Hillel Nossek (2004) in his paper titled 'Our news and their news: The role of national identity in the coverage of foreign news', this summarising his paper's themes. Ultimately, it looked at the influences on news spefically designated by journalists through their influences. This in turn prompted me to do a search on journalists and terrorism.

I found an article titled, "eTerror: Journalism, Terrorism and the Internet". Essentially the soul of the article is understood through Knight and Ubayasiri's words, "the Internet has atomised the media and journalists are losing their monopoly on international news" (p. 1). Parallels were made between a prominent terrorist group al Qaeda and the Internet highlighting the striking similarities between what are both essentially organisations.

Conversely, Nossek affirms his position that terrorists, governments, audience and the media all rely on the media to promote their cause, to reach out, to tell, to know and to understand. Nossek describes journalists and editors as 'gatekeepers' of news as it is this group that applies the sets of norms to the profession and delivers the news that he shoes as shaped by both internal and external constraints. An important argument Nossek makes that "bias in foreign news coverage produced by established broadcasting networks is usually consistent with the foreign policy of the network's government" (p. 347), thus concluding that journalists will always be influenced by domestic policy and illustrating arguments in prior blogs that confuse media control and make it more difficult to presume who decides what is newsworthy.

The 'eTerror' article suggests with the new communication technology- the Internet, journalists and editors have been surpassed with anything qualifying as newsworthy and the ability to access the greatest numbers in the audience. Terrorists have found a medium, a form of media to publish their ideas, to broadcast to the world without fear of being sensored.

Interestingly, in reading the 'eterror' article and the mentions of terrorist groups blacklisted by US government agencies like the FBI and CIA, what struck me were their names. For example, one group called 'Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)' or 'The Popular Front of the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)'. This really illustrates Cottle's arguement of myth building in the media. What is considered a liberationist group in Palestine is depicted as a terrorist group in Western media. I decided to further research into what is blacklisted as a terrorist site, the 'Basque Fatherland and Liberty' (ETA). It describes itself as a right-wing nationalist party which was "transformed into a powerful political strategy". It considers itself as :

The political and military struggle for independence is led by Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA, Basque Homeland and Freedom), the Basque national liberation army which transformed the conservative ideology of Basque nationalism into a progressive movement

It sees itself as progressive and in a struggle for independence. On first sight, I could not understand what would blacklist them as involved in terrorist activity until I further looked into the site discovering their first political acts as placing explosives in various cities in 1959. Although I now can understand what classes them as a terrorist group, reading this group propaganda, using the Internet as their media, I almost felt compelled to understand their cause. See that they just want independence for their nation, driven my patriotism.

Seeing the creation of myths in media, I would like to explore this idea more and possible further in my essay. It would definitely be worthwhile for the discussion of terrorism as it really illustrates the alternative ways which things can be viewed which I think is incredibly important in understanding the media and the society in which it works.

Online media is an important medium to explore if only for the freedom that comes with publishing on the Internet. Anyone can freely publish any document, and although this can be troublesome in getting huge amounts of incorrect information, it is valuable in representing opinion. When grouped together, it can form public opinion.

Robert Entman's chapter, "Projecting Power in the News" looks at some concepts studied in previous weeks and also further ideas and terms in an attempt to clarify the role of the media and journalism in our society. I believe that this is a huge question and I don't think there is really one answer. Who can say who has the most power between the elites/officials, media and public. Entman suggests through his cascading activation model that "public opinion does rest at the bottom of the cascade" (p. 13). Nevertheless he does believe that public opinion, through the media can affects officials and subsequently influences public opinion.

In my topic of terrorism, I researched anything published on terrorism and the media and as usual thousands of entries connected with my subject area. An interesting article on the Committee to Protect Journalists website published a year following Septemember 11 discussed how the freedom of the press had been curbed by the United States and how other countries used the attacks to curb freedoms of journalists. It was interesting to note the observation that any journalist expressing opinion or thought against the administration (also those externally, in the other countries who faced the same ordeal) was arrested or condemned. This article illuminates the power officials have and connects with Entman's cascading model delineating the administration with the greatest power in the flow of information and frames of news.

Interestingly, despite a sharp increase in interest of foreign policy, national security and terrorism post 9/11, the connection of the media, government and terrorists was a discussed topic. In a CRS Issue Brief, published in 1997 it was noted what each party wanted from the media in respect to terrorism. This article illuminates, or I believe it does, the role of journalism a litte more. Each party/group/individual has its own agenda and the media is the best medium to reach the public sphere. In this article written by Perl, it appears that legtimisation is a huge aspect of all parties. Sourcing, as discussed by Cottle and Marcus and in almost every Journalism class, is essential in order to legitimise any article. Entman in his article further employs sourcing in his model as "Journalists canvass their networks of legitimate and customary sources...to learn how they are connected ideas and feelings" (p. 9).

In the coming weeks I would like to discuss the danger that journalists put themselves in through their work in order to fulfil the role of the media in society. A website IRAQ: Journalists in Danger is particularly important to my chosen topic of terrorism and national security. It records statistics of journalists deaths since the beginning of the War on Iraq totaling 60 journalists killed on duty since March 2003. A high number and telling in the danger of a journalists work. I recommend a quick look through this page and the link describing each journalist and their circumstances of death. It makes the war more of a reality. Interestingly, alot of deaths are a result of abduction and murder all to encourage the US and her allies to retreat from Iraq. Despite the deaths of journalists, the military and thousands of civilians, the US has failed to be persuaded only leaving the future open for inevitable heartbreak for thousands of families.

On Thursday 15th December we watched episode 6 of Fine Line in exploring the role of media in a democracy. In this epidsode, an interesting thing that Marcus pointed out was David Penberthy saying he was looking for "the big hit for Monday". This questions journalism and a journalists job. This again begs to ask whether jouralism is looking out for public interest or looking for a story in the interest of the public.

In the James Curran (2002) reading, he records that liberalism allowed the media to become more accessible thereby creating a culture of democracy in giving power back to the people. But how much power do people have in determining what is news? Furthermore, the consumerist nature of the media initially, in being a tool of the elite to control the masses begs to question the nature of journalism and their aim of revealing the 'truth'.
This will be explored through recent articles found in the media on terrorism and national security particular with the Bush Administrations' defence of spying on US citizens through phone tapping.

In an article titled, 'Rice defends Bush over US spying', on the ninemsn website, you see leaders, or what could be considered as the 'elite' defending their actions and decisions rather than demanding support from the public. This article is a good representation of how the public does have some form of power over governments through the press, however, this can be quickly removed when the press is in support of a government, or a government policy.

Another article also from the ninemsn website has declared Bushs' public support to be raising dedicated to a successful Iraqi election and an improved domestic economic outlook.

Struggling with low popularity ratings and wide public discontent with the war, Bush last month launched an aggressive campaign to bolster American support for the US mission in Iraq and shore up his standing.

An interesting quote from the article illustrating how the elites and officials can use the media to their advantage and bolster support for their policies.

Thus, if public opinion can be swayed by what is absorbed from the media can the public really be in control. This article provides evidence that the media does influence public opinion and illustrates how a government can turn that to their advantage. Yet, once support amongst the officials begins cracking and the media jumps in, the people again change opinions. Maybe the media has complete control? Could it be a small group of people, media owners, that ultimately control everything, officials and the masses? This would be an extremely interesting idea to pursue,

Editor and Publisher, an American journal covering the newspaper industry has many comments on terrorism and national security. One particular article I want to focus on will illustrate the possible effect media and media figures can have on officials and in particular the Bush Administration.

"It's Your War Now: Part III", written by Greg Mitchell discussed what he titlted as a 'Cronkite moment' in which a dramatic statement from a mainstream media figure could effect and shift public opinion. This article focused on the War in Iraq and its connection with terrorism. Published on the 17th November 2005 (dates are important) he documents a shift in debate over the withdrawal in Iraq with more supporting this form of action. Even prominent democrats like Bill Clinton who initially supported the war and now are encouraging George Bush to implement some form of long-term timetable. This also connects with Cottle's argument of indexing where evidence of descent amongst the elite, particularly the breaking down of cooperation of opposing parties, moves the media to jump into the cracks and changing their stance.

Mitchell's main source is John Murtha, a former marine who made a statement on the same day, who vigourously supports a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and has been characterised by Mitchell as the mainstream media figure. Although the entire speech can be read on the above link I think the following summarises the crux of Murtha's arguements to withdraw the troops:

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us...The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored...I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won "militarily." I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress...I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis"

Thus, I think a relatively solid arguement, acknowledging the threat of terrorism as a real one but the use of war as a vehicle to control terrorism unnecessary.

Interestingly, fifteen days later (30th November 2005) a 'Strategy for Victory in Iraq' was posted on the National Security Council web page for the White house. This possibly being an example of pressure from peers and the media representing popular opinion. Or as Cottle argues the media using descent amongst the elites to move away from supporting government policy therefore challenging the government. In this case, George Bush under pressure, took the advice of peers and media and created a long-term timetable for victory in Iraq.

Terrorism and national security are largely reported on in the International arena possibly suggesting what each individual country considers important on their national agenda. In the last couple of days in US and British media, the UK law lords ruling that evidence submitted through use of torture will no longer be admissable in UK courts is an important step in fighting 'extradordinary rendition'. I will focus on the New York Times and BBC news and relate to Simon Cottle's article in the reader.

One of Cottle's extensively discussed topics is news sources and the use of 'authoritive' or 'official' news sources as opposed to someone with no knowledge in a particular area. The NYT has settled for what is known as an official source- those in positions of power whose arguments are considered credible. These include Lord Bingham, the leader of the seven judges who made this decision, and Charles Clarke, the British home Secretary. Alternatively in the first article allocated to the decision, the BBC uses official sources and an individual with no professional authority. Their official sources offer a broader selection utlising more of the law lords and their individual Jamel Ajouaou, once a British detainee, essentially praising Britain for this decision.
These use of sources further illustrate another of Cottle's argument describing the choice of sources. As Marcus more clearly outlined, once something becomes an issue where conflict is involved, sources tend to be more various however when an event is reported on, the news tends to support the government. This also demonstrates Cottle's argument that there are different perspectives around the world that essentially creates a subjective objective and is a by-product of culture. In the end, it cannot be denied that quotes are essentially someone's opinion and the journalist has the power to set the tone of the article by choosing the quotes she or he supports. I would like to find more evidence supporting my statement- more 'authoritive' sources :).

This leads nicely into what Cottle calls agenda setting. As suggested above, the journalist could set the agenda thus choosing evidence that will support their arguments and beliefs. Nevertheless you have to question whether the employer of the journalist essentially sets the agenda by sending them out on stories? Or do the small group of media elites control what is seen and discussed? Or is it possible that public opinion sets the agenda- writing for what interests the public rather than public interest? All of these questions I would like to research more deeply.

Finally, a comparison of both the articles shows the positive energy of the decision within the BBC article. Another article in their bulletin titled "Torture ruling's international impact" suggests the slightest hint of self-praise whereas the NYT article is slightly sarcastic with more of a negative feeling protruding from the article in the focus that it should not affect the results of a case involving 10 terror suspects.
Read each one and let me know what you think!

Terrorism in the last few days has been largely set on the world arena, articles found in the World pages of the paper.

The 'trans-Atlantic' row is reported to be discontent over the actions of the United States CIA. Accused of rendition, 'the spiriting away of terrorist suspects to clandestine jails in foreign countries' (Suzanne Goldenberg, SMH, Wednesday December 7th), the article appeared in the Guardian and on the Yahoo news site. Europe disapproving with the use of their countries for such actions and the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, excusing them as necessary to meet the standards of today's terrorists/criminials.
What I found interesting was the continued use of the term 'terrorist suspects' implying that convincing evidence does not really exist and torturing the suspects was the most attractive method. This to me is like a form of terrorism begging to question who is really the terrorist on the world stage at the moment? An article on a website entitiling itself as 'Serendipity' asks the same question, vehmently protesting that the CIA is a terrorist organisation. It follows with many links questioning the same line of thought. I would like to look more into these in the next few weeks and further explore and challenge the definition of terrorist and whether the West can consider themselves as terrorists or involved in terrorist action.

Thus print media has showcased more of a report attempting to present a fair and balanced article free of opinions and just the facts. The great thing about media on the Internet is much is comment, public opinion that can be freely published and accessed by society, thus generally with out concern of retribution.

Therefore, it was important to see what the CIA broadcast on their homepage in view of terrorism. It was largely based on the need to defeat terrorism. I would like to look further into their FAQ's and related links to official agencies within the US government attempting to counter terrorism. Something I found interesting was the Counterterrorist Centre 'Terrorist Buster' Logo which seemed to have no relevance to much, and was not creative in the slightest. Take a look at it and see what you think.

The trans-Atlantic row is the most prominent media event on terrorism however with each day came suicide bombers which is a form of terrorism per se. The frequency of this appears to remove its impact and importance but I would like to take a deeper look. I would love to, if I could find, the perspective of citizens living in the Middle East under constant threat of war and terrorism as everyone seems to speak for them, but where is this voice? This will be a goal over the next few weeks, and probably a great avenue to explore.

An article posted by CNN only a few hours ago reports that barely four years following September 11 that America is not prepared for another terrorist attack despite the 9/11 commission report suggesting methods to better national security.

The article offers the opposing view that America is well prepared yet it is focused on the drama that if faced with another attack, the U.S. will be in much the same position as 9/11.

In contrast, Australian media does not seem so focused on terrorism and national security as the US appears. One of the most current results following a general search of 'terrorism' saw a story on a suspected deal between the Australian Federal Police and a suspected terrorist Saleh Jamal, currently serving a five-year sentence in Beirut. Ninemsn and the Sydney Morning Herald covered the story (seen on their websites) resulting in two extremely similar articles. Both based their stories on one done by The Australian and when reading through the article, Saleh Jamal is not directly sourced thus providing what is essentially an assumption. Furthermore, a quote provided by a NSW police spokesperson was used in both articles. No article appeared on the Daily Telegraph website.

There is a tantamount of information on the web covering and commenting on terrorism and national security. Through a browse of headlines on various Australian news websites it seems terror is largely reported through individual stories of deals, mistreatment and religious complication with those of Muslim faith facing accusing taunts based on their choice of religion. Nevertheless, the new terror laws set to be passed in Parliament tomorrow are receiving quite a bit of attention in the media, especially through its debate in the last couple of days. Hopefully we'll see more discussion and commentary in the media in the next few days and the effect of the laws if they are passed.

Finally, something prominent in local and internationally websites dedicated to national security are lists of confirmed terrorist prganisations. Examples include the Australian web page which is a government based website and one from the US which requires payment for further detail on each of the groups listed. I want to further explore the implications of posting these groups and whether people feel privacy issues are eligble here.

I hope you have a great day, afternoon, or weekend (whenever and if you ever read this) and any prelimnary thoughts on privacy issues in posting information on 'confirmed' terrorist groups would be great! Thanks heaps!