|
NOTICE:
The International Emergency Management Society's Transportation Saftey and Security Workshop Janurary 28-29th 2003
|
Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and
Risk Management
Crisis and Emergency Management
|
NOTICE: The ICDRM's monthly emergency managment forum, held at the GWU |
| December
2002
Volume 3 - Number 3 |
|
Links:
Current events
|
A Perspective
on the Risk of Terrorism
By Alan Petro While one of terrorism's fundamental principles is to create fear and confusion, there are other parties that can either facilitate or prevent terrorists from succeeding. There are various stakeholders involved, including the media and the Bush Administration. Both have the public’s best interest at heart, but they also have their own objectives to keep in mind. These sometimes contrasting interests bring into question the reliability of the information given to the public and force the public to question the accuracy of its fears. Given that most of us don’t have access to the White House Situation Room or don’t sit on Senate Intelligence Committee, we’re forced to rely on the media. In a post 9/11 world it’s difficult to turn on the TV or open a newspaper without being inundated with images of terrorism. While we’re technically at war (War on Terrorism), one still has to question whether or not the media is accurately representing the threat. Unfortunately, the press has a tendency to over report a story and cause more public anxiety than necessary. The latest example of this would be during the recent Sniper attacks in the Washington, DC area. This story was covered 24 hours a day for many weeks with scores of experts being interviewed. At one point, the media actually dedicated on-air time to analyzing its own fixation with the story. Based on the media’s past tendencies to over-report stories, one could say this was another example of the press sensationalizing an issue. If that wasn't puzzling enough, we also have our Nation's leaders giving us mixed signals. On one hand, we have Vice President Cheney telling us that additional terrorist attacks in the US are inevitable, while at the same time his boss, George Bush, tells us we should go back to our normal routines. At the same time, one has to question whether politics plays a role in how the administration disseminates information or portrays the threat of future terrorist attacks. Some have gone so far as of accusing the Bush Administration of using the War on Terrorism to in a sense, “rally the troops”. Another less biased source of information is the various independent organizations, such as the Bremer Commission, which have studied terrorism and actually predicted the emergence of terrorism within the United States. It is independent commissions such as these which many times provide a less filtered interpretation of events, allowing one to make a more accurate interpretation of the threat facing us today. While the public may not have the most accurate interpretation of the extent of the danger we face, we do know that we’re still a target. Should we revert back to a state of denial or complacency? Clearly, the answer is no. Unfortunately, it seems that the media, as much as it may try otherwise, has the tendency to misrepresent or over sensationalize events. It also holds true that as much money and effort as the Bush administration has spent to combat terrorism, the threat of more attacks is still very real. |