Keeping terrorism in perspective

[rscott]

Mr Whippy said:

Just don't go where Richard Gutjahr is, and I think you might be ok?

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/07/22/nice-munic...

Wow - that's a fun universe to visit? Apparently the Turkish parliament was nuked in the recent coup attempt!

[Hoofy]

Disastrous said:

Fair enough. If you say it's not fear of being blown up that would keep you away from crowds I can't dispute that. But whatever the reason, moderating my behaviour because of a terrorist won't be happening.

My understanding of risk assessments is that they plot likelihood of the incident against the consequences should the incident happen?

So a terror attack will have a high consequence but a massively low likelihood of actually happening to you, wouldn't it?

From distant memory, that really ought to put it in the 'acceptable risk' category, if you're being logical about it. I'm sure you wouldn't mitigate against the likelihood of a meteor strike, would you?

I don't care how others judge risk. It's how I judge the risk. I won't jump out of a plane as there's a chance the parachute won't open. I won't freeclimb a cliff face as there isn't a backup plan.

I can't do anything about a meteor strike so let's try not to go for extremes.

[BlackLabel]

Thought I'd post in here instead of starting a new thread but in light of last weeks attack does anyone else think the media coverage was completely over-the-top and bordered on hysteria? And does this actually play into the hand of the terrorists?

Simon Jenkins made some interesting points on newsnight the other day.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tqs4h4xVRoY

And again writing in the Guardian.

Media hype about the Westminster attack will only encourage others

article said:

The actions of the authorities and the media in response to Wednesday have ramped up the hysteria of terror. This was ostensibly a random act by a lone player without access even to a gun. To over-publicise and exaggerate such crimes is to be an accomplice after the act. London’s response to the Westminster attack is an open invitation to every crazed malcontent to try it again.

Over in America they are having a similar debate about the media coverage perpetrators of mass shootings receive and whether or not this fuels other shooters.

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/med...

[Blaster72]

BlackLabel said:

Thought I'd post in here instead of starting a new thread but in light of last weeks attack does anyone else think the media coverage was completely over-the-top and bordered on hysteria? And does this actually play into the hand of the terrorists?

Nope, for a change it was good factual reporting on the most part with a good dose of keeping things calm and in perspective.

After all, a complete loon had just murdered 4 people and put 30 in hospital with his car and an attack on one of the most high profile landmarks in our capital city.

The fact that a small scale attack like this by one lone nutter gets so much media attention is a great thing. I'd hate to live in a city where things like this are so common that they're barely even reported any more.

[jamoor]

Blaster72 said:

Nope, for a change it was good factual reporting on the most part with a good dose of keeping things calm and in perspective.

After all, a complete loon had just murdered 4 people and put 30 in hospital with his car and an attack on one of the most high profile landmarks in our capital city.

The fact that a small scale attack like this by one lone nutter gets so much media attention is a great thing. I'd hate to live in a city where things like this are so common that they're barely even reported any more.

Well there was the one in islington that barely made the news.

[AJL308]

BlackLabel said:

Over in America they are having a similar debate about the media coverage perpetrators of mass shootings receive and whether or not this fuels other shooters.

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/med...

I've been convinced that it does and have been for ages. Mass shootings used to be almost unheard of events, now they aren't. So, either purely coincidentally lots of nutters independently decide to perpetrate mass shootings or.....they see them om the telly and in the papers and are inspired by them. Which is the more likely explanation?

[Frik]

The day after the attack the first 8 articles on the BBC News app were about this attack. Yes, the media went over the top.

[Cold]

Frik said:

The day after the attack the first 8 articles on the BBC News app were about this attack. Yes, the media went over the top.

Maybe, but a lot of the reports were about individual acts of helping those who were hurt. So in that respect the media was a good method of spreading positive propaganda.

[sealtt]

The flip side is that if the media reaction was proportionate - i.e. it had been only a small media reaction to this incident involving 4 deaths - then that would mean terrorists would have to carry out large scale attacks to gain the large scale media coverage that is required for terrorism to work.

In other words, the terrorists achieve their goals of spreading terror with relatively little loss of life. However, if the media were to react proportionately, then there would need to be much greater loss of life for the terrorists to achieve their goals of spreading terror.

We have long known humans are not at all good as intuitive statisticians - as Amos Tversky & Danny Kahneman wrote about extensively - and can be highly manipulated by media coverage, the public perception of risk posed by terrorism in western countries highlights that very clearly, but it's always been the case and is nothing new.

[SKP555]

Mixed feelings on that.

I can see the point of denying them the 'achievement' of getting huge coverage for their atrocities but I don't think we should accept it as normal or be in denial about how awful it is.

And if there was any official attempt to downplay or suppress the reporting of terror attacks I for one would have a field day seeing conspiracy theories and officials capitulation to jihadist.

[Blaster72]

jamoor said:

Blaster72 said:

Nope, for a change it was good factual reporting on the most part with a good dose of keeping things calm and in perspective.

After all, a complete loon had just murdered 4 people and put 30 in hospital with his car and an attack on one of the most high profile landmarks in our capital city.

The fact that a small scale attack like this by one lone nutter gets so much media attention is a great thing. I'd hate to live in a city where things like this are so common that they're barely even reported any more.

Well there was the one in islington that barely made the news.

If you're talking about the scrotes involved in a hit and run then it's clearly not the same is it?

[audidoody]

Trabi601 said:

AJL308 said:

You have evidence for that, one assumes?

Even if it's true, which probably isn't, it's completely irrelevant, regardless of how tiny the risk might be. Putting on clothes is an essential activity. Running the risk of getting blown up by a religionist is not.

6000 people ended up in A&E after a trouser related incident in the year stats were taken.

There's a 1 in 30 million chance a trouser incident will kill you.

There's a 0 in 65 million chance of being killed by a terrorist in the UK this year.

It's not about being killed by random accidents, being knocked down by a bus, Acts Of God, disease etc, or even being the unfortunate victim of a drive-by shooting or bank robbery.

It's about being killed by random psychos whose sole and only aim is to randomly inflict violent death on unsuspecting members of the public in a random way.

[4x4Tyke]

Why sensationalized terrorism coverage makes us overreact to risk.

https://www.schneier.com/news/archives/2017/03/thi...

[sealtt]

4x4Tyke said:

Why sensationalized terrorism coverage makes us overreact to risk.

https://www.schneier.com/news/archives/2017/03/thi...

This is a long observed issue, if you are interested in such things and haven't already you should surely read (or listen to) Thinking, fast and slow by Danny Kahneman as it covers a great deal about this and Danny and his colleagues were the pioneers behind the understanding of such matters.