For weeks now the media have reported the IS actions in Syria.
Have they been providing too much information? I wonder, if we knew nothing of these kidnaps and subsequent horrific murders, would these captives still be alive today?
Are we feeding the egos of these barbaric individuals with the publicity they crave? Without the intensive, comprehensive, worldwide publicity provided here and in other Western countries there’s little doubt that they would continue with their medieval styled killings but I suggest the western media is indirectly inflaming the situation.
I have great sympathy for those families left grieving, but there’s a lot to be said for the ‘old fashioned’ method the Foreign Office used in past years, when they refused to comment on hostage situations.
As regular readers will know in the past I’ve been concerned about the amount of specific detail of our troops’ actions on the front line of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Perhaps it’s time the media were asked to tone down their reporting and stop giving these barbarians so much promotion.
Posts
14 comments:
They kidnap and kill these people to gain publicity and to provoke the West into action so they can point the finger and accuse them of interfering in Middle Eastern affairs and recruit more jihadists on the back of it.
It works, doesn't it?
I'm with you. Deprive them of the air of publicity.
Funnily enough, my wife and I were saying the same thing about the oxygen of publicity this AM after the Clasic FM news. The way things are going we'll have ex-ISIL killers in Westminster.
Your forgetting, the government wants the excuse to enable them to go to war with a clear conscience. Also, this keeps us all fearful of being terrorised here in uk so they can keep spying on us and continuing to curtail our privacy etc
The publicity is for the UK and to justify the draconian laws being brought in to deal with nonviolent extremists, that is, anybody who disagrees with the establishment. It is a measure to deal with free speech on the internet. It does nothing for the hostages.
Tricky, but it depends on how it is being reported. The TV coverage certainly over does it by a mile and almost acts as a recruiting poster in some ways. But serious and plain reporting is another thing.
As Maggie said, when referring to that bunch of religious murderers from across the Irish Sea, "Deprive them of the Oxygen of Publicity"
But nowadays, we can get our doses of flavoured propaganda not only from Aunty, but the likes of Al Jazeera, Russia Today, and, of course the webby-thing.
We can also obtain unadulterated propaganda direct from the horses mouth via You-Tube vids.
We're certainly better informed nowadays, and some of us more-sceptical, than those of a generation-ago.
Glad it’s not just me who feels this way Dioclese. :D
Wouldn’t surprise me in the least Sackerson.
No I’m not forgetting that M and you’re quite right with your other points.
Is it only a measure for the internet Alice? I’d suggest it’s wider than that.
Indeed Demetrius, but the days of serious reporting is long gone. We have so few independent reporters and even less media outlets. Now it’s all fear, fear and more fear to suit the various masters.
‘Flavoured propaganda’ is a great description Joe.
I’d agree it’s made some of us more sceptical. Would I be that way if I wasn’t given so much information? I doubt it.
Post a Comment