Parliament House car bomb security paranoia reaches fever pitch.

There’s linkages between this and the current stuff I’m reading that says TT and the media beat the Sydney Riot drum to make it bigger than it should have been, mostly by putting up the text message saying where to be and when.

This is screaming out enough is enough.

Hey Slinky – sorry, I think I was unclear, the “terror menace” is what I think is hooey, I think you’re spot on.

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)

Hm, that sounds close to my “media don’t need to get quite so excited about crime reporting” arguement from a few weeks ago.

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.

As I said, it was an idea.

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…

Problem being, though, that it’s remarkably difficult to keep things secret in the way that Maelinar seems to be suggesting.

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…

Not just the onituaries Mael, but every time some yahoo with a balaclava and an AK makes a statement about how scary they are, it’s on every TV station around the world within fifteen minutes. Govern this and you will control the primary contributor towards the spread of hysteria.

bonfire – I beg to disagree. Watch the video link and check other on-line news sources…

I think some self control of the press might already help…Although I suppose I’m dreaming especially thinking about the News Ltd. dudes.

Personally I think they’d stop pretty soon after the government slapped a restriction on the media to not report on terrorists the way they do.

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.

Colsim? So you think that Canberra is a prime terrorist target and you might die any day? Well, I don’t, but that’s exactly what the little eyebrowed tosser wants to tell us. In my opinion the terrorists have won, by injecting so much fear into society that we give up our civil liberties, which is the best thing about a western democracy.
It’s time to look at the threat more realistically: You are so much more likely to be involved in a fatal car accident or develop cancer. Yes, we should investigate and arrest these killers, but don’t give them more credit than they deserve… My 5 cent…