¶ … voluntary or involuntary controls on media coverage will affect terrorism, and the types of controls possible in a democratic society. Anderson (1993) suggests there is clear evidence a direct link exists between the media and terrorism. More often than not, terrorists are likely to use the media to gain coverage and recognition for acts of terror. The question is, "Will reducing media coverage lead to decreases in terrorism?" There is ample evidence terrorists pay attention to news reports that talk about their actions (Anderson, 1993).

The types of coverage provided may very well influence terrorist's behaviors, in a positive or negative way. There are reports where media coverage resulted in the death of hostages or further violence (Anderson, 1993). Most governments are eager to curb media coverage on terrorist activity. It makes sense from a social psychological perspective that curbing the attention given to terrorists will lead to less violent attacks. Of course, the opposite might be true; terrorists might lash out even further to gain the stature they once held in the media. Only testing can prove whether censorship can be a successful deterrent to terrorist activity. In the U.S., it seems unlikely the media will willingly withhold information from the public, due to the democratic nature of the society in which we live. However, if researchers were able to prove curbing media coverage would serve as a significant deterrent to terrorism; it is likely the public would agree to enforce censorship geared toward reducing media coverage of such events.

Even if the public does agree however, that curbing attention would influence terrorist activity, there is some question as to whether the media would cooperate, short of strict government controls, as most media agents are interested in reporting the news, regardless of its effects (Anderson, 1993).

Reference:

Anderson, T. (1993). Terrorism and censorship: The media in chains.

Journal of International Affairs, 47(1):127-36.

Terrorism