Examining the Impact of Media on Terrorism and Foreign Policy Shaping

This essay discusses the role of media in shaping foreign policy approaches in relation to terrorism. It examines how media coverage, particularly of terrorist activities, influences perceptions and decisions, often highlighting biases and selective reporting. The essay uses examples such as the portrayal of Muslims and the foreign policy of Donald Trump towards Islamic nations, the Iran nuclear deal, and the contrasting media treatment of human rights issues in Iran versus Saudi Arabia. It argues that media's selective portrayal of issues and demonization of certain nations can significantly impact foreign policy decisions, sometimes overlooking the actions of allies while focusing on adversaries. The essay concludes by emphasizing the need for critical analysis of media narratives to understand their influence on international relations and foreign policy.

Running head: MEDIA AND TERRORISM
MEDIA AND TERRORISM
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1MEDIA AND TERRORISM
Introduction
In the democratic world the role of media is of utmost importance given the role it plays
in the dissemination of information in a free and fair manner. The very basis of considering
freedom of press as the epitome of a democratic society is because of the fact that the media
plays a proactive role in upholding the principle of transparency. The concept of checks and
balance is no something which can exclusively considered as a phenomenon present and
applicable within the functioning of the arms of the government, the legislative, executive and
judiciary (Kellner, 2015). The system of checks and balances is also present in the societal level
and media is the agent that ensures the phenomenon is upheld in ensuring that the masses are
aware of the state of affairs and thereby make their political decisions. Thus it becomes clear that
the role of media is way more significant than just dissemination of the information of the
various events that happen in a social set up, it is to mobilize the masses and increase their level
of awareness as an enlightened mass is extremely important in ensuring the a healthy democratic
set up is maintained.
Not just the masses, the media also enables the governments to enable making of the
foreign policy decisions. The coverage of the details of the events in the international arena by
the journalists plays a great role in ensuring and influencing the policy approach that the
government of a particular nation shall take to safeguard its national interests in the context of
global sphere. Given the advantage of media that it has the logistical support to travel places and
gather information, they are considered as the most trusted source of information and the reliance
of the institutions on media is thus quite substantial (Nacos, 2016). This is to put briefly the role
media plays in today’s world, and its importance.

2MEDIA AND TERRORISM
For the present purpose the discussion shall be focusing upon the thesis statement that the
media plays a role in the act of terrorism in relation to the shaping of the foreign policy approach
of a particular nation. The intention is to testify the validity of the statement, in the discussion
thread in the following sections of this essay by means of providing examples and the opinions
of the scholars.
Arguments supporting the thesis statement
With regard to role of media in the coverage of the terrorist activities and terrorism, the
most common, rather the clichéd viewpoint that is prevalent in the international arena is that
media portrays the muslims in a negative manner and terrorism as emanating from Islam as the
reason why the several nations have adopted a foreign policy approach which is not conducive to
the muslims and the people of Islamic nations in general. In this regard the Foreign Policy of
Donald Trump towards certain Islamic nations is worthy of mentioning. President Trump has as
such not banned muslims from travelling in and out of the United States of America, however
her has mentioned of certain nations whose citizens he has banned from entering America. The
list of countries include most importantly, Iran and the other states include Iraq, Libya, Somalia,
Sudan, Syria, and Yemen who are terrorist nations supposedly. The decision has been highly
contested and has been considered as a grave fault committed by the President, and the role of
media has been quite proactive in propelling the decision (Fahmy, 2017).
Iran and USA has been at loggerheads with each other ever since the 1979 islamic
revolution in the former nation. The reason behind the revolution had been the inclination of
Shah Reza Pahlevi, the monarch of Iran towards the West. Influential Shia cleric Ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomenei had exploited the situation by taking advantage of the rhetoric of cultural
decay and the virtual erasure of Iranian and Islamic values and the replacement by Western

3MEDIA AND TERRORISM
values as the cause behind the downfall of the Persian race. When the revolution broke out, 300
Americans were taken as hostages by the Iranian students of the Tehran University. They were
released after being keot under captivity for over a year. That episode is still acting a catalytic
bone of contention between the USA and Iran, and the media in both the nations still paint each
other as villains. Even in the contemporary times, the tensions between Iran and the USA is still
intact as it used to be back in 1979 (Giroux, 2016). Iran currently has a more moderate President,
Hassan Rouhani who had extended a friendly gesture by initiating the nuclear deal with the
President of USA, Donald J. Trump, despite that the tensions have not yet eased between them.
The nuclear deal between the two countries have not yet been solved mainly because of the
aggressive foreign policy approach of USA towards Iran. The American media sources have
captured satellite images of Iranian nuclear power plants and that has been portrayed as a
potential threat to the world on the premise that if Iran is allowed to build up its own nuclear
facilities there is every possibility that the nation shall be producing nuclear weapons instead of
producing energy. The rhetoric that media used was that Iran being a nation which funds and
nurtures terrorists, the Hezbollah group through which Iran launches attacks in Israel from the
Southern part of Lebanon, hence if Iran is allowed to build nuclear facilities, then the interest of
several nations to safeguard their national interest. That was one of the reasons why the nuclear
deal came to a tragic end for Iran because of the media, barring aside the political inclination of
USA towards Iran ever since 1979 (Simons, 2016). The media houses have not just propelled the
US President’s decision to oppose the nuclear programme of Iran, but has also brainwashed
several other nation to join the bandwagon of opposing Iran at the same time. Relations between
Rouhani and Trump has turned cold because of the lack of success in the nuclear deal, and that
has led Iran to give up on the petro dollar and indulge in international dealings in Euro and look

4MEDIA AND TERRORISM
eastwards to countries like China and Japan for the purpose of trade and logistical and
infrastructural help. Iran might have warmed up with Europe however even Europe is extremely
skeptical about allowing Iran any leverage to make any progress with regard to the nuclear deal.
One of the reasons behind it is the media portrayal of Iran as a potential nation which has
linkages to terrorist organizations (Bruckberger, 2018).
Iran has also been accused of being one of the worst violators of human rights given the
way it treats the women folk of the nation and how the dissidents are cruelly suppressed by the
media. In this regard the partial highlighting of the facts resorted to by the media must be
highlighted in showing how media influences foreign policy decisions, in light of the events and
political scenario in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. There is no doubt that Iranian women are indeed
belonging to the underprivileged section given the fact that country is strictly religious and the
institutions are embedded in patriarchy and Islamic principles which renders the women as
second to men in many aspects. There are indeed quite a lot of restrictions on women, they are
supposed to wear hijab in public or else they shall be jailed, and legally the witness of a woman
is considered to be having half the worth of that of a man and various other drawbacks. Media
portrays these aspects at the cost of neglecting the fact that in the post revolutionary period more
women have taken to education than they did during the regime of Shah. Female literacy and the
percentage of women pursuing education in Iran is higher than most other countries in the
middle east. Women can cast vote and can also drive. These facts are not highlighted by the
media. United States have accused Iran of violating the principles of Human Rights and
illtreating the women of the country, however, the same applies for Saudi Arabia as well, the
country which is a long time ally of the United States of America. Gross violation of human
rights and gender inequality also prevails in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia but the media houses,

5MEDIA AND TERRORISM
especially the American media does not highlight that particular issue (Sultan, 2016). Saudi
Arabia has been accused of brutally suppressing dissidents and even several members of the Al
Saud royal family have been eliminated who have dared to speak up against the corrupt practices
within the royal circle itself. The current ruler of Saudi Arabia, King Mohammad Bin Salman
had come to power by deposing his cousin King Mohammad Bin Nayef, who was actually the
Crown Prince. On coming to power, King Mohammad had launched many programmes which
has liberalized the culture of the kingdom, like the introduction of movie theatres which were
banned until his kingship, and had also diversified the economy of the country by introducing
fiscal measures which marked a departure from the high level of dependency on oil in the nation.
However, the legacy of brutally suppressing dissidents has been rejuvenated under his regime.
Crown Prince Nayef has been put under house arrest in his palace at Jeddah and his bank
accounts have been frozen which treasures huge amounts of fortune. The death of Shia cleric
Nimr Al Nimr is also reflective of the way the Shia minorities are targeted as dissidents on false
premise in the Sunni majority kingdom. The assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi is
another example of how Saudi rulers eliminate dissidents and investigations on his murder at
Istanbul when he was on a diplomatic mission has been evaded very skilfully leaving his wife
clueless regarding whether he shall ever get justice or not. With regard to the situation of women
in Saudi Arabia, they have been given the right to vote in the year 2011 and the women have
been given the right to drive in the year 2018 however it has not yet been finalized and the
discussion on it are still under progress. With regard to the issue of male guardianship, Saudi
Arabia is still lagging behind in terms of gender equality. The women are also supposed to
observe hijab in public and for travelling abroad, for opening a bank account or for even driving
and buying a car, a woman needs the nod of approval from a male guardian (Jetter, 2017).

6MEDIA AND TERRORISM
Nuclear deal with Iran has been blocked by USA and other allies citing the reason that
Iran is a contributor to terrorism which is of course a fact as the Hezbollah terrorist organization
having bases in southern Lebanon is funded by Iran. However, Saudi Arabia is also a nation
which supports terrorism. The Wahabi ideology is funded and championed by Saudi Arabia and
is infiltrating into Europe especially in countries like Bosnia Herzegovina and has a strong
presence in Bangladesh as well. Mosques and madrasahs are built to spread the ideology.
Ironically, Saudi Arabia has USA as its ally, but the 9/11 attack has been planned in Saudi
Arabia itself. One of the largest buyers of weaponry from USA is Saudi Arabia and those
weapons have been used by the Kingdom to oust the Shia dominated Houthi government in
Yemen and thereby causing the already problem laden nation to go deeper in to the quagmire of
instability. The shia sunni conflict between Iran and Saudi had made Yemen its scapegoat
(Sultan, 2016). The basic point behind elaborating upon these double standards is to show how
selective portrayal of issues, demonizing a nation for a crime while covering up the same crime
committed by another nation by the media does exert a lot of influence in shaping the foreign
policy of a nation, and that is very evident in the way media colours the obvious and portrays it
to the masses thereby generating a brainwashing effect on the masses and also upon the
respective governments to decide upon their foreign policies. In this regard it ,must be said that
the media coverage of the hijab protest in Iran and the civilian protest against the government has
gained much currency and that has worked wonders in turning many other countries hostile to
Iran. However, the projection of the dissidents of the masses against the Saudi Kingdom has not
gained much currency and the focus has been on glorifying the modernization and liberalization
spree of the new Saudi King and covering up of the corrupt practices committed by it. Despite
being one of the countries having the lowest ranking in gender equality, Saudi Arabia has been

7MEDIA AND TERRORISM
made a member chairing a UN panel on women’s rights and issues. This is the irony and paradox
of selective media portrayal (Sultan, 2016).
Moving on to a very recent issue of Europe, it must be said that media does play upon the
fear and tries to orient the masses and the government to turn hysteric. France and Germany have
been at loggerheads with each other since generations and the recent issue of Germany building a
pipeline from Russia to generate a supply of mineral oil has been portrayed by the media as
growing interference or at least the propensity of it in the politics of Western Europe. France has
thus become skeptical of Germany and the energy purchasing deal of Frau Merkel. This once
again proves that media does have the power to influence the foreign policy decisions of the
governments. Russia by virtue of supporting Assad of Syria has already been portrayed as a
supporter of terror and that logic has been taken advantage of in this particular scenario of
Germany purchasing oil from Russia. While, France, Britain and USA supporting Assad in
waging war upon his own people had escaped the tag of being the champions of terrorism
(Galea, 2017).
Arguments rebutting the thesis
On the contrary it can be said that the agenda of the media is in most cases already fixed
by the respective governments of the nation of domicile of the media houses, hence to say that
media influences the decisions of the governments is somewhat mistaken. It is owing to the fact
that media is not free even in a democratic set up. Secondly, media cannot be accused of trying
to influence the foreign policy decision of a government as by showcasing terrorism and the
perpetrators media is portraying the obvious and if that influences the mindset of the people and
the government in changing their foreign policy decisions, the media cannot be blamed for it, as
they are doing their job by portraying the obvious (Shoshani & Slone, 2016).

8MEDIA AND TERRORISM
Conclusion
From the above thread of discussion it becomes clear that the media portrayal of
terrorism does play a vital role in shaping the foreign policy decisions of a nation. The media
does play its role by portraying the obvious but the obvious is portrayed so subtly with an agenda
motivated spirit that it is bound to change the decision of a government as it has been proven by
the means of the examples provided. The very fact that the media portrays content in a coloured
way by highlighting some aspects of terrorism and ignoring something else shows that media is a
potent force in shaping the foreign policy decisions of a government. Just portraying terrorism is
not enough, hence the media also uses other tactics to support the agenda of turning a nation into
a terrorist and thereby influencing the foreign policy decisions of other nations.

9MEDIA AND TERRORISM
References
Bruckberger, R. L. (2018). Images of terror: What we can and can't know about terrorism.
Routledge.
Fahmy, S. S. (2017). Media, Terrorism, and Society: Perspectives and Trends in the Digital Age.
Galea, S. (2017). Islamic terrorism in the age of social media: lone-offender terrorism (Master's
thesis, University of Malta).
Giroux, H. A. (2016). Beyond the spectacle of terrorism: Global uncertainty and the challenge
of the new media. Routledge.
Jetter, M. (2017). The effect of media attention on terrorism. Journal of Public Economics, 153,
32-48.
Kellner, D. (2015). Media spectacle and the crisis of democracy: Terrorism, war, and election
battles. Routledge.
Nacos, B. (2016). Mass-mediated terrorism: Mainstream and digital media in terrorism and
counterterrorism. Rowman & Littlefield.
Shoshani, A., & Slone, M. (2016). Through the looking glass: the role of ethnicity and affiliation
in responses to terrorism in the media. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 1911.
Simons, G. (2016). Mass media and modern warfare: reporting on the Russian war on terrorism.
Routledge.
Sultan, K. (2016). Linking Islam with Terrorism: A Review of the Media Framing since 9/11.
Global Media Journal: Pakistan Edition, 9(2).