Terrorism is crossmedia

By Rogier Brussee on 18 August 2011

The shocking killing spree in Oslo is a stark reminder of the fact that violence is an extremely effective way to draw attention.  Some of the media attention is due to the sheer number of casualties (77). However, Breivik is not, or not only, a psychopath going on a killing spree to satisfy a deeply felt need for revenge. While he probably used a ``rationalization’’ of the killing, his main intention seems to have been promoting his political ideas on multiculturalism. A killing spree by someone who looked reasonably normal beforehand is already very unsettling. Finding that it was meant to further stir up an emotional issue like immigration, and the treatment of the (perceived) cultural and political elite of society, makes it even more unsettling. I think Breivik was fully aware of this and made it central to his planning, because I believe what he did was planning a cross medial marketing campaign using an event as a medium to attract attention. In a perverse sort of way, he did this very well as he is so far out of the ordinary that he will not be forgotten in years to come. Needless to say, that should not be taken as a recommendation of his methods. Instead I want to begin analyzing what makes us so vulnerable.

The reason to call a killing a crossmedial event, is that Breiviks main intention in the choice of his victims, and their number was to focus attention and to provoke a reaction of the media. He seemed to have been very much aware of the symbolic value of killing young people on a summer camp of the social democratic party and bombing the prime ministers office. He also only just failed to kill Gro Harlem Brundtland choosing her over Norways current prime minister because she is involved in the United Nations and internationally is one of Norways best known politician. I think he must even have been aware of the “literary value” of a cold blooded murder on a beautiful island cut off from the rest of the world: it is the kind of nightmare that is the subject of movies and, one that resonates with deeply rooted universal fears.

A second reason to call this a crossmedial event is that he spend most of his preparation time writing (and copy pasting) a 1500+ page manifesto and a video to expose his ideas. The document was not only written as a revolutionary blueprint for whoever would follow him, but was explicitly meant as an ideological underpinning for a violent revolutionary struggle for a “pure” Europe. He hoped for, and succeeded, to spread them through e-mail, social media and you tube, knowing full well that once spread on the internet it would be very hard to get rid of the document. He also knew very well that once news of his killing spree would come out, newspapers, TV programs and thousands of blogs would instantly start spreading his document and video. He could certainly have found some distribution for this document, on the right wing blogs and mailing lists that he frequented. However, besides the problem that that would have blown his cover as a relatively moderate anti-jihadist (even assuming it would not contain the preparations for this particular attack), to get the large scale attention that he sought, he would need to get through the filter of the mass media by means of an event that no news channel could ignore. Of course this is speculation, but apparently Breivik concluded that killing lots of people and sacrificing himself was the ``best’’ way of solving the problem of getting attention, and moreover that the result would justify the means. While very few will agree with this judgment, it is a pattern that is followed by terrorists around the world. Suicide bombing for example may arguably be “useful” from a military point of view  , but above all they are a very clear statement of determination and ruthlessness. A statement will get noticed. Even in medieval times, the Assasin  sect carried out their assasinations with as much public attention as possible.

The way the event is reported and the way his political agenda is reported also heavily influence each other. They actually strengthen each other, in a sick sense. The media attention quickly changed from human tragedy and suffering of the victims and their families to discussions on the moral responsibility of anti-Islam activists like Geert Wilders or Pamela Geller, and the heated tone of their activism. Wilders rightly denies direct responsibility for the killing, and asserted his right to continue the debate on Islam on his own terms. That Breivik shares a lot of the rhetoric with Wilders and lots of other other ``anti Jihadists” is rather clear though. While some have claimed that the killings have weakened his cause, by tainting his rhetoric.  I seriously doubt this.

First Breivik has given off a message that the populist, anti Islam, anti liberal movement is a force is a force to be reckoned with.  To their credit, almost all anti Islamists (or at least the once I stumbled on) seem to feel Breivik must be condemned.  Even though there is plenty of openly racist “white suppremism” to be found, on comments on websites like Gates of Vienna, the ones who think he is a hero  are on the fringe of western society. Whatever you think of him, it is still very hard not to be impressed by his cold bloodedness, methodical preparation.  Ruthless killing is the staple of movies , and television. People often admire the use of force even if they feel abhorred by the outcome, and that is an unspoken message that rubs off.

Second Breiviks violent actions paradoxically position Wilders  and other anti-Islamist activists  as relative moderates that choose to fight a political, non-violent struggle. This is something that Breivik foresaw, noting that Al Qaeda’s uncompromising terrorist stance, resulted in many Islamic parties which before 11/9 would have been considered fundamentalist or radical (or simply in the way of western interests and allied regimes) to be an acceptable partner, and it was an achievement he admired.

Third, Shocking events like a terrorist attack also force people to choose between us and them, “right or wrong, my country” style. This seemed to have worked for al Qaeda since many Muslims, who did not agree with Al Qaeda’s methods but agreed with their opposition to western values and western power, felt that they had to rally behind Islam when it came under pressure. You can see something similar at work on social media (especially in comments) . I believe that the core of anti-Jihadist activists will be more, not less determined after this attack that they are “right”.

Fourth and perhaps most important, I believe that one of the main drivers of the increasingly vigilant tone is the developments in the United States and to a lesser extend the UK.  The vitriolic, “bash the liberal” (the American version of multicultural Marxist/ “Multiculti thee drinkers”), xenophobic, “we will protect ourselves with arms” crowd is very much on the rise there. The tea party that is their respectable face is growing very rapidly, fuelled by a combination of very real existential fears, justified dissatisfaction with politics and deep concern over the future of the USA, but also the free publicity of Rubert Murdochs FoxNews, Glenn Beck and other self styled conservative media and last not least by lavish funding by shady billionaires like the Koch Brothers . Republican politicians are all paying lip service to the Tea Party or are in fact their figureheads.  In these circles, government in general and Obama’s presidency in particular  are discredited in the most aggressive of terms.  Weakening the state, opposing any form of taxation are their main goals, unsurprisingly very much benefitting the rich and powerful. Their battle cry is ``Conservative Christian Values’’ which includes fiscal conservatism (eternal spending cuts, constitutional balanced budget, and more tax cuts i.e. “late ze self maar besuinige” ) , strong defense , abolishing abortion and last not least opposition to Islam, the “liberal/marxist elite” and the “mainstream/marxist media”.  While the latter is extremely useful measure to discredit any doubt on the wisdom of further tax cuts as a ploy by Marxists and mainstream media,  Islam, and the “vile mainstream media” are above all an emotional issue that resonates strongly with a self-image of defenders of the conservative Christian values in the battle between good and evil. Vilifying their opponents as totally evil is the expected social norm. The potent combination of dissatisfaction, fear for the future and daily doses of hysteria, disinformation and apocalyptic visions  of the end of times  may well start to cook over when economic hardship starts really biting after an economic or political collapse (hardly unthinkable these days).

The mechanism of media influence is a double edged sword. This is a lesson that the 20th century has already   amply  taught us. Marketing techniques have long been used in politics. It would be extremely naïve to think that the changed media landscape of the 21st century has changed that. On the contrary, new media allow many more people to get their ideas in the open, but as I argue above, the struggle to get world or nationwide attention has only become even fiercer because there are more competitors.  Being able to set up media channels, which only need people’s attention being drawn in their direction, is a bonus on radicalization, and extreme rhetoric. In the age of comment, the most radical and vocal will be also be the ones that publicly react loudest which further increases exposure. Radical views and extreme rhetoric   is likely to be talked about. Easy access to media channels obviates the need for being talked with. Constituencies can be reached with their own media. It is a buildin feedback loop towards anger, ideological trenches  and rudeness. The tide favors the angry man. Rudeness has become official policy.  

tagged with: terrorism, breivik, crossmedia, politics, politicians, wilders

Comments