Matthew R. Bishop - World Report News - January 13th 2016
The Structure of Fear
This past December, CNN hosted a televised debate for Republican presidential candidates that focused heavily on the issue of Islamic terrorism. The hosts prodded the candidates on questions like how will keep us safe from terrorism, and what will you do about the Islamic State. The debate was held on the pretense that Islamic terrorism inside the United States is one of our most pressing national concerns. This is a pretense that has been built up over the years for self-serving interests mostly on the part of our country's politicians and mass media professionals. It is not the result of an honest or evidence-based assessment of the challenges this country faces.
Instead of investing in real solutions and having hard talks with America’s allies that would make significant advancements in combating foreign terrorism, and instead of giving the voters the simple quantitative evidence to show that we actually have far more important things to discuss than terrorism in the first place, politicians continuously orbit around terrorism and the Islamic State in particular- all for the purpose of scaring the electorate into voting for them. They dismiss the possibility of tackling more serious problems like gang violence or gun policies because talking about terrorism is easier, dramatically less controversial, and gets them more votes.
Instead of criticizing this state of affairs, media networks and journalists fan the flames of fear in order to get more clicks, longer view times, and higher advertising rates. While the theoretical duty of our media involves prioritizing the challenges this country faces and devoting coverage accordingly, in practice anything "Islamic" has a tendency to receive undue attention and be wildly exaggerated on the scale of threats. Sometimes this is intentional, for the career and organizational advancements of individuals and media companies. Often, however, it is a mindless, knee-jerk reaction to an illogical fear.
Instead of investing in real solutions and having hard talks with America’s allies that would make significant advancements in combating foreign terrorism, and instead of giving the voters the simple quantitative evidence to show that we actually have far more important things to discuss than terrorism in the first place, politicians continuously orbit around terrorism and the Islamic State in particular- all for the purpose of scaring the electorate into voting for them. They dismiss the possibility of tackling more serious problems like gang violence or gun policies because talking about terrorism is easier, dramatically less controversial, and gets them more votes.
Instead of criticizing this state of affairs, media networks and journalists fan the flames of fear in order to get more clicks, longer view times, and higher advertising rates. While the theoretical duty of our media involves prioritizing the challenges this country faces and devoting coverage accordingly, in practice anything "Islamic" has a tendency to receive undue attention and be wildly exaggerated on the scale of threats. Sometimes this is intentional, for the career and organizational advancements of individuals and media companies. Often, however, it is a mindless, knee-jerk reaction to an illogical fear.
War and Terrorism in Numbers
More people are killed as the result of gang-related violence every single day (on average) in the U.S. than were killed in all of 2015 by acts of Islamic terrorism inside our borders. The same has been true for every single year except for 2001. In fact, every year since 2001, more individuals inside these borders have been killed by pigs (actual pigs, the ones we get bacon from) than by terrorists. If we look at homicide more generally (excluding gang-related incidents) we see an even larger threat compared to which terrorism is not even a visible concern. In America, one school shooting occurs roughly every four school days during the school year. And yet while each of these concerns is factually more viable, "terrorism" is a more powerful word in our national dialogue. The specter of terrorism (and Islamist terrorism, specifically) elicits more fearful and dramatic responses, more powerful emotions, and, accordingly, is the basis for many over-reactive policies and practices.
Yes, terrorism is real. But even in the nations that do fall victim to terrorism, there are often far more serious problems to be addressed. Let's use Syria as an example. In Syria, almost 400,000 people have been killed by war- not by terrorism. Almost twelve million people have lost their homes because of war- not because of terrorism. So how is a news channel justified, or a politician, when they decide to take on the issue of terrorism in Syria instead of war?
Such a decision does not respect the reality that war victims must endure. Consider that in 2015, for every single civilian that the Islamic State killed, Assad's national forces killed ninety-six. That's a 96:1 murder ratio. The fact of it is that while Assad's forces bomb, shell, and massacre huge numbers of real civilians who actually do need our help, our politicians and media pundits are stuck talking about a small number of delusional jihadists living in the desert who dream of taking over the world.
Here in America, meanwhile, you are far more likely to be killed in your child's school than in a terrorist attack, and you are roughly one hundred times more likely to be killed in a gang fight. You are even more likely to be killed by your own livestock, and that accounts for the fact that not even 5% of the American population raise livestock in the first place.
So why do we keep hearing about terrorism, of all things? Fear sell. Fear gets peoples' attention, money, and confidence. The most dangerous thing about terrorism is the irrational sense of fear that it instills in the victim. Our nation still suffers under the ghost of 9/11. Today in our country that fear itself is a billion-dollar industry.
The Islamic State in particular has served as the recent embodiment of this fear, the manifestation of the enemy we all must be afraid of and against which we all must stand united. It's a message that sells. Journalists and politicians have fostered in the American people a widespread fear of this small, marginalized, and disorderly radical movement based in a rural stretch of desert half the world away. They have done this through wild and often purposeful exaggeration.
Throughout this process, each individual involved assures him or herself that the threat must be real. If it was being exaggerated on all sides, surely someone would be there to correct that exaggeration. In psychology, this mentality is called Diffusion of Responsibility, and it permits every individual to behave less responsibly in a group than he or she would alone. They do so because each assumes that someone will do the right and responsible thing, and that it doesn't all fall on their own shoulders to make the harder choice. But everyone assumes as much, so no one does anything about it. As a result the hype goes on and grows to take on a life of its own, until our country is filled to the brim with people who have been scared mad by their own politicians and reporters.
Part of it is personal. The Islamic State captures American journalists partially for publicity and partially as negotiating leverage. Their colleagues back in the States respond with outrage. It gets the Islamic State on television and helps them broadcast their message. In too many ways the Islamic State is using the American media for its own purposes, and the American media responds with overwhelming content coverage of the Islamic State. That doesn't change the reality for the civilian who suffers the daily terrors of war in Syria. That person is still ninety-six times more likely to be killed by his or her own government forces than by an Islamic State fighter.
And yet Americans across the board seem more concerned with and more fearful of the Islamic State. It was only last month when President Obama waved his hand and made a comment about how the Islamic State doesn't have the power to threaten the survival of the American nation. It was a dismissive answer to a ridiculous question. The Islamic State, after all, counts its fighters to be around 30,000, whereas the United States has the most advanced military system on earth. Still so many people have come to believe in the severity of the threat that his dismissive response prompted national outrage and days of ongoing coverage.
The real terror of terrorism is that it has primed us not only to respond to enemies as any sovereign would, but, in our madness, to conjure up entirely new ones. The Islamic State is only the latest manifestation of this need to find new enemies and be afraid of them. The greatest irony is that this drive to find new threats has itself created new threats and in doing so has endangered our security and our standing around the globe.
Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S. military, Iraq had never once in its history suffered one single suicide bombing attack. Since the U.S. invasion in October of that year, there have been at least 1,892 recorded cases of suicide bombings in Iraq. In Pakistan, there had only been one single suicide bombing in the fourteen years prior to 9/11. In the fourteen years since 9/11, Pakistan has witnessed 486 suicide attacks. Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Nigeria have each suffered between 85-165 suicide attacks in the fourteen-year period following 9/11.
These attacks are often conceived of by the assailants as a retaliation against American imperialism. Since 9/11 the perceived imprint of American imperialism has grown in the eyes of these organizations to the point where violence around the world is a real concern. Yet the actual targets of the attacks almost universally have nothing to do with the political aims of the terrorist group. The attack itself is a message the group sends to politicians, a message which warns that civilians are not safe, constituents not protected, unless the demands of the terrorist group are met. The fact of it is that even while these terrorist groups claim to be fighting against American imperialism, the people they're killing are their own countrymen, fellow Muslims who usually don't involve themselves with the deadly politics about which the terrorists are concerned. The threat is not in America. The threat is abroad, in the countries mentioned above, the countries that have witnessed terrible spikes in violence since 2001. The expansion of unfriendly U.S. policies and the history of American imperialism in these countries paved the way for terrorist organizations in these countries, but those organizations are not attacking Americans, regardless of what they say on TV. The truth is that they are killing their own neighbors and fellow countrymen.
So if our politicians and our media professionals want to have a real discussion about how to address terrorism, let them ask the real questions. Let them ask how to work with politicians in conflict-ridden nations who must balance international interests with a constituency that is as wide as it can get, the politician who actually has to answer both to the businessman who works daily with Americans and to the separatists, terrorists, and other extremists who believe American interests must be met with lethal force. Those politicians are in fragile situations. If we find ways for them to bridge the divides between the people they must answer to, then we can make progress against terrorism. We are not going to do it here in America, because that is not where terrorism is located. And breaking into hysteria about a small group of rebels who call themselves the Islamic State is not going to open up new solutions for the countries where terrorism is a real, life-threatening problem. These changes need to occur at the policy level, but far more importantly they need to happen in full view of the public, in our news, our TV, and among our politicians while they debate each other.
Yes, terrorism is real. But even in the nations that do fall victim to terrorism, there are often far more serious problems to be addressed. Let's use Syria as an example. In Syria, almost 400,000 people have been killed by war- not by terrorism. Almost twelve million people have lost their homes because of war- not because of terrorism. So how is a news channel justified, or a politician, when they decide to take on the issue of terrorism in Syria instead of war?
Such a decision does not respect the reality that war victims must endure. Consider that in 2015, for every single civilian that the Islamic State killed, Assad's national forces killed ninety-six. That's a 96:1 murder ratio. The fact of it is that while Assad's forces bomb, shell, and massacre huge numbers of real civilians who actually do need our help, our politicians and media pundits are stuck talking about a small number of delusional jihadists living in the desert who dream of taking over the world.
Here in America, meanwhile, you are far more likely to be killed in your child's school than in a terrorist attack, and you are roughly one hundred times more likely to be killed in a gang fight. You are even more likely to be killed by your own livestock, and that accounts for the fact that not even 5% of the American population raise livestock in the first place.
So why do we keep hearing about terrorism, of all things? Fear sell. Fear gets peoples' attention, money, and confidence. The most dangerous thing about terrorism is the irrational sense of fear that it instills in the victim. Our nation still suffers under the ghost of 9/11. Today in our country that fear itself is a billion-dollar industry.
The Islamic State in particular has served as the recent embodiment of this fear, the manifestation of the enemy we all must be afraid of and against which we all must stand united. It's a message that sells. Journalists and politicians have fostered in the American people a widespread fear of this small, marginalized, and disorderly radical movement based in a rural stretch of desert half the world away. They have done this through wild and often purposeful exaggeration.
Throughout this process, each individual involved assures him or herself that the threat must be real. If it was being exaggerated on all sides, surely someone would be there to correct that exaggeration. In psychology, this mentality is called Diffusion of Responsibility, and it permits every individual to behave less responsibly in a group than he or she would alone. They do so because each assumes that someone will do the right and responsible thing, and that it doesn't all fall on their own shoulders to make the harder choice. But everyone assumes as much, so no one does anything about it. As a result the hype goes on and grows to take on a life of its own, until our country is filled to the brim with people who have been scared mad by their own politicians and reporters.
Part of it is personal. The Islamic State captures American journalists partially for publicity and partially as negotiating leverage. Their colleagues back in the States respond with outrage. It gets the Islamic State on television and helps them broadcast their message. In too many ways the Islamic State is using the American media for its own purposes, and the American media responds with overwhelming content coverage of the Islamic State. That doesn't change the reality for the civilian who suffers the daily terrors of war in Syria. That person is still ninety-six times more likely to be killed by his or her own government forces than by an Islamic State fighter.
And yet Americans across the board seem more concerned with and more fearful of the Islamic State. It was only last month when President Obama waved his hand and made a comment about how the Islamic State doesn't have the power to threaten the survival of the American nation. It was a dismissive answer to a ridiculous question. The Islamic State, after all, counts its fighters to be around 30,000, whereas the United States has the most advanced military system on earth. Still so many people have come to believe in the severity of the threat that his dismissive response prompted national outrage and days of ongoing coverage.
The real terror of terrorism is that it has primed us not only to respond to enemies as any sovereign would, but, in our madness, to conjure up entirely new ones. The Islamic State is only the latest manifestation of this need to find new enemies and be afraid of them. The greatest irony is that this drive to find new threats has itself created new threats and in doing so has endangered our security and our standing around the globe.
Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S. military, Iraq had never once in its history suffered one single suicide bombing attack. Since the U.S. invasion in October of that year, there have been at least 1,892 recorded cases of suicide bombings in Iraq. In Pakistan, there had only been one single suicide bombing in the fourteen years prior to 9/11. In the fourteen years since 9/11, Pakistan has witnessed 486 suicide attacks. Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Nigeria have each suffered between 85-165 suicide attacks in the fourteen-year period following 9/11.
These attacks are often conceived of by the assailants as a retaliation against American imperialism. Since 9/11 the perceived imprint of American imperialism has grown in the eyes of these organizations to the point where violence around the world is a real concern. Yet the actual targets of the attacks almost universally have nothing to do with the political aims of the terrorist group. The attack itself is a message the group sends to politicians, a message which warns that civilians are not safe, constituents not protected, unless the demands of the terrorist group are met. The fact of it is that even while these terrorist groups claim to be fighting against American imperialism, the people they're killing are their own countrymen, fellow Muslims who usually don't involve themselves with the deadly politics about which the terrorists are concerned. The threat is not in America. The threat is abroad, in the countries mentioned above, the countries that have witnessed terrible spikes in violence since 2001. The expansion of unfriendly U.S. policies and the history of American imperialism in these countries paved the way for terrorist organizations in these countries, but those organizations are not attacking Americans, regardless of what they say on TV. The truth is that they are killing their own neighbors and fellow countrymen.
So if our politicians and our media professionals want to have a real discussion about how to address terrorism, let them ask the real questions. Let them ask how to work with politicians in conflict-ridden nations who must balance international interests with a constituency that is as wide as it can get, the politician who actually has to answer both to the businessman who works daily with Americans and to the separatists, terrorists, and other extremists who believe American interests must be met with lethal force. Those politicians are in fragile situations. If we find ways for them to bridge the divides between the people they must answer to, then we can make progress against terrorism. We are not going to do it here in America, because that is not where terrorism is located. And breaking into hysteria about a small group of rebels who call themselves the Islamic State is not going to open up new solutions for the countries where terrorism is a real, life-threatening problem. These changes need to occur at the policy level, but far more importantly they need to happen in full view of the public, in our news, our TV, and among our politicians while they debate each other.
The Changes We Can Make
U.S. military interventions in these and other countries have radicalized groups and individuals who previously did not identify themselves as enemies of the United States. The military and foreign policies of our country have contributed in major ways to the rapid destabilization of nation-states across the Middle East and the Maghreb. From Hussein to Gaddafi, the leaders we have toppled have left behind them chaos and war. It is beyond question that our foreign and military policies are in need of revision. But there are meaningful avenues of change outside of executive-level national government.
When CNN began covering the Islamic State, that coverage was marred with sensationalism. Analysts and reporters became glued to the subject. The public loved it- across all the political spectrum. Within weeks of when CNN began covering the Islamic State, their recruitment numbers doubled and then tripled quickly thereafter. Before being picked up by the mass media, this organization relied mostly on face-to-face recruitment and a series of low-profile jihadist Twitter accounts. Today, IS relies on CNN and FOX to broadcast its message globally through far more substantial means than the group itself can afford or provide.
It would be irresponsible for journalists to ignore violence, crime, and murder when it occurs. It is still more irresponsible for journalists to sensationalize those crimes to the point were the issue of terrorism dwarfs, against all evidence, more serious global and national security concerns.
Fear, not terrorism, has drained our national budget, skewed our priorities in Congress, damaged our alliances around the globe, and, worst of all, it has given rise to a misinformed bloc of Americans who, despite their lack of knowledge regarding world affairs, believe that they know enough to take vocal positions and advocate for violence on a massive, terrifying, and totally unwarranted global scale. It is the shared responsibility of politicians, media professionals, and engaged citizens to put things in perspective for the American people and bring down this scare.
When CNN began covering the Islamic State, that coverage was marred with sensationalism. Analysts and reporters became glued to the subject. The public loved it- across all the political spectrum. Within weeks of when CNN began covering the Islamic State, their recruitment numbers doubled and then tripled quickly thereafter. Before being picked up by the mass media, this organization relied mostly on face-to-face recruitment and a series of low-profile jihadist Twitter accounts. Today, IS relies on CNN and FOX to broadcast its message globally through far more substantial means than the group itself can afford or provide.
It would be irresponsible for journalists to ignore violence, crime, and murder when it occurs. It is still more irresponsible for journalists to sensationalize those crimes to the point were the issue of terrorism dwarfs, against all evidence, more serious global and national security concerns.
Fear, not terrorism, has drained our national budget, skewed our priorities in Congress, damaged our alliances around the globe, and, worst of all, it has given rise to a misinformed bloc of Americans who, despite their lack of knowledge regarding world affairs, believe that they know enough to take vocal positions and advocate for violence on a massive, terrifying, and totally unwarranted global scale. It is the shared responsibility of politicians, media professionals, and engaged citizens to put things in perspective for the American people and bring down this scare.
Refugees and Reality
Today Americans are in debate over whether to allow in ten thousand impoverished, homeless Syrian refugees who very obviously do not present a credible threat to American security. Such xenophobia is neither rational, nor logical, nor in line with American values, nor in line with legal immigration practices and American jurisprudence. In any other context it might be unimaginable that such a debate is even taking place. Only in this context of irrational paranoia can this hateful reaction against civilian refugees be explained. Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan together have taken in a total of four million refugees. The European Union has received another two million requests for resettlement. Canada has pledged to settle a minimum of fifty thousand in 2016. The United States, pledging to resettle the lowest number by far of any of these nations, is in an uproar over the matter. We are facing a catastrophe that has displaced twelve million people- for scale, that is the same as the number of individuals killed in the Holocaust. There is no solid moral ground on which this debate should even be taking place.
Of the twelve million people the civil war in Syria has displaced, approximately four million are refugees and eight million internally displaced persons (IDPs). From within these masses, one refugee participated in the Paris attacks, and zero participated in the attack in San Bernardino, California. That is all the correlation between recent attacks and the refugee crisis. One person out of approximately twelve million.
There are places in the world where being killed by a radical Islamic terrorist is a real, credible threat. America is not one of those places. Fear has been used in this country as an instrument for profits, for votes, and for the individual career goals of powerful people. It has polluted what would be an honest discussion involving real answers to real problems, to the point where we are not reacting to reality- we are only reacting to our own imaginary fears. Our Congress tried to block a measly ten thousand refugees- nevermind one or two million. It is the responsibility of every educated person to step forward and put an end to this irresponsible national behavior and to remind the American people of the facts. Gangs are more dangerous. Cars and planes are more dangerous. Roads are more dangerous. Your children's schools are more dangerous. Domesticated pigs are more dangerous! These, again, are not political opinions. They are simple, quantitative facts.
There is this imaginary correlation in the American mind between refugees and terrorists. It's a lie that stems from the misconception that terrorism is the gravest danger our nation and our world faces today. If by grave we mean the number of people killed, then factually terrorism is not one of the gravest dangers we face in this country or in this world. It is nowhere near one of the most serious global concerns. Terrorism accounts only for about one-fiftieth of one percent (0.02%) of all violent murders per year. For every five thousand people murdered, only one of those murders will be due to terrorism. (Compare these two sources for data: Deaths by Terrorism and Total Violent Deaths) To rewrite legislation or deny civilian refugees a home in this country because of hype and fear is irresponsible, inexcusable, and inconsiderate of the evidence we have.
Of the twelve million people the civil war in Syria has displaced, approximately four million are refugees and eight million internally displaced persons (IDPs). From within these masses, one refugee participated in the Paris attacks, and zero participated in the attack in San Bernardino, California. That is all the correlation between recent attacks and the refugee crisis. One person out of approximately twelve million.
There are places in the world where being killed by a radical Islamic terrorist is a real, credible threat. America is not one of those places. Fear has been used in this country as an instrument for profits, for votes, and for the individual career goals of powerful people. It has polluted what would be an honest discussion involving real answers to real problems, to the point where we are not reacting to reality- we are only reacting to our own imaginary fears. Our Congress tried to block a measly ten thousand refugees- nevermind one or two million. It is the responsibility of every educated person to step forward and put an end to this irresponsible national behavior and to remind the American people of the facts. Gangs are more dangerous. Cars and planes are more dangerous. Roads are more dangerous. Your children's schools are more dangerous. Domesticated pigs are more dangerous! These, again, are not political opinions. They are simple, quantitative facts.
There is this imaginary correlation in the American mind between refugees and terrorists. It's a lie that stems from the misconception that terrorism is the gravest danger our nation and our world faces today. If by grave we mean the number of people killed, then factually terrorism is not one of the gravest dangers we face in this country or in this world. It is nowhere near one of the most serious global concerns. Terrorism accounts only for about one-fiftieth of one percent (0.02%) of all violent murders per year. For every five thousand people murdered, only one of those murders will be due to terrorism. (Compare these two sources for data: Deaths by Terrorism and Total Violent Deaths) To rewrite legislation or deny civilian refugees a home in this country because of hype and fear is irresponsible, inexcusable, and inconsiderate of the evidence we have.