Week of April 20: Class Summary

In How We Missed the Story, Gutman hits on the same point as Moeller. One of the central issues in the wake of 9-11 is the U.S. government categorizing Osama bin Laden' s act simply as terrorism. Along with this label comes ignorant assumptions of a man and his organization being simply angry at the United States, so untilmately they decided to bomb a couple of buildings. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Bin Laden is the "charismatic public figure...of a movement...built upon shared political grievances" that is not as easily eradicated as the government sometimes conveys to the American public (Gutman 7). Being openly honest with the American pubilc at least in regard to the challenge of such a political movement may have been able to help a less than popular Bush administration as the public would have a better conception of the task at hand. I believe this enabled the media's constant critique of the administration to resonate more with the general public.

Questions of the Week

• Was overarching term terrorism used as a bit of a scare tactic? Why?
• How has television aided or hindered the distribution of the discourse promoted by the government?
  

Question Answered: Was the overarching term terrorism used as a bit of a scare tactic? Why?
Yes, to a certian extent. I believe the government in an effort to cover up its blunders in the past used the term terrorism to shift the focus away from their mistakes. Prior to 9/11, our government knew of a possibly looming attack, but chose not to act on it. Many American lives were lost and at that time many needed someone to focus their angry among other feelings. Granted, the attack was at the hands of others, our government could have chose a different course of action. With that said, that established the need for a target and without releasing an enormous amount of information, labeling the "enemy" as terrorist simply because of their actions was fitting and in the best interest of the government.

Week of March 16th: Class Summary

Moeller discusses the danger of defining terrorism in broad terms as the United States government has done. When using the all encompassing word "terrorist", she explains that it makes no distinction between what type of actor it may be. A terrorist in the general sense could be an individual, a group of individuals, an organization, a type of government, etc. The point is that this loosely defined term leaves a lot to the imagination. The government has so much power to change this discourse. I mean terrorist did not really become a household term until after September 11th especially with President Bush's proclamations of the United States' obligation and duty to combat the world's terrorism. But who exactly? This is where the broad definition becomes probalamatic. I am certain that the U.S. government was aware of who/what the threat was, but I would like to make the assumption that the overwhelming general public was left somewhat in the dark. We were given a stereotypic model of what terrorism looked liked with nothing to refute it. Any one/thing that fell into that category was subject to intense scrutinity. While clearly not the only reason, I believe this largely contributed to the American ignorance we suffered from. The government had and still has the power to narrow the definition of terrorism, but will they?

Questions of the Week

• What are the possible dangers of the government narrowly defining terrorism?
• Does the government have an obligation to narrowly define threats to the country?

Question Answered: Does the government have an obligation to narrowly define threats to the country?
To a certain extent, yes. The government is extremely powerful and influential among the predominant discourse. To that effect, it has somewhat of an obligation to the people to feed them the correct message. The incorrect stereotypes about the terrorism the United States sought to combat in the wake of 9-11 were fueled by vague and ambiguous definitions from that current administration. Conversely, sometimes issues of natinal security are at stake when such an issue is narrowly and acutely defined. I think it's a hairy subject, but I believe that the government owes it to its people to not perpetuate the ignorance that often characterizes us abroad.