Williamson 1

Lauren Williamson

Dr. McCluskey

Media and Terrorism

22 March 2018

The Effect of Media and Government Rhetoric on Public Reaction to Terrorism

Terrorism has become a major element of American media culture, serving as the focal

point of countless articles, news shows, political speeches, and debates. Its prevalence in society

has not only affected the way that politicians run for candidacy but has also seeped into the

subconsciousness of the general public, creating a mindset of fear that stems from the rhetoric

that is employed by both politicians and journalists. This relationship is a cycle between the

media, public, and government that perpetuates itself, generating fear in its wake, which in turn

exhibits adverse effects such as a good versus evil mentality, hostility towards outgroups,

suppression of basic rights, and obscurantism. Both terrorist leaders and American presidents

have used rhetoric in their addresses to the public communicating a polarizing message of

righteousness and savagery, thus heightening aggression and fear toward the outgroup, and

prompting support for counter-terrorism measures. The fear that is generated takes root in the

cognitive realization of one’s own mortality and the inevitability of death, especially death as a

result of terrorism: this is referred to as mortality salience. The rhetoric employed by media and

politicians reiterates this mortality salience, amplifying its effect, and perpetuating the

aforementioned cycle between media, government, and public.

 Williamson 2

The fear generated by terrorism is exaggerated by the media. As Mueller points out,

“assessed in a broad but reasonable context, terrorism generally does not do much damage”

(Mueller 42). Yet terrorism is frequently mentioned in news media, the same event reappearing

and reevaluated over the course of months. Additionally, the rhetoric that the media employs to

capture and hold the attention of their audience is frequently sensationalized. The media uses

words such as radical, terrorist, victim, and murder to magnify the event. However, the

likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack is only slightly more than the likelihood of drowning in a

bathtub (Mueller 42). In a study conducted by Chapman University over a three-year span, 1,500

adults were asked what they feared most. Fear of a terrorist attack was second to government

corruption and fear of being a victim of terrorism was fourth on the list (Anderson). The fear of

terrorism is so salient in American culture that it occupies two of the top five fears. Michael

Rothschild, an economist, calculated that the probability of dying from a plane hijacking was one

in six million, and that is if the person flies four times per month and terrorists hijack one plane

per year. The media plays a large role in this false perception of threat through “availability bias,

the tendency to give weight to what comes to mind most easily” which results from the constant

bombardment of brutal imagery (Anderson). But the media is not the only guilty party of

amplifying the threat of terrorism; politicians feed off the information the media provides the

public and use the generated fear to garner support for their campaigns and agenda.

After the September 11th attacks, President Bush had to respond in a way that would

strengthen and not break the American spirit in a time of vulnerability. As a result, he polarized

the issue, making it out to be black and white, good versus evil, “you are either with us or you’re

with the terrorists.” In January 2002, Bush said, “this great nation of many religions understands,

our war is not against Islam, or against faith practiced by the Muslim people. Our war is a war
 Williamson 3

against evil.” This good versus evil simplification of a complex issue carried over throughout the

presidential campaigns and terms of the following presidents. In a summit on violent extremism

Obama said in a similar statement to Bush, “we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with

people who have perverted Islam.” And leave it to President Trump to put it bluntly, “this is a

battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life and decent people, all in the

name of religion.” These statements strengthen the “us versus them” mentality that has been

reiterated over the course of almost 20 years. While this is occurring in the United States, the

terrorist groups are employing similar tactics to justify and bolster support for their cause.

The United States condemns the terrorist acts as evil and immoral, but the terrorists are,

as Rowland suggests, “intoxicated by their ideology” (54). They subscribe to a “radically

redefined worldview” referred to as the “encyclopedic myth” which portrays the world as

“threatened by evil and defines actions, largely violence, to both cleanse the world of that evil

and achieve transcendence, usually via martyrdom” ( Rowland 56). Similar to the United States,

the terrorists view their fight as good versus evil, simplifying their message to gain support.

Relying on narratives and religion, terrorists such as Osama bin Laden refer to the cause as

ordained by God and the victory as inevitable. Bin Laden criticized the United States as a “nation

that permits acts of immorality” and praised his soldiers as participating in “a brave and beautiful

operation… destroying the idols of America” (94). This increased ingroup loyalty and outgroup

prejudice directly correlates with mortality salience and the public’s defensive reaction to fear.

The public reacts to this fear in a variety of ways: increased patriotism, increased support

for leadership, increased support for suppression of freedoms and rights in favor of security,

increased support for counter-terrorism actions, and desensitization over time. Landau presents

research that proves “the role of intimations of mortality in people’s allegiance to and defense of
 Williamson 4

the nationalistic aspects of their cultural worldviews” (1139). This also accounts for the

increased support for leadership. After 9/11, Bush’s approval ratings increased around 40 points,

putting him at the unprecedented high of ~90% approval; this is what Schubert et. al. referred to

as the “rally around the flag effect,” which occurred, as their study proved, due in part to the

address he gave directly following the acts (Schubert, et. al). The mortality salience that the

attacks produced also made the public more supportive of restrictive laws implemented by the

government to “protect” them from terrorist attacks such as the Patriot Act and increased online

surveillance (Stoycheff, et. al). When people become aware of this increased monitoring, “value-

conflict associations” are triggered, producing greater support for “hawkish military actions”

against the outgroup in the name of “terrorist prevention” (Stoycheff). In some cases, however,

the rhetoric employed by the media and government in an effort to sate fear desensitizes the

public, causing a skewed understanding of what is really going on (Matusitz 226).

Words are powerful; a skilled orator or writer can bend and place them according to his

or her design to evoke a desired response. A balance must be achieved to break the cycle

between media, politicians, and the public so that fear of death by terrorism does not influence

decision-making or hostility towards outgroups. Glossocracy, the political utilization of

euphemisms to alter language, and obscurantism, the practice of intentionally leaving out

specific details or facts to alter perception, are currently being used to mitigate fear (Matusitz).

However, these practices are largely unsuccessful because they are being utilized according to

one group’s misinformed, hasty judgements, cast in a time of uncertainty. The truth eventually

comes to the surface whether through media or history itself. This is representative of the

ongoing debate concerning divulging and withholding volatile information and the rhetoric

through which it is expressed from the public and the repercussions it has on the issue at hand.
 Williamson 5

Works Cited

Anderson, Jenny. “The Psychology of Why 94 Deaths from Terrorism are Scarier than 301,797

Deaths from Guns.” Jan. 31, 2017. Quartz. Quartz Media LLC.

Landau, Mark, et. al. “Deliver Us From Evil: The Effects of Mortality Salience and Reminders

of 9/11 on Support for President George W. Bush.” PSPB, Vol. 30 No. 9, September

2004, 1136-1150.

Matusitz, Jonathan. “Terrorism and Communication.” Sage. University of Central Florida.

pp.198-228.

Mueller, John. “A False Sense of Insecurity.” Ohio State University. Fall 2004. pp. 42-46.

Rowland, R. C and K. Theye. “The Symbolic DNA of Terrorism.” Communication Monographs

Vol. 75, No. 1, March 2008, pp. 52-85.

Schubert, James. “A Defining Presidential Moment: 9/11 and the Rally Effect.” Political

Psychology, vol. 23, no. 3, 2002. pp.559-583.

Stoycheff, Elizabeth, et. al. “Online Surveillance’s Effect on Support for Other Extraordinary

Measures to Prevent Terrorism.” Mass Communication and Society, 20:6, July 2017, pp.

784-799.