This is screaming out enough is enough.

The neo-cons of the world like a scared population, takes their minds of the real issues and tends to make people more scared, selfish and angry and less likely to question the status quo. (Look at the whole Cronulla thing)

The problem with an awful lot of journalism now is that it seems to proceed from a theory that “we can do your job better than you”, whether it be politician, policeman, solider or whatever. Which means that journalists seem to believe that whoever’s tracking down the terrorists must be incompetent, therefore the public should be told everything so that we’re able to micromanage the entire investigatory process.

What needs to occur is a paradigm shift within the press, perhaps initiated at a governmental level.

I’m not saying to not report about the obviously two missing buildings, but the entire focus of reporting needs to change.

Instead of saying “the two towers were destroyed by Al Quaeda who are a terrorist organisation that were blah de blah”, saying such things as the lives of the lost ones will be remembered (insert naomi campbell pussy bum mouth pose here), or congratulate the rescue workers on their job well done rescuing survivors from within the wreckage, with a sub text of “which was the result of a terrorist attack”.

What I’m saying is that we don’t need or want to know that the press are investigating the terrorist organisations. By doing this, they are putting these organisations on a pedestal, and continuing the recruitment/continuation process.

For example, all the footage of cars being blown up in iraq. If one terrorist organisation filmed the incident, that is material for them to use in recruiting. Since the press got hold of it, EVERY terrorist organisation who has access to public media now have access to the footage.

That’s a little more along the lines of what I’ve been getting at…

Thinking about this for, oh, about thirty seconds, the two most obvious examples of terrorist activity in the last couple of years (September 11th and the London bombings) pretty clearly can’t have gone uncovered by the media. Lots and lots of people were effected – you can’t just say “well, you’re giving publicity to terrorists, shut up about it”. In particular, with September 11th, it’s unlikely people wouldn’t notice – “hey, wasn’t there a building around here”?

And you do need to know, for example, that a certain number of suicide bombings are still happening in Iraq – not down to who did it and what their life story was (and I’m unaware of any cases where the media’s gone into that level of extent), but enough to know that this is still a problem here.

Still, if you want to explicate further your “don’t publicise the terrorists” theory, here’s your chance. It’s possible I’m getting it wrong…

Terrorism isn’t so much about the bombings and the killings, its the fear that it may happen.

I think that extra security is a sensible thing, but the saying being alert and not alarmed is even more sensible.

Let’s just say it hasn’t changed my life one iota, except I have to take my boots off before boarding a plane, which is not to much of an inconvenience except to those around me, who drop dead at the slightest whiff of my socks….

The only reason they are successful is by virtue of our own press causing such hysteria, that a governmental response is warranted.

I say this in the complete knowledge that it’s just an idea, and would need further thought on the matter. I certainly wouldn’t want grieving families not allowed to post an obituary for their deceased relative who was killed by a terrorist for example.

I would however, not care if an obituary for a suicide bomber was not printed.