By Abdullah Qureshi

Recently, it was reported in Khyber District, KPK, that a notable journalist, Mr. Khalil Jibran, was gunned down by armed men. This is not the first time that a journalist was attacked by extremists. In fact, journalists are routinely attacked across the world by various institutions. These institutions are not just unofficial terrorist organizations. Many of them are actual official, governmental bodies. However, to stay relevant to the incident at hand, terrorists targeting journalists is fairly common but paradoxical

Symbiosis

One common thing that both terrorism and journalism usually aim for is publicity for their cause. Journalism is a method of disseminating information to the masses. However, on the other hand, this information could portray extremists in bad frames. So, in essence, terrorism requires journalism to increase its influence. However, journalism has the power to reduce this influence as well.

This paradox is apparent in the relationship between terrorism and journalism. Nevertheless, there is symbiosis in this relationship as both professions can work together. This is usually observed in propaganda.

I would like to quote Peter C. Kratcoski here.

“If one of the elements of terrorism is the wish to obtain publicity for a cause and create propaganda, the media has obviously overreacted in responding to this desire”

Kratcoski (2001)

However, there are scholars who contest this claim. I would argue that this association is simply a product of the key features of terrorism and journalism.

So, if journalists and terrorists could theoretically live happily forever, why are journalists still targeted?

Professional Differences

Journalists are seldom completely independent. They have their biases and beliefs. Terrorists on the other hand, especially in the case of targeted killings, operate within the confines of a particular cause. Usually, this cause has religio-socio-political or environmental underpinnings. The organizations are usually very devoted to the cause. Thus, if they are represented badly, this often results in deadly reactions, as supported by some research (Lopez, 2016).

This point goes against the symbiosis hypothesis stated earlier. It exhibits the power that mass communication has on a population’s knowledge. This ironically poses a direct threat to the extremist whose cause is not supported by journalists.

Let us take a look at some more superficial reasons why terrorists kill journalists.

Publicity

Bad publicity is still publicity. It has many positives to offer. I do not argue that these positives are good in a moral sense. Rather, killing journalists is in itself an indication of some degree of influence. After all, newspapers are going to write about it. This would make the terrorist group appear even more threatening. Thus, if a terrorist organization enjoys the luxury of political influence, it gets away with murder.

One utility of social media is that information could be broadcasted at a very cheap cost. This is one of the reasons why many terrorist organizations are active on social media, whether it be the Islamic State, or the Taliban. So, killing a journalist is in itself a surety for publicity. When digital platforms, much like the one you are on, discuss the news of such a professional killing, people are bound to tune in.

Terror Terror!

Killing journalists produces an atmosphere where terrorism thrives in. If we take the case of Mr. Jibraan, he was a moderately influential figure. He had been the president of a press club for multiple years. So, having the resources to kill such a person generalizes the fear of people in the vicinity. If such an influential person can be shot to death, one could ask, “Who is safe?”

The immediate response of the authorities is often to increase vigilance. Such was the case in the aftermath of Mr. Jibraan’s death. The local police and administrative authorities launched a prompt campaign. This works against the motives of the terrorists. In fact, a strict response to such a killing could pose a major problem for terrorists.

However, one of the benefits of promoting terror is that the targeted community could fall into psychosocial disarray.

Psychological Terror

Terror has deep psychological consequences. Paranoia is one consequence which is particularly damaging. A community which has been struck by a terrorist attack could become suspicious of the people around them. They could become suspicious of the authorities.

This was observed in the recent Khyber incident. While there could be genuine qualms of poor governance in the area, undue suspicion could also be observed. It is reported that people blamed the terror attack on local authorities. It was also reported that many were deeply unsatisfied with the investigation into this killing.

Catastrophization is another psychological error that is relevant. While there are certainly grounds for fearing such an attack, people of the area might overblow the actual situation. For example, Mr. Jibraan’s demise cannot be considered a result of inflation. However, catastrophizing individuals might consider the general suffering of being underprivileged to be part of the terror attack.

Thus, many cognitive biases might prevail in such an environment. These biases have the potential to further polarize the community (Warner, 2013). Consequently, the effects of terror allow terrorists to carry out there activities more autonomously. If we factor in inefficiencies of the local authorities, such nefarious organizations would further deepen these psychological errors.

Conclusion

Terrorism and journalism share many common features. The most common feature, however, is publicity. But where ‘reporting’ parts ways with terrorism is the independence of the journalist. If journalists become independent, they are vulnerable. If their opponents are armed and the security of the country they live in is poor, their independence could easily cost them their lives. Such appears to be the case with Mr. Khalil Jibran’s murder.

References

• Kratcoski, P. C. (2001). Terrorist victimization: Prevention, control, and recovery. Studies in conflict and terrorism, 24(6), 467-473.
• Lopez, F. (2016). If Publicity is the Oxygen of Terrorism–Why Do Terrorists Kill Journalists?. Perspectives on terrorism, 10(1), 65-77.
• Warner, J. (2013). The politics of ‘catastrophization’. In Disaster, Conflict and Society in Crises (pp. 76-94). Routledge.