Journalists, Their Terminology and Terrorism in the

Journalists, Their Terminology and Terrorism In the age of terrorism and in the age of the Internet, journalists are coming under more and more intensive scrutiny and are increasingly urged to act more sensitively to the power they have and the power which they can wield when it comes to reporting current events -- particularly those related to terrorism.

As some scholars have illuminated, journalists are indeed arbitrators of rhetoric, and ones which have limited success: "Evidence of arbitration is seen in comparisons between how media personnel describe terrorist events and their perpetrators and how government officials make similar descriptions. Journalists serve as creators of rhetoric whenever they report terrorist events. The rhetorical tradition employed determines the nature of that rhetoric. The role of formats, the presentation conventions that are used to package information and determine the significance and the information that news packages carry, are also important" (Picard 1989).

Thus, when it comes to things like the terminology which journalists choose, the words and phrases selected thus become enormously important. It's important to understand the main rhetorical pillars that journalists typically use: information, sensationalism, feature story, and the didactic approach (Picard 1989). It's important to understand how these approaches can impact how audiences understand these subjects, and the wide variety of roles that journalists play as they are involved in the development of rhetorical visions: there's an amplification, an arbitration and creation of rhetoric.

Thus, the press has a tremendous amount of power in developing how the world at large views terrorism and related events. This paper will examine the power that journalists have and the sway that they are able to engage in when it comes to reporting things like the pro-Muslim brotherhood and other terrorist groups.

This paper will look at the difference between responsible and irresponsible reporting is because journalists really do have a tremendous amount of influence and power on how the rest of the world perceives the events around them. This paper will look specifically at the breaking up of the protests in Raba'a and Nahda Squares in Egypt, August 2013.

Precisely, this paper will determine how the different coverage of these events by different news sources can actually reveal to us a great deal about the bias that such members of the press can place on events. The press outlets selected are as follows: Aljazeera, Alarabyia, Ahram and the BBC.

Aljazeera was selected because it obviously supports the Muslim Brotherhood; Alarabyia was selected because it's strongly anti-Muslim Brotherhood, yet from a non-Egyptian perspective, and Ahram was chosen because it is also anti-Muslim Brotherhood, yet from a perspective based in Egyptian media. Finally, the BBC was selected because it offers a more generalized and more western perspective on this event as a foreign happening. The BBC A press outfit like the British Broadcasting Company portrayed the events of August 2013 as purely chaotic instances of bloodshed, violence, terror and tragedy.

The day the camps were cleared, the British Broadcasting Company offered up a more sensationalized article on these events as they unfolded. For example, the headline of the article was, "Egypt Protests: Bloodshed as Pro-Morsi Camps Cleared"; clearly this demonstrates the slant that the BBC is taking on this particular article, as it paints a picture of bloodshed and chaos. "Egyptian security forces have stormed two protest camps occupied by supporters of deposed president Mohammed Morsi in Cairo, with reports of many killed.

Witnesses said they saw at least 40 bodies, but the Muslim Brotherhood says hundreds died. Armored bulldozers moved deep into the main camp outside the eastern Rabaa al-Adawiya mosque. Officials say the other protest camp, at Nahda Square, has also been cleared. Graphic accounts of bloodshed emerged from the protest camps as reporters described wounded protesters being treated next to the dead in makeshift field hospitals" (Sykes, 2013).

This account gives the appearance of attempting to stick to the facts, when in reality; it actually is a strategic portrayal of graphic and intimidating imagery. There is a strong, repetitive imagery of piles of bodies and of bulldozers storming past people and bodies. The words chosen give a strong sense of bloodshed and numerous victims of these crimes. Another journalist describes the pandemonium and alludes to the fear that it instilled in him: "An armored military bulldozer drove down towards the barricades on the edges of the encampment.

The bulldozer pushed its way through rows of bricks and sandbags. Pro-Morsi protesters responded by throwing stones and burning tyres" (Reynolds 2013). This is yet a repeated image of bulldozers overcoming the united people who had gathered in these squares, driving forward the image of armored riot police with live cracked ammunition, and intensive bangs with deeper thuds of tear gas and other explosions (Reynolds, 2013). As this journalist explains, "For a while, it was hard to breathe without a gas mask.

Some local residents held handkerchiefs to their faces - and watched the police deployment from their balconies" (Reynolds, 2013). The phrases used in this reporting create an undeniable image of terror: of innocent people who are being waged against an unkind and unfeeling police force and who are unable to defend themselves. The sense of chaos is obvious and imminent: ammunition is cracking, tear gas is thudding, explosions are going off, things are banging and again, the image of bulldozers tearing through the streets is clear and absolutely undeniable.

The scene described is almost biblical in its portrayal of the carnage suffered and the manner in which innocent people were helpless against the forces of violent government that they were up against. Moreover, the BBC is successful in painting a clear picture of a cold and unfeeling government which is in sheer denial of its own brutality and which cares very little about the carnage that it wreaks.

In this sense, the BBC is painting a clear picture of a government which engages in clear and steady justification of all that it does. As the BBC explains, the interior ministry denied that there were any fatalities that were caused as a result of their forces or the live ammunition that they fired (Sykes 2013).

As the interior ministry asserted in a statement, "Security forces used only tear gas canisters to disperse the protesters though it was heavily fired at by armed elements from inside the two protest camps, causing the death of an officer and a conscript and the injury of four policemen and two conscripts," (Sykes 2013). The BBC takes a very clear and very unmistakable stance on this statement, and dismissed it with cynicism, while accusing the government of congratulated the security forces at work on their work in clearing the camps.

This particular press outlet's personal opinions on the work of the government is obvious in the following statements by their use of quotation marks. "In a televised statement, a government spokesman praised their 'self-restraint' and spoke of the 'smaller number' of injuries among protesters" (Sykes 2013). Thus, the BBC is presenting the facts of the situation and the events that unfolded, but they're doing so with a strong imprint of their personal opinion of what happened and who was to blame.

Thus, the BBC reported the news while maintaining a strong moral viewpoint of what occurred and what it meant for the people involved and for the world at large. Aljazeera Aljazeera is a media outlet which obviously takes a completely different stance on these events, being a media outlet which is largely supportive of the Pro-Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, on the website which reported on these events, the headline is conspicuously more sedate. On Aljazeera, the headline reads, "Dozens Dead as Egypt Cracks Down on Sit-Ins" (2013).

The journalism markedly lacks the sensationalism and vivid imagery of words chosen by the BBC. Instead the entire approach is clearly more sedate, with facts and figures being stuck too more closely. Consider the following: "A security operation to clear protesters camped out on the streets of Cairo since President Mohamed Morsi was deposed by the military last month has left at least 40 people died.

The Egyptian Interior Ministry says 200 people have been arrested, including 50 in the Rabaa al-Adawiya sit-in in Nasr City and 150 at the Nahda Square sit-in in Giza" (Aljazeera 2013). These facts demonstrate a marked absence of the sense of bloodshed and chaos that the BBC portrayed. Instead, the journalist speaks of elements like tear gas and birdshots being used on supported, and that security forces broke up the sit-ins there.

One thing that this press outlet did use to convey the sense of chaos was to give a complete line break to the following statement: "Bulldozers were said to have been used to uproot the camps" (Aljazeera 2013). Moreover, the Interior Ministry is not treated with the same level of scorn that the BBC uses. Instead, there's the assertion that security forces engaged in complete control over Nahda Square and that all tents were removed.

Thus, this angle of journalism repeatedly demonstrates a lack of humanity: there's a sense that these crimes had no victims, even when the death tolls are reported. This type of reporting is unable to adequately capture how the human beings were affected in such a situation, thus giving the impression that most humans weren't negatively impacted. One aspect of this journalism which was useful was the fact that Al Jazeera was able to bring attention to the fact that there were conflicting numbers given for the death tolls.

"Sources on the ground told Al Jazeera of at least 40 fatalities, while the Muslim Brotherhood said at least 300 people had been killed, with more than 5,000 others injured. Al Jazeera could not independently verify the Brotherhood's figure" (Aljazeera 2013). Al Jazeera, being a pro-Muslim Brotherhood news outlet, earned more credibility in being able to admit that they weren't able to verify those numbers, and that a discrepancy did in fact exist.

Such a disclosure is useful for the average reader and paints a stronger picture of Al Jazeera as a new organization which is not simply going to blindly agree with everything the Muslim Brotherhood asserts: they have their own facts and figures that they intend to verify. One thing that Al Jazeera did demonstrate that other media outlets were unable or unwilling to immediately describe was how this incident impacted traffic and the access the press had to such an event. "Al Jazeera's D.

Parvaz said she was prevented from accessing the Rabaa al-Adawiya site and that 'there is absolutely no access to the sit-in except for police and medical services. Pro-Morsi supporters are making calls to their supporters, including those in other governorates, to tell them to join the protest.'" (2013).

However, one statement that Al Jazeera printed in their article which was much bolder and starker than that of other news outlets was that they quoted a member of Egypt's Anti-Coup Alliance, a pro-Morsi group, who asserted that what was occurring was indeed a crime against humanity. Al Arabyia Examining the coverage engaged by a media outlet like Alarabyia can help further shed light on this issue. Al Arabyia is a media outlet which is against the Muslim Brotherhood, but from a non-Egyptian perspective.

One article which was published on this matter was entitled, "Video: Egypt says 278 Killed in Nationwide Violence" (2013). In their own neutrality, this news outlet stuck strongly to a tone and content which stuck strongly to the facts. "Egypt's Health Ministry said on Wednesday that 278 people, including 43 security forces, were killed in nationwide violence that began when police moved in early in the morning to break up protest camps that were set up by supporters of ousted President Mohammad Mursi" (Alarabyia, 2013).

Even this excerpt alone can demonstrate the subtle bias that this media outlet boasts. One detail which stands out is the fact that this online periodical found it relevant to name how many security forces had been killed along with all innocent victims. This subtle detail can assist in swaying the public's viewpoint that the devastation incurred was shared by the police. Another detail in this first sentence which is equally revelatory is the fact that the protestors are referred to as supporters of the ousted president.

This makes the protestors appear to be undesirables and supporters of a failed regime. Another aspect of this journalism which demonstrates even more inherent bias are the quotes used by Egyptian security officials. The quotes selected demonstrate a lucid desire to establish a false sense of security. "Egyptian security officials told AFP that calm had returned to the country Wednesday night after a day of deadly clashes. After the declaration of a curfew 'all areas of the country are now calm,' one of the officials said.

Security forces succeeded in taking full control over the squares of Ennahda and Rabaa al-Adawiya by the evening" (Alarabyia, 2013). These quotes give the impression that the Egyptian Security Officials were engaging in their due diligence and utmost responsibility to restore peace and order: these statements offer no evidence for the clear carnage that was clearly and obviously wrought upon the nation at large. Other news sources were able to give a clear picture of the chaos and violence that many of these innocent protestors had endured.

Furthermore, this statement demonstrates the utter and complete vagueness of a statement like "security forces succeeded in taking full control over the squares of Ennahda and Rabaa." There are no details has to how exactly this order and control was restored -- a particularly disturbing notion when it comes to the fact that an educated reader already knows that bulldozers were used as a means of dealing with the protestors.

Again, a pervasive vagueness remains in this style of reporting which acts as a shield to protect the reader from the realities of the situation as it unfolded. Consider the following excerpt: "Hundreds of Mursi loyalists left the main vigil of Rabaa al-Adawiya after the security forces gave them a safe passage. Al Arabyia's correspondent in Cairo said clashes between security forces and protesters in Rabaa al-Adawiya had erupted early on in the swoop" (Alarabyia 2013).

This excerpt merely admits that "clashes" had occurred between security forces and the parties involved, but there are little details which go into describing what exactly those clashes were and how innocent people were on the receiving end of truly extreme violence. Even when this media outlet describes how there were 43 bodies found in a makeshift morgue, it attempts to mitigate this issue with the fact that none of those bodies were of women or children.

However, it is at this point in the article, where the media outlet appears to take a change in approach when it comes to the treatment of the parties involved. For instance, the following sentence shows a more unflinching portrayal of the brutality that was involved in the violent incidents: "Security forces fired tear gas into the sit-ins and live images of Rabaa al-Adawiya showed smoke billowing from the square and military helicopters flying overhead" (Alarabyia 2013).

This media sector continued with their direct approach in that they did call out the police force for having a reputation of brutality, they did entertain the notion that Egypt could be restored to a former sense of order and stability. "Egypt's interior minister pledged to restore the kind of security seen in the days of ousted President Hosni Mubarak, a sign of renewed confidence permeating a police force whose reputation for brutality fuelled the 2011 uprising" (Alarabyia 2013).

This is merely an example of more vagueness of diction as there are no precise details as to what that means exactly -- how confidence will be restored, or what they mean by this former "kind of security" (Alarabyia 2013). Furthermore, this news outlet did acknowledge the both vague and ominous warnings which were issued to protestors, namely that this type of protesting would no longer be tolerated, and that forces would firmly deal with protestors who were acting in an "irresponsible" manner (Alarabyia 2013).

This is a truly ominous notion, particularly when the educated reader acknowledges that for the most part, these protestors were already dealt with in a strongly forceful manner; moreover there's absolutely no clarity as to what constitutes irresponsible behavior. There's again a strong notion that these protestors will continue to be dealt with using a strong sense of brutality. One strong content piece of this article represents how there was a strong amount of discord regarding whether live ammunition was used.

Consider the following: "The pro-Mursi Anti-Coup alliance has claimed that security forces used live ammunition, but the minister said his forces only used tear gas and that they came under fire from the camp" (Alarabyia 2013). In fact, one could argue that the media outlet could have gone to even greater lengths to highlight the sheer controversy regarding this fact. There could have been more of a focus on eye-witness accounts and there could have easily been a stronger commitment to determining what in fact had happened.

Alarabyia acknowledges some of the vaguer attempts at mediation that the ministry used as a means of dealing with these protesters and that "the Interim Hazem al-Beblawi defended the government's decision to use force to break up pro-Mursi sit-ins, saying authorities had no choice but to act. Beblawi praised police for their 'self-restraint' and said that the country remains committed to an army-drafted roadmap which calls for elections in 2014" (Alarabyia 2013).

The fact that this media outlet put the phrase "self-restraint" in quotation marks demonstrates that there is some cognizance of the unfettered brutality of the police force at large and that they are aware of how completely ludicrous it is to use the phrase "self-restraint" when it comes to a police force which employed bulldozers, tear gas and which fired live ammunition into a crowd of innocent protestors (Alarabyia 2013).

Irresponsible Language Thus, the news coverage by Al Arabyia really demonstrates the mercurial nature of the media regarding terrorism and particularly regarding this issue. Current scholarship largely echoes this trend as there have indeed been indictments of the media, and in many cases rightly so; other times it appears that media deserves the strongest defense when it comes to the stance it takes against terrorism and as an anti-terrorism device at large.

The media has been accused at times of being pro-terrorist and on other occasions as being antiterrorist (Paletz & Schmidt 1992). Some scholars have found that press coverage of terrorist attacks can encourage terrorist supporters and can create an environment where such acts are repeated (Paletz & Schmidt 1992). This is related to the Hollywood mentality that any publicity is good publicity and is connected to the notion that any publicity of terrorists acts benefits the terrorists at large.

Other scholars say that the question is not about how the media should report terrorism, but how they should be used to adequately fight terrorism (Paletz & Schmidt 1992). In support of this indictment of the press is the insightful opinion that often terrorists and these counter-surgent groups feel strongly compelled to vent and rage against the status quo, but who lack clearly defined political ends (Nacos 2007).

These groups are able to inflict severe amounts of harm and invoke terror and fear and use the media as a tool for achieving these ends.

On the other hand, those who consider the media to be largely anti-terrorist generally do so as an indictment of the government instead, accusing the government and all related bodies as being members of the terrorism industry: "government officials and bodies, think tanks and analysts, and private security firms that have a vested interest in defining terrorism in terms of particular insurgent movements and exaggerating their threat to western people (Paletz & Schmidt p.12).

The realities of the situation largely orbit around the fact that language can be considered irresponsible, if they just incited people to further violence and chaos. Thus, when media outlets report the news (any news) in a manner which just acts as a means of inciting more violence, then that is a situation where journalism can be considered to be irresponsible.

Journalists and media outlets can be considered irresponsible when they fail to incite people to take inspired action, but only perpetuate the terror and stupidity of the events that they've been called to report. Ahram Ahram is yet another news outlet to examine regarding their treatment of this issue as they are also anti-Muslim Brotherhood, but in a manner which has a more Egyptian perspective and solidarity.

On the day of the incident, this media outlet published an article entitled, "Egypt police attack Muslim Brotherhood sit-ins in Cairo." The sentence which this particular media outlet uses as a means of summarizing what occurred that day is strongly revelatory of their viewpoint of the incident: "Egyptian police broke up a Muslim Brotherhood sit-in near the Giza zoo and attempted to clear the other at Rabaa El-Adawiya square shortly after dawn on Wednesday, making good on pledge to disperse thousands of Islamists in both venues" (Ahram 2013).

There is an inherent neutrality to this statement of facts. Moreover there is striking bias found in the usage of the phrase "making good on pledge to disperse thousands of Islamists in both venues." This phrase is highly noticeable in the fact that it seems to state a certain level of allegiance to this particular police force: by portraying the police as making good on a pledge, they're portraying the police as an entity which has enough integrity to make good on a promise.

This demonstrates a certain level of softness or bias towards the police, as a governing and protecting body with integrity and character, something which one could easily argue is misleading. Again, like other news sources, this media outlet also focused upon the inherent discrepancy which was found within the death toll. The media brought attention to the fact that the ambulance authority stated that 13 were killed and 94 wounded, but the greater Brotherhood Muslim stated that the death toll was at 121 (Ahram 2013).

However, this media source, like the others, did not care to speculate on this particular discrepancy. One difference that this media source engaged heavily which distinguished it from others was that it conferred.