Media Outlets Have a Problem with Enemy Propaganda, Not Violence
By Stephanie Hanlon-Nugent
*WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT*
This is an academic paper exploring American media depictions of violence with a focus on ISIS and the beheadings of journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff.
Islamic states and extremist groups have used beheadings as a form of punishment and crime deterrent for centuries. Now that people beyond the public square can view beheadings through social media, the practice has taken on new meaning and posed a dilemma for media outlets trying to balance the public’s right to know (or view) against the dissemination of violent propaganda. There are laws in the United States that restrict speech meant to incite violence or carry threats, but the First Amendment still protects hate speech, and the Internet transcends U.S. jurisdiction. The recent beheadings of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, as well as Herve Gourdel, a French man, and David Haines, an English man, have shocked the country and sparked a debate over what news outlets should air or publish and what social media networks should allow to be posted and shared.
Most American-based media organizations have attempted to limit the viewing of the beheadings in an effort to not aid the enemy and risk inciting further violence. Several Western countries have banded together to combat the Islamic State (ISIS), as those responsible for the beheadings; and the videos have played a part in sparking a war, yet many haven’t even seen them. Media critics, meanwhile, are measuring the public’s right to know against minimizing the spreading of the group’s messages, while others still are trying to figure out what the messages mean. Several media outlets have cited the violent nature of the videos and the potential of inciting further violence as reasons not to air; however, many of the same outlets still publish violent images featuring anti-ISIS propaganda from the U.S. and other violent imagery, which could potentially incite violence. In this paper, we will explore applicable laws, media ethics, freedom of speech on the Internet, self-censorship by many media outlets and contradictory airing of violent content.
The Power of Publicity
This video looks at how ISIS is leveraging media to their advantage:
Jihadits have been leveraging the power of the Internet since the 1990s as a way to mobilize and to share their messages (Curtis, 2012). Western governments have responded by using new media to target and even bait potential terrorists (Curtis). Today, about 90 percent of organized terrorist activity online takes place on social media and the networks have responded by banning such activity, but with minimal effect (Marcu & Balteanu 2014). Social media and digital media in general, offer opportunities for stateless groups to have power on a global scale by extending their reach (Myhryold, 2013).
“Technology contains no inherent moral directive — it empowers people, whatever their intent, good or evil. This has always been true: when bronze implements supplanted those made of stone, the ancient world got scythes and awls, but also swords and battle-axes. The novelty of people’s present situation is that modern technology can provide small groups of people with much greater lethality than ever before” (Myhryold, 2013).
Historically, beheadings have been used by governments and tribes as a means of punishment or intimidation and are still considered a legitimate tactic among many Islamic societies (Campbell, 2006). However, modern day beheadings have been undertaken by a criminal element intent on displaying the brutal acts to an often unprepared audience (Campbell). Contemporary use of beheadings have been used to obtain ransom payments, hamper foreign investment, discredit transitional states, recruit supporters and demonstrate strength (Lentini and Bakashmar, 2007). The videos could also be used to bolster support, possibly fear-induced, as they take control of territory in war-tattered countries like Iraq and Syria.
The Contradictions
Western media’s handling of the beheadings and wartime propaganda has been inconsistent compared to what is distributed by Western governments. Comparing the publicity of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse with the beheading of American citizen Nick Berg during the Iraq War — Ismail, Yousef and Berkowitz (2009) look at the American perception of these contradictory events and the sending of mixed messages. This paper addresses the important comparison of public perception and viewing of violence committed by Americans vs. committed by America’s enemies against Americans (Ismail, Yousef and Berkowitz).
This ABC newscast shows some of the images of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse:
Bakir (2009) examines the ethical implications of airing footage of Saddam Hussein’s execution and capture. Bakir argues that publicizing footage of his capture was a demonstration of power by Western forces, and in a sense, propaganda. Western media depicted his execution by airing footage of his body covered in a white shroud to demonstrate that justice had been served in a humane way (Bakir, 2009).
For example, this is how ABC covered Saddam Hussein’s capture:
And, this is how CNN covered his execution:
However, a security guard was able to film the actual execution and share it on the web, showing that in his last moments alive, Hussain condemned the Americans and called on Iraqis to revolt.
*WARNING: VERY GRAPHIC* This video shows the footage captured by the secutity guard with English subtitles:
Similarly, Chouliaraki (2008) examines the overall portrayal of violence and suffering on television, with varying degrees of focus depending on who the victim is. For instance, the idea that one American being killed is more newsworthy than many people from somewhere else being killed, means the audience has a subjective perception of the type of violence they wish to view. It has also been found that Western media’s portrayal of the Islamic world has historically fueled anti-Western sentiment (Rich, 2013).
“It is the dissemination of images from within the Western media rather than terrorist activities per se that can on occasions mobilize significant sections of popular opinion in the Islamic world against the West, as the recent derogatory film on Mohammed in the United States led to widespread riots against U.S. and Western consulates and embassies throughout the Middle East” (Rich, 2013).
The recent attack on the offices of the saterical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, called into question how Western media depicts Islam, as Brian Stelter discusses on CNN:
Ironically, while Islamic fundamentalists, such as ISIS, use media to depict violent acts, they condemn offensive depictions of the Islamic faith, such as with the Charlie Hebdo killings. A study by Hoffman, Shelton & Cleven (2013) showed that states without a free press are two times less likely to be targets of Islamic extremists than those with a free press.
Impact of Violence in Media
When it comes to American audiences, there is no clear relationship between viewing violent content and resulting violent behavior, looking at hours of broadcasts over four decades on prime time network news in which violent images were shown (Hestroni, 2007). A study by the Media Violence Commission (2012) concluded that while violence in media may cause some to act out violently, there isn’t enough evidence to support that it is a direct cause, so it can only be considered one, among many factors that leads to acts of violence. About one in four at-risk individuals has engaged in a copycat crime, however, other factors, such as personality traits, life experiences and environment play a role in determining someone’s susceptibility to copying a depicted crime (Surette, 2014). Other studies, however, have shown that the proliferation of hateful speech online can recruit others to commit acts of violence (Sacirbey, 2014). Ironically, however, this study (Sacirbey) was conducted by a Muslim advocacy group that proved this point by demonstrating that anti-Muslim sites lead to violence against Muslims. It could also be argued, however, that a large reason ISIS, and al Qaida before them, gained so much support to commit future violent acts, is a direct result of their media campaigns.
Goodman argued in 2006 that cyberspace was being used as a medium for terrorism, and he encouraged greater use of technology by Western governments to monitor terrorist activities. Goodman (2006) explains that terrorists use cyberspace to advance their goals and examines the best ways to deal with it. McNeal (2008) similarly makes the case that terrorist activity online needs to stop and he provides several solutions on how to infiltrate and shut down a jihadist website through a cyber embargo. Considering the U.S. government has control over a contract with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, it is possible for them to engage in cyber embargoes (Packard, 2013).
Hate speech proliferates particularly fast online because people can maintain anonymity and avoid personal accountability (Baumrin, 2011). Baumrin argues that hate speech that could incite violence should not be protected under the First Amendment, even though hate speech has traditionally been protected speech. In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled that, “speech does not qualify as unlawful incitement unless harm is intended, imminent, and likely to occur” (Packard, 2013). Speech that contains threats to harm others is also not protected under the First Amendment (Packard). Cohen (2014) details the common international standards of limiting hate speech, noting that most places limit hateful speech, but he ultimately concludes that the practice is not common enough to be considered a customary international law. So, while there may be more cases of American media’s coverage of Islam inciting violence, the coverage didn’t necessarily come with that intent or with direct threats, which would be allowable under U.S. law and protected by the First Amendment. Violent propaganda videos coming out of ISIS not only depict criminal acts but also direct threats and a stated intent to incite more violence. Those making the videos, however, do not fall under U.S. jurisdiction. It’s unclear if a news outlet would be challenged legally for airing the videos since the argument for significant public interest could be made, as the country is now going to war.
Hitler and the rise of the Nazis in Germany is the ultimate example of how powerful propaganda can be in promoting a massive political overhaul, justifying genocide and persecution, and invading neighboring countries (Welch, 2011). On the other hand, airing graphic or violent material is sometimes seen as the most ethical decision in that being a witness to an atrocity can make it real and inspire change. For instance, in this video, Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes explains the decision to air several minutes of footage showing a sarin gas attack in Syria:
Intent Behind Beheading Videos
Carr (2014) said the purpose of the beheading videos is to spread dread and horror, and to lure the West into a war it cannot win.
“The videos deliver in miniature the same chilling message as the footage of the towers falling 13 years ago: Everything has changed, no one is safe and the United States is impotent against true believers. It is a memo from a foe that has everything to gain by goading America into a fight in a faraway land where its enemies are legion. The tactic worked back then” (Carr, 2014).
Carr describes the videos by ISIS as “modern media artifacts being used to medieval ends” (Carr, 2014). He notes that in the video of Sotloff, ISIS chose not to portray the actual beheading, just the start of it and the bloody after effects, possibly to maximize its social media sharability.
“Video beheadings are a terrible death — murder and defilement in a public way — and YouTube becomes the pike on which the severed heads are displayed. The actual butchery of the act is minimized by strategic editing, which suggests that the video is not an attempt at leverage but a carefully produced infomercial about how gangster and merciless ISIS is. It is a kind of global invitation: Come for the jihad and stay for the killing” (Carr, 2014).
While ISIS and other Islamic fundamentalists have called for jihad and named a caliph as their leader, their goals are not solely religious. Sprusansky (2014) points out that in the beheading videos by ISIS, the suspects don’t talk much about religion, but instead focus on their moral outrage at the actions by Western nations invading and attacking Islamic countries. However, much of the media commentary has been focused on the religious aspect without much attention on the actions by Western nations that may have sparked outrage among the Islamic extremists. Former CIA Agent Michael Scheuer believes the main thing the extremists are after is freedom from Western occupation, and Western media distract with less-relevant issues like religion and terrorism (Scheuer, 2014).
“Think what you will of the Islamists and their brand of war-making, but they have been in the field fighting since the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and their movement has never been larger, more popular, more geographically dispersed, or as well-armed as it is today — 35 years later. Our political elite needs to get a grip on this reality. These men are not fighting for money, fame, or upcoming mid-term elections. They are fighting for their faith and for freedom and self-determination as they define it. And they believe Allah is smiling on their efforts, having allowed them to humiliate and defeat superpowers in Iraq and twice Afghanistan” (Scheuer, 2014).
In this video, Scheuer accuses the media of being either idiots or liars for not accurately reporting on the true motivations of Islamic extremists:
In contrast, however, the most recent beheadings of Ethopian Christians by ISIS, is believed to be motivated by religion, as reported by CNN:
Analysts believe ISIS’s goal in spreading propaganda messages is a combination of recruitment, revenge, freedom, as they state, and to lure the West into a battle that will drain its resources and make it more susceptible to attack. It’s hard for many to believe they just want to end occupation, as Scheuer (2014) claims, because their extreme actions only generate further occupation and war. Obama, in response to the beheadings, announced that he would be doubling forces for war against ISIS (Ackerman, McCarthy, 2014), and other countries continue to sign on to the effort (Sanger, 2014). The videos appear to have sparked at least one incident within the United States, where a man beheaded a coworker in Oklahoma (Daly, 2014). Other than this incident, it’s unclear if the publicity of the beheadings has increased overall support for ISIS, and in fact, it seems to have had the opposite effect as most Islamic nations have condemned the group and persuaded citizens to support their governments’ participation in the effort to defeat ISIS (Leung, Sandmeyer, 2014; Payne, 2014).
How the Media Handled the Videos
Western media, for the most part, are taking it upon themselves to quell circulation of the beheadings, but there is no shortage of coverage, and there are ways to find the videos online, although they are not readily available. If social media is the real weapon and the Islamic extremists are counting on the news of the beheadings to accomplish their goals, then is the media acting as a vessel for furthering their cause simply by reporting on it? Are they rightly reporting on events of global and national significance and exercising their right of freedom of the press and of speech? Or, are they not going far enough in informing the public by not airing the beheadings and airing fully the messages of the suspects so the public can understand their intentions?
This CNN report on the killing of journalist James Foley comes with a warning of graphic content, although it doesn’t show the video, just still images just before the beheading:
In this CNN report on the killing of journalist Steven Sotloff, the reporter explains that it is their policy not to spread ISIS propoganda by showing the full video:
Hoffman, Shelton & Cleven (2013) point out that those committing acts of terrorism predominately come from countries that don’t enjoy press freedom, and they are targeting countries that have media willing and free to cover their acts. States that restrict press freedom are two times less likely to be targets of terrorism than states with a free press (Hoffman, Shelton & Cleven, 2013).
“Government officials and analysts have long thought of terrorism as a form of violent communication. Early theorists refer to it as a form of propaganda and most histories of terrorism suggest that perpetrators are eager to exploit evolving communication technologies to influence audiences. It is no wonder, then, that freedom of the press is cited as one of the institutions that attracts transnational attacks” (Hoffman, Shelton & Cleven, 2013).
After the beheading of Foley went viral, Silicon Valley firms and social media outlets sought to block footage of the beheading of Sotloff (Associated Press, 2014), despite their freedom to air them. YouTube has a policy prohibiting content intended to incite violence, and it also terminates accounts by organizations designated as terrorist groups so as to not further their interests (Associated Press, 2014). Twitter not only sought to eradicate the videos’ presence on their site, but started disabling accounts of anyone who shared them (Elgot, 2014). Advocates of free speech, however, are disturbed by this practice because it leads to abuse and punitive actions that don’t address the core issues (Associated Press, 2014). YouTube maintains that beheadings are not an act of free speech (Bercovici, 2014).
“For a group like ISIS, a video showing the beheading of an American captive is a twisted sort of win-win: Either it succeeds in turning the world’s most powerful and admired tech firms into distribution partners for a message of violent extremism, or those firms clamp down on the content, betraying their stated commitment to the American principle of free speech” (Bercovici, 2014).
Sites like Twitter and YouTube are well within their right as private websites to censor content, particularly content that they deem as potentially inciting violence (Weinberger, 2014). Weinberger makes the point that as disseminators of news, which the public has come to rely on, Twitter has entered a realm where they experience ethical dilemmas that were traditionally reserved for journalists. Therefore, it would not be justified for Twitter to block content that is politically left or right leaning, but it is perhaps ethical to do so in the case of beheading videos, Weinberger argues.
The UK went so far as to issue a warning that people viewing the beheading of Foley could be placed under arrest (Elgot, 2014). Elgot explains that Western governments and some Western media organizations see viewing and sharing the videos as proliferating the propaganda of those who produced them and participated in the beheadings. Masnick (2014) argues that penalizing viewers of the videos is ridiculous and represents an abuse of power by the UK government and their anti-terrorism laws. Some would go even further and believe that simply focusing on the words “beheading” and “execution” in headlines perpetuates the message of fear from the extremists (Rupp, 2014). Not only are most Western media outlets choosing to not show the beheadings, but some are advocating for not being allowed to view or even talk about them.
In some cases, governments are requesting media organizations blackout the videos. Critics of media blackout requests say by not releasing information, the jihadists are given the power and control when unveiling the names of those being held hostage (Ruth, 2014). For instance, British officials have asked the media not to disclose how many British citizens are being held, saying more coverage will put them at greater risk (Ruth, 2014).
“The news media is widely and loudly condemned for covering terrorism in an effort to boost profits, a practice that is thought to benefit media firms and terrorists and work to the detriment of society. Our research suggests this argument makes the media out to be more important than it may be in practice. The idea that mass media attention provides terrorists the ‘oxygen they need to survive overlooks the way perpetrators can publicize attacks without the for-profit press’s help. Efforts to prevent terrorism by restricting what the media can publicize, therefore, are not only antithetical to the principals of free societies but also may be ineffective” (Hoffman, Shelton & Cleven, 2013).
And, even with social media sites aggresivly blocking the beheading videos, platforms like Facebook and Twitter remain hotbeds for extremist communication, as reported by CNN’s Brian Todd:
Each media outlet handled the beheading videos slightly different, but no mainstream U.S. outlet aired the videos in their entirety. Al Jazeera chose not to air the videos or images of the hostages in the orange jumpsuit, while the Boston Globe argued that there are times when it is necessary to “not only hear about evil but to actually see it” (Ruth, 2014). CNN chose to air still images just before the beheadings and the New York Post published a still image of the first cut going into Foley’s neck with the headline “Savages” (Brown, 2014). Julian Clarke, chief executive of News Corp Australia, defended the company’s tabloids for publishing images of Foley just before he was beheaded (Meade, 2014). “This is the most horrendous thing that is going on in our world and hiding the brutal reality of this from anybody I don’t think is in anybody’s interest,” Clarke is quoted in The Guardian saying (Meade, 2014). Alan Sunderland, head of editorial policy for ABC, said in the same article that, “…We must consider the need to avoid broadcasting gratuitous or excessively graphic details or becoming a mouthpiece for propaganda.” There are strong arguments both for and against depicting the executions. A Washington Times editorial criticized media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal and Reuters, who aired just the audio of what the executioners were saying, adding that airing the audio violated the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics (SPJ, 2014) by not minimizing harm and by pandering to lurid curiosity (Harper, 2014). Harper notes the relative success of YouTube and Twitter in trying to block terrorist activities on their sites, but says more still needs to be done to eliminate it completely (Harper, 2014).
“Although YouTube and Twitter cannot technically be called journalistic entities, these organizations also need to look at the ethical questions behind what they allow to be posted and work more diligently to enforce their own standards of abuse. Otherwise, the Islamic State will continue to use these executions and other depravities to recruit more followers and to win the propaganda war” (Harper, 2014).
In contrast, several media outlets seem perfectly willing to air a video produced by the State Department and broadcast through YouTube and other social media, which repurposes violent ISIS propaganda, packaged to display how brutal ISIS is. The video is very graphic, shows crucifixions, a mosque full of Muslims being blow up, a body being thrown off a cliff, people being shot in the head and severed heads next to a body (Labott, 2014). The video, “Welcome to the ‘Islamic State’ land,” was posted on YouTube as part of the State Department’s Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications in an effort to counter extreme messages on social media (Labott, 2014). Before YouTube allows you to see the video, it provides a content warning and asks you if you are sure you want to watch it. The video was reposted and written about by several media outlets, such as CNN (Labott, 2014), Buzzfeed (Kaczynski, 2014) and USA Today (DiBlasio, 2014).
*WARNING: VERY GRAPHIC* The State Department sponsored “Welcome to the ‘Islamic State’ land” video:
The New York Times does not air either beheading video nor the State Department video, but it does mention them and it does air non-violent video from ISIS, as well as its own video with clips from other ISIS videos (Stanley, 2014). The New York Times stops short of airing a full video featuring British journalist John Cantile, a captive of ISIS, and it cuts off right as he is about to go into the reasons ISIS is doing what it is doing (Stanley). The video does state through text that Cantile tries to persuade the United States into ending its occupation of Iraq (Stanley). It seems the New York Times is avoiding the airing of any propaganda, whether coming out of ISIS or out of the United States.
In this video, the New York Times attempts to explain the propaganda messages being used by ISIS:
It is possible that the media was responding more to public sentiment not wanting to see the videos or even political bias in favor of their own Western interests. It is also possible that journalists are particularly sensitive to Foley’s and Sotloff’s deaths because they are colleagues and Foley’s family made pleas to not air or share his beheading. It is also reasonable that media outlets have a vested interest in protecting their home country, and they don’t want to aid and abed the enemy. That possibility, however, raises serious ethical concerns over how the media covers its own country. If they go too far, journalists run the risk of neglecting wrongdoing by their own government, which also would violate the Society of Professional Journalist’s Code of Ethics (2014) and its tenant to be a watchdog over the government.
Ethical Considerations
It is important that journalists consider their role in informing the public, while also taking into account the impact of their coverage. Nellis & Savage (2012) found in their research that the public pays particular attention to terrorism-related news, and that this type of news raises the public’s fear of certain crimes. Journalists should recognize the conflicting interests of government officials, who want to control information and prevent the spread of fear, and journalists, who have a duty to inform the public, and media outlets, which profit from gaining more viewers. The Society of Professional Journalists’s Code of Ethics (SPJ, 2014) instructs journalists to “seek truth and report it” as their first tenant of ethical journalism. Under this category, they state to “be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable,” to “support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant,” and to “recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government” (SPJ, 2014). This would suggest that journalists need to focus more on getting all sides of the story of extremist violence, even those they find repugnant. However, the next tenant of the Code (SPJ), instructs to “minimize harm.” Under this tenant it asks that journalists “balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort,” and “recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.” Journalists should consider the motives of the government, as well as their own bias, which could influence their coverage of Islamic extremism and war (Park, Kang, Chung & Song, 2012). Journalists should also be consistent in their application of self regulation to prevent the possibility of bias coverage. For instance, if they do not want to post violent content, do not make exceptions for violent content coming from the U.S. government. If they do not want to spread propaganda from an organization they define as a terrorist group, then do not post any propaganda, including from their own government — since the same potential for manipulation is present.
Conclusion
It appears that Western media are less concerned with publicizing violence than with not spreading messages crafted by enemies of the West. This is justified to a certain extent, as journalists and media managers are citizens of a country and have a vested interest in not harming their home country, and because according to American laws, this type of speech is not necessarily protected under the First Amendment. But it is also important for media organizations to not become propaganda machines themselves. Sure, displaying a still image of an executioner with a knife ready to behead an American could further their cause, as could using the word beheading in a headline — but if that logic were applied to every news story, there would be no news about crime, violence or war. The public still has a right to know and even see images related to the beheading. I, as a journalist examining the issue, would like to have the videos available to watch as an educational tool and in order to fully grasp the situation. But as a media manager, I would think about my audience, their cultural expectations, and I would seek to minimize harm and not incite further violence. It is the job of journalists to objectively report on the news of the day, even while recognizing that no person is completely objective, and to cover their own government and other governments with a healthy dose of skepticism. This is easier said than done, particularly in times of war, but arguably even more important to ensure the rights and interests of the general population are protected, and so the people are fully informed on issues impacting their lives.
This work by Stephanie Hanlon-Nugent is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. See individual video and photo credits for attribution.
References
Associated Press (2014). Silicon Valley firms halted spread of Steven Sotloff beheading video. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/sep/04/youtube-halted-spread-steven-sotloff-video
Bakir, V. (2009). Tele-Technologies, Control, and Sousveillance: Saddam Hussein — De-Deification and the Beast. Popular Communication, 7(1), 7–16. doi:10.1080/15405700802584262.
Baumrin, J. (2011). Internet hate speech and the First Amendment revisited. Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal. Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/lnacui2api/api/version1/getDocCui?lni=55NJ-J6P0-00CT-S03Y&csi=152490&hl=t&hv=t&hnsd=f&hns=t&hgn=t&oc=00240&perma=true
Bercovici, J. (2014). YouTube’s policies are clear: beheading is not an act of free speech. Forbes.Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/09/03/youtubes-policies-are-clear-beheading-is-not-an-act-of-free-speech/
Brown, G. (2014). How should media cover American beheading. CNN Wire. Retrieved from http://wreg.com/2014/08/20/media-outlets-struggle-with-american-beheaded-coverage/
Campbell, L. J. (2006). The Use of Beheadings by Fundamentalist Islam. Global Crime. 7(3/4), 583–614. doi:10.1080/17440570601073384
Carr, D. (2014). With Videos of Killings, ISIS Sends Medieval Message by Modern Method. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/business/media/with-videos-of-killings-isis-hones-social-media-as-a-weapon.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumSmallMedia&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Chouliaraki, L. (2008). The symbolic power of transnational media: Managing the visibility of suffering. Global Media and Communication. 4: 329–351, doi:10.1177/1742766508096084. Retrieved from http://gmc.sagepub.com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/content/4/3/329#cited-by
CNN (2014). Patriotism vs. journalism in wartime. CNN. Retrieved from
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1409/28/rs.01.html
Cohen, R. (2014). Regulating hate speech: Nothing customary about it. Chicago Journal of International Law, 15(1), 229–255. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1545403796?accountid=3783
CURTIS AMBLE, J. (2012). COMBATING TERRORISM IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT. Current, (546), 3–10.
Daly, M. (2014). The Muslim convert behind America’s first workplace beheading. The Daily Beast. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/27/the-muslim-convert-behind-america-s-first-workplace-beheading.html
DiBlasio, N. (2014). State Dept. releases graphic anti-Islamic State video. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/06/is-isis-recruit-graphic-islamic-state/15193439/
Elgot, J. (2014). Watchers Get Arrest Warning from Met Police. Huffington Post UK. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/20/watch-james-foleys-beheading-online-and-you-could-get-arrested_n_5694871.html
Goodman, S. (2006). Cyberspace as a medium for terrorists. The Sam Nunn School of International Affairs and The College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332–0610 USA. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/science/article/pii/S004016250600148X
Harper, C. (2014). Media ethics in the gruesome age of the Islamic State. The Washington Times. Retrieved from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/3/harper-media-ethics-in-the-gruesome-age-of-the-isl/
Hetstroni, A. (2007) Four decades of violent content on prime-time network programing. Journal of Communication. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/store/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00367.x/asset/j.1460-2466.2007.00367.x.pdf?v=1&t=i0lsbbqu&s=e7afb97e2407a5827bf1f5a1b273c4440d96bd7b
Hoffman, A.; Shelton, C.; Cleven, E. (2013). Press freedom, publicity, and the cross-national Incidence of transnational terrorism. Political Research Quarterly. Retrieved from http://prq.sagepub.com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/content/66/4/896.full.pdf+html
Ismail, A., Yousef, M., & Berkowitz, D. (2009). ‘American’ in crisis: opinion discourses, the Iraq War and the politics of identity. Media, War & Conflict, 2(2), 149–170. doi:10.1177/1750635209104652
Kaczynski, A. (2014). State Department’s terrorist trolling team releases graphic anti-ISIS video. Buzzfeed. Retrieved from http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/state-departments-terrorist-trolling-team-releases-graphic-a
Labott, E. (2014). State Department releases ISIS video. CNN. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/05/world/state-department-anti-isis-video/
Lentini, P., & Bakashmar, M. (2007). Jihadist Beheading: A Convergence of Technology, Theology, and Teleology?. Studies In Conflict & Terrorism, 30(4), 303–325.
Leung, M; Sandmeyer, E. (2014). Muslim leaders have roundly denounced Islamic State. Media Matters. Retrieved from http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/08/21/muslim-leaders-have-roundly-denounced-islamic-s/200498
Marcu, M., & Balteanu, C. (2014). SOCIAL MEDIA-A REAL SOURCE OF PROLIFERATION OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM. Annales Universitatis Apulensis : Series Oeconomica, 16(1), 162–169. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1555353946?accountid=3783
Masnick, M. (2014). There’s a reasonable debate to be had about showing the James Foley beheading video. Tech Dirt. Retrieved from https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140820/12004128267/theres-reasonable-debate-to-be-had-about-showing-james-foley-beheading-video-claiming-its-illegal-to-watch-is-ridiculous.shtml
McNeal, G. S. (2008). CYBER EMBARGO: COUNTERING THE INTERNET JIHAD. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 39(3), 789–826. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/211056581?accountid=3783
Media Violence Commission. (2012). Aggressive Behavior, 38(5), 335–341.
doi:10.1002/ab.21443 Middleton, K; Lee, W. (2014). The law of public communication. Pearson Education. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey
Nellis, A.; Savage, J. (2012). Does watching the news affect fear of terrorism? The importance of Media exposure on terrorism fear. Crime and Delinquency. Retrieved from http://cad.sagepub.com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/content/58/5/748.full.pdf+html
Nimmo, K. (2014). Al Jazeera questions legitimacy of Foley and Sotloff beheading videos. Info Wars. Retrieved from http://www.infowars.com/aljazeera-questions-legitimacy-of-foley-and-sotloff-beheading-videos/
Packard, A. (2013). Digital Media Law. Wiley-Blackwell. West Sussex, UK.
Park, S., Kang, S., Chung, S., and Song, J. 2012. A computational framework for media bias mitigation. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 2, 2, Article 8 (June 2012), 32 pages. DOI = 10.1145/2209310.2209311 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2209310.2209311
Payne, S. (2014). What the 60-plus members of the anti-Islamic State coalition are doing. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/09/25/what-the-60-members-of-the-anti-islamic-state-coalition-are-doing/
Rich, P. B. (2013). Understanding Terror, Terrorism, and Their Representations in Media and Culture. Studies In Conflict & Terrorism, 36(3), 255–277.
Rupp, K. (2014). Giving Terrorists What They Want. U.S. News. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/keith-rupp/2014/09/26/islamic-state-terrorists-benefit-from-media-publicizing-beheadings
Ruth, S. (2014). Beheading videos: Freedom of the press vs media blackout requests. Communities Digital News. Retrieved from http://www.commdiginews.com/news-2/beheading-videos-freedom-of-the-press-vs-media-blackout-requests-24995/
Sacirbey, O. (2014). Report: Internet hate speech can lead to acts of violence. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/report-internet-hate-speech-can-lead-to-acts-of-violence/2014/05/06/9a9d9e60-d52c-11e3-8f7d-7786660fff7c_story.html
Sanger, D. (2014). U.S., defending Kurds in Syria, expands strikes against ISIS. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/world/middleeast/us-strikes-isis-in-syria-to-defend-kurds.html?action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article
Scheuer, M. (2014). America first and survival or an endless losing war with Islam? Non-Intervention. Retrieved from http://non-intervention.com/1315/america-first-and-survival-or-an-endless-losing-war-with-islam/
SPJ (2014). SPJ Code of Ethics. Society of Professional Journalists. Retrieved from http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Sprusansky, D. (2014). Understanding ISIS: Frequently Asked Questions. Washington Report On Middle East Affairs, 33(7), 19–20.
Surette, R. (2014). Estimating the prevalence of copycat crime: a research note. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Retrieved from http://cjp.sagepub.com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/content/25/6/703.full.pdf+html
Weinberger, D. (2014). Beheading video poses challenge for social media. CNN. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/21/opinion/weinberger-twitter-beheading/
Welch, D. (2011). Nazi Propaganda. BBC. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/nazi_propaganda_gallery.shtml
