wholly responsible for radicalisation, there is a recognition new media and social media is a place “the gas” of the terrorist propaganda “meets the flame” of the venerable (Mantel, 2009). As the youth move away from the traditional media, and due to the attention of governments and security services, the physical meeting places of disaffected like-minded people have changed from traditional public gathering places to the anonymity of virtual chat rooms. In this environment, Jackson (2016) proposes social media sites like Telegraph, WhatsApp and Twitter offer a ‘sheltered’ place for the ‘terrorist congregation’ to gather and discuss grievances, and at the extremes, ‘legitimize the violent actions of terrorists’ and even planning their own grotesque acts of violence. This freedom of anonymity to publish and randomly ‘meet’ like-minded individuals through the traditional mass media is unlikely, even then, discovery by the security services or members of the public would be probable. UK resident, Aabid Khan, was tried and convicted is 2008 for spreading terrorist propaganda through the internet chatrooms, he intended to encourage and groom impressionable and vulnerable youths to kill in the name of ‘Jihad’. The grandfather of one of Khan’s ‘victims’ was quoted as saying “this case demonstrates how a young, impressionable teenager can be groomed so easily through the Internet to associate with those whose views run contrary to true Muslim beliefs and values”. (Mantel, 2009)

Why is the new media being utilised more successfully than the mass media of old? Terry Anderson (1993), an American journalist and terrorist hostage (1985), discussed the media and terrorism of the time pleading; “don’t give them publicity. Don’t report on their demands, or even on their actions. If they cannot expect publicity, they will go away” continuing “the media are part of the deadly game of terrorism. Indeed, the game can be scarcely played without them. In my experience, publicity has been at once a primary goal and a weapon of those who use terror”. Anderson was almost right; the media has become more difficult for the terrorists to manipulate. The symbiotic relationship has soured with negative public opinion, censorship and technological advancements, asymmetry of thought has provided new media, a new slave to the terrorist communication masters. The old media was far from ideal for communicating the terrorist message, with its editorial discretion, censorship and denial of platform, inconsistency and lack of focus on the desired message.

Mass Media and New Media in Parallel

As discussed above it is essential for terrorists to get publicity to enlighten and frighten the audience; in the past, the mass media have been willing, or unwitting facilitators. Margaret Thatcher’s idea of mass media being the oxygen of publicity must surely now be outdated, as mass media has become noxious suffocating the terrorist message. In 2004, Wieviorka discussed the relationship between terrorism and mass media describing four sorts of association; “complete indifference”, “relative indifference”, part of a “media-oriented strategy” and “complete breakaway”. With the introduction of the new media, there has been a minimal dependency on the mass media. The old days where Hezbollah employed “at least four actors in a terrorist unit: the perpetrator, a cameraman, a soundman, and a producer,” (Matusitz, 2013) is long gone. Today, groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS have manipulated the mass media and ‘new media’ in tandem to assist in counternarratives and even during operations.

Combining mass media live public broadcasts, communication systems, GPS, smartphones and the internet have allowed the terrorists to plan, choreograph and execute “a live show, which could be seen stage by stage, much like a prepared script.” (Shpiro, 2002). Citizen journalist, with their smartphones and social media accounts, are primed and ready to upload text and images of incidents as they happen. Today there are many examples of this, YouTube, Twitter and Periscope have been, and continue to be, live platforms and libraries of terrorist events like Nairobi, Lee Rigby, London bridge and Mumbai. The unfortunate result is the same platforms are utilised by the terrorists enabling them to carry out more effective, live-streamed, deadly attacks.

The 2008 terrorist attack on Mumbai was an example of how the synergy between the mass media and the new media, via the internet, could be exploited by the terrorists, coordinating attacks in real-time, planning the next move and identifying victims to execute. By using handlers in Pakistan, who had access to live media feeds broadcasting the unfolding events, the handlers could coordinate events and orchestrate actions to assure maximum carnage while prolonging the operation, keeping the terrorists alive.

The inquiry into the attack found overwhelming evidence to suggest “perpetrators and victims alike rely (sic) on new media. The terrorist used the Internet in planning the strikes and in communicating with each other, and those caught up in the attacks used Twitter, mobile phone cameras, and other tools to report what was going on as it happened”. (Seib, Janbek, & Hoskins, 2010) Unknown to bystanders and the potential victims, the information they were supplying to the mass media and via social media platforms was supporting the forecasting and logistics of the terrorist attack.

Weimann (2014) discusses an incident where persons escaping from the Taj Hotel were confronted by live broadcasting teams who, wanting to capture the fear and horror of what was happening, interviewed the individuals live on television. On describing the horror of what was happening inside the hotel, the interviewees disclosed the locations of people hiding inside the hotel, moments later they were discovered in their ‘hiding place’ and gunned down. More examples of these needless murders were uncovered by the inquiry which found direct links between broadcasts, social media and the internet.

In 2008, Seib et al., released a report on the use of social media noting applications such as Twitter are useful as it can operate in real-time. This is supported by research by Meier (2013) who discovered a significant percentage of the Twitter posts during the Mumbai attack contained information of significance to the terrorist. These ‘tweets’ alone, it was concluded, provided enough intelligence and situational awareness to the attackers to make their attack more successful than it could otherwise have been. Though it is difficult to confirm, the strategic parallel use of mass media and new media likely resulted in the needless deaths of members of the public.

Counterterrorism

In the mass media, terrorism does not go unchallenged, though with little or no control and censorship on the output, with new media, terrorists have a medium where they can hide and propagandise on an equal, if not ‘more' equal, footing to the state. The game of asymmetry continues, but the counterterrorism agencies can utilise the terrorists use of new media to gain an understanding of terrorist ideology and develop intelligence to combat their violence.

With recruitment of foreign fighters from the west, it is no wonder they have taken certain aspects of the western youth culture with them. The flamboyant use of social media has become as familiar as the use of the gun and bomb with ‘fighters’ clambering to upload media detailing a macabre ‘docusoap’. Influenced by youthful exuberance, ignorance or apathy, Western Intelligence has had the opportunity, often from opensource material, to analyse terrorist media to detect and identify individuals. Mass media with is predominantly ‘one-way' communications flow and ‘hard' technologies, mading it difficult for counterterrorism agencies to gather valuable intelligence. Currently, with ‘new media' and many uncensored uploads, there are overt and covert sources, a wealth of information on the terrorist organisation, strategies, tactics, beliefs and plans. On occasions, the security forces have been able to determine the user’s exact location, using tools such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS), cell site analysis, networks or GPS and HUMINT to target individuals, with “the accounts also gradually [went] silent, presumably as their owners [we]re killed, many in U.S. airstrikes.” (Bipartisan Policy Center, 2018)

So far, states responses to a new media counternarrative have been challenging. The Bipartisan Policy Center (2018) suggests early attempts by the U.S resorted to ‘traditional media’, Al Hurra TV and Radio Sawa. Broadcasting in the Arabic language to 22 middle eastern and north African countries, the goal was to “improve America’s image in the Middle East,” though “a 2006 study of university students in five Arab countries ... found their attitude toward U.S. foreign policy worsened after tuning into the channels.”

If governments are to be successful, they must infiltrate the terrorist encrypted new media sites and social platforms, gathering intelligence in real-time, mapping networks and if possible identifying potential terrorists to disrupt, divert or recruit them as informers before they submit to any subversive ideology.

Conclusion

Opportunities for the terrorist to exploit the mass media still exist, to analyse information, gain tactical awareness and potentially, in parallel with new media, provide the synergy to affect fear, panic and more fatalities, all of which can be narrowcast to supporters and broadcast to the general public. But as the fight against terrorism becomes increasingly dynamic, societies, communities and states have struggled to fully understand the impact new media is having on the ‘conflict’.

The ‘dated’ media, once under the control of the state are no longer effective for either state or terrorists, and the new media war must be fought on the ground and the digital battlefield. It appears the terrorists are slightly ahead with this asymmetric war, where the distinction between actors and others is at times indistinct, with democratic governments struggling to find effective countermeasures and legislation to limit terrorist digital abilities. No longer are big organisations required to produce and disseminate propaganda, anyone with a phone can anonymously become a ‘citizen journalist’, spreading propaganda through blogs and tweets, producing videos and news and internet.

As the terrorists attempt to keep ahead of the state, new media also provides opportunities and vulnerabilities for counterterrorism agencies to exploit, a terrorist Achilles heel. Terrorists will continue to adopt asymmetric methods, only technology and time will tell what advantages a ‘new’ new media will offer either side in the continuing battle for media control and supremacy.

Bibliography

Anderson, T. (1993). Terrorism and Censorship: The Media in Chains. Journal of International Affairs, 47(1), 127–136.

Bipartisan Policy Center. (2018, March). Digital Counterterrorism: Fighting Jihadists Online. Retrieved from Bipartisan Policy Center: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/BPC-National-Security-Digital-Counterterrorism.pdf

Collins English Dictionary. (2018). Media. Retrieved from Collins English Dictionalry: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/media

Hoffman, B. (2006). Inside Terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press.

Jackson, R. (Ed.). (2016). Routledge handbook of critical terrorism studies. Abingdon: Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group.

Johannessen, M. R. (2015). 'New' Vs 'Old' Media: A Case Study of Polictical Protest Groups Media Use in a Norwegian Municipality MEDIA USE IN A NORWEGIAN MUNICIPALITY MARIUS ROHDE JOHANNESSEN International Journal of Public Information Systems, vol 2015:1 www.ijp. International Journal of Public Information Systems, 1.

Logan, R. K. (2010). Understanding New Media: Extending Marshall McLuhan. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Mantel, B. (2009). Terrorism and the Internet: Should Web Sites That Promote Terrorism Be Shut Down? Retrieved April 2018, from Sage Publishing: http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/36306_6.pdf

Matusitz, J. (2013). Terrorism and Communication: A Critical Introduction. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

McCauley, C., & Moskalenko, S. (2011). Friction: How Radicalization Happens to Them and Us. Oxford,: Oxford Universtiry Press.

McGrath, S. (2012). The Impact of New Media Technologies on Social Interaction in the Household. Available at: https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/sites/default/files/assets/document/SiobhanMcGrath.pdf (Accessed: 5 April 2016). Retrieved from Maynooth Universtit: https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/sites/default/files/assets/document/SiobhanMcGrath.pdf

Meier, P. (2013, April). Did terrorists use Twitter to increase Situational awareness? Retrieved from iRevolutions: http://irevolutions.org/2013/02/14/terrorists-used-twitter/

Oxford Living Dictionaries. (2018, April 21). Oxford Living Dictionaries. Retrieved April 2018, from Oxford University Press: Oxford Living Dictionaries: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/new_media

PCMag.com. (2018, April 21). Encyclopedia. Retrieved April 2018, from PC: https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/56879/old-media

Seib, P. M., Janbek, D. M., & Hoskins, A. (2010). Global terrorism and new media: The post-al Qaeda generation. New York: Routledge.

Shpiro, S. (2002). Conflict media strategies and the politics of counter-terrorism. Politics, 22(2), 76-78.

Treverton, G. F., & Miles, R. (2014). Social Media and Intelligence. Mölnlycke: Elanders Printing Company.

Weimann, G. (2014). New terrorism and new media. Retrieved from Wilson Center: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/STIP_140501_new_terrorism_F.pdf

Wieviorka, M. (2004). The Making of Terrorism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Zhihui, T., & Fan, Z. (2016, May 10). The shift from traditional to new media. Retrieved from China Daily Europe: http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2016-05/10/content_25175315.htm