reflectivepundit

Global Media Stage Allows Norwegian Terrorist Breivik to Spread his Propaganda of Hate

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Spending all of last week at a conference in Ankara I did not have an opportunity to follow the news media as closely as I normally do. Yet, channel surfing early in the morning and late at night in my hotel room was enough to conclude that the prominent and massive coverage of Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik’s trial afforded him a global stage to explain and promote his anti-Islamic ideology and try to enlist supporters in the process.

After describing the gruesome details of his killing spree that took the lives of 77 persons last year, Breivik claimed that he studied Timothy McVeigh’s Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and Al Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks for instruction and inspiration. Calling Al Qaeda the “most successful revolutionary movement in the world,” he said he had learned from the organization’s successes and failures. Obviously sticking to his claim that he is not a lone wolf but part of a group of likeminded comrades determined to defend Christian Europe against the onslaught of Muslims, he told the court, "We want to create a European version of Al Qaeda.”

Obviously, the Norwegian court was well aware that Breivik would exploit the trial to spread his messages of hate. But in democratic systems, where citizens need to be fully informed in order to make educated decisions when they participate in the political process, public information is a highly esteemed value. Rightly, so--even in the face of occasional misuse and abuse.

Although cameras and microphones were banned from the court room, journalists reported at great length and detail Breivik’s exploitations of the global media stage. To be sure, the coverage was prominent and plentiful after the attacks. But at that time, the focus was more or at least equally as much on the victims rather than the perpetrator. This time around, it has been the Breivik show so far.

The  Oklahoma City bomber McVeigh received fan letters and marriage proposals as he awaited first his trial and later his execution; Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda won supporters and recruits after 9/11. Breivik, too, may have endeared himself and his convictions to some people who already shared his extremist views.

As Matt Pearce reported in the Los Angeles Times, 23-year old American Kevin Forbes of Massachusetts exchanged letters with Breivik and told Norwegian TV, “I believe that Breivik is a rational man who committed atrocious but necessary actions.”

To be sure, the majority of people in Europe and elsewhere reject everything that Breivik has said and done in disgust. But it is not unusual that highly publicized acts of terrorism and crime result in copy-cat deeds. Moreover, successful methods of attacks used by terrorists and criminal are sometimes carried out by individuals or groups already committed to violence.

Nearly three years ago, taking into account the dramatic advances in communication technology in the beginning of the 21^st century, I published an article in the on-line journal Perspectives on Terrorism that revisited media contagion theories--mostly in the context of terrorism and to a lesser extent concerning crime. My conclusion was that “when it comes to international and domestic terrorism, various kinds of media figure quite prominently in both tactical and inspirational contagion.” The pro-copycat conclusion seems as relevant today as it was earlier. Indeed, Breivik’s terrorism may well qualify as a case of contagion since he himself revealed in court that he studied and learned from 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing.

Hilary Rosen, Ann Romney, and Stay-Home Moms: A Non-Issue Blown Up into Media Frenzy at the Expense of Debating Real Issues

By Brigitte L. Nacos

The news media and social networks blew up one sentence spoken by one political strategist into a major political controversy and handed the Romney campaign a convenient weapon to intensify their attacks on liberals and especially President Obama as the real enemies of mothers and wives and daughters in the “war on women” in America.

What happened? Hilary Rosen, a Democrat, political strategist and analyst for CNN, commented during a CNN program on the fact that Mitt Romney cannot connect with women, is clueless as to women’s concerns, and has of late told audiences that his wife Ann is better at articulating his real concern for women’s well-being.

Rosen’s statement was this: “His wife has actually never worked a day in her life,” she said. “She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids? How do we send them to school? And why we worry about their future.”

What is so offensive here? For starters, cable TV, other media outlets, and social media honed in on the first sentence, “His wife has actually never worked a day in her life.” That is a wonderful sound bite for media that strives on conflicts and clashes. In most instances, the rest of the “explosive” remark was omitted and thereby the whole context of the discussion.

There was no need for the president, his wife, former first lady Barbara Bush, Ann Romney, the Romney campaign and supporters to defend stay-home moms as women with the most heavy and difficult workloads. The real issue here is whether women with the extraordinary financial means as enjoyed by Ann Romney have any idea about the struggles of ordinary women with modest or low incomes. Rosen’s criticism was not at all targeting all mothers who make the choice to stay home and raise their children. But it reminded us that many women do not have a choice, even if they would love to stay home, they need to work to put food on the table.  

If a candidate defers publicly to his wife as the expert on women’s issues, especially economic ones, why would it be wrong to point out that Mrs. Romney, given the family’s wealth and plush life style, is as detached from average women (and men) as is her husband?  

This morning, I saw a clip of Ann Romney’s response on FOX News. “I can tell you and promise you that I have had struggles in my life." Promise us? I am sure that Mrs. Romney like all mothers had her struggles with five active sons around. I am sure that she had and has her struggles with her illness. But she did not have the economic struggles and worries of so many mothers (and fathers) about the daily necessities of life, food, housing, health insurance, the education of their children.

In short, this is once again a case of much ado about nothing, media feeding frenzy and political opportunism at a time when the nation is faced with real and urgent domestic and foreign policy issues.