Kenneth Bigley and Censorship

Firstly I, as I'm sure do all members of ATS, would like to extend my deepest sympathy and condolences to the family.

The length of time Kenneth Bigley was kept alive was obviously only as long as it served the kidnappers. Along with perhaps as been suggested this time being given for the UK government to capitulate to the demands of the terrorists, I think it a distinct possibility that this saga was prolonged because of the massive level of media coverage.

I am sure this was considered and the kidnappers were well aware of the world wide reporting of the situation and that this is why it became so drawn out.

Here is my question; If this was the case then would a press blackout of any further such occurances be justified to negate the terrorists opportunity for such publicity? It may well shorten the lives of those unfortunate enough to find themselves in such a situation, but by removing that side of any further hostage taking would this lower the propagand value of any further kidnappings and in doing so hopefully help in preventing the likes of this again?

I'm afraid I cannot post my opinion just yet as I haven't decided, which is why I would value the thoughts and opinions of the ATS members. On the one hand I can see the argument for such a blackout, yet on the other I am loath to support censorship.

Jack

It's not censorship if we don't want to see it. I think most Americans, as well as myself, don't want to view all the graphic details of a beheading.

I do believe that it not being smeared all over the place would give the terrorists less to work with. They are trying to pressure the world into giving in to their demands. An age old tactic. The less its reported on, the less pressure, giving their efforts less of a chance of working.

By no means do I think it not news worthy and each life lost to these wastes of air deserves the utmost respect and honor, but it doesn't have to be on every station for all the morbid loving people to feed on.

Just my opinion.

Giving the terrorists publicity in this fashion is working in favour of the respective Countries which are now occupying Iraq. When this type of scenario is shown on the major networks in Western-type Countries, it helps to generate the support in the poeple's minds, get the people more angry, etc. Think of the Nick Berg scenario. This is why it is glorified in the Western media. It is the agenda to generate the support for further occupation of Iraq.

It keeps the agenda going.

Being that i live in America, i can tell you that the Nick Berg beheading was by no means "glorified". It makes people angry because you see a bunch of hooded pansies lopping off a tied-up mans' head. Some things pull on the heart strings associated with humanity, you know.

That is true Immortal, it does infuriate people, but I don't think it's advancing the agenda too much for the coalition. I think it's hurting them more than helping them.

Too many people don't see the danger in giving in to the terrorists.

Originally posted by IMMORTAL
Giving the terrorists publicity in this fashion is working in favour of the respective Countries which are now occupying Iraq. When this type of scenario is shown on the major networks in Western-type Countries, it helps to generate the support in the poeple's minds, get the people more angry, etc. Think of the Nick Berg scenario. This is why it is glorified in the Western media. It is the agenda to generate the support for further occupation of Iraq.

It keeps the agenda going.

Exactly - It keeps the agenda going, we must not forget why we are there......because a guy ( Saddam ) thought he could subject his people to massive pain and misery and also in the process murder hundreds and thousands of innocent people!! This is why we are there!!!

I hope that as many people will see the clips of these guys being beheaded ( if you havent then do it !!), it will remind you why we must never deal with these murderers. Our goverments are right in this case.

However, doing nothing is wrong. What would be wrong with saying that the military WILL destroy key areas where we think they are......If these killers are fighting the common good of Iraq then they will give them selves up to stop a town being destroyed. I am sure that thier own countrymen know where they are...GIVE THEM UP NOW !!!!

As usual it is the French and the Italians that are suspected of giving in to the terrorists to get their hostages free....... are they right??? Are we wrong ??? Their people are free and now Ken is dead.

The only way to deal with the terrorists is by hard tactics.... hit them back and kill their morale

I just heard the news and i'm absolutely gutted. Cant believe they kept that poor bast*** going for so long, and his family as well.

Originally posted by Snoopdopey
I just heard the news and i'm absolutely gutted. Cant believe they kept that poor bast*** going for so long, and his family as well.

Me too, just goes to show, never trust the people like this. Our thoughts go out to Kens memory and his family

Some one said it works against the groups who do this. I agree. But, I'm not sure they understand that just yet. And perspective goes a long way in things. They may just see that their 15 minutes of violent glory is getting out and they get to read their grievances and sob stories to the masses.

I am reminded of Terry Anderson and his 6 years of captivity. Although the outcome was ultimately positive in his case, I also think there are similiarities.

He was held the longest in part due to the efforts of his sister. She kept him in the news and his memory alive. His captors played on her campaign and used it to their full advantage. I remember something Anderson said of his captors - that they were going to make his sister an honorary member of Hamas(?).

Bigley's family had undertaken extraordinary efforts to secure his release. From what I've read even Khadaffi asked for it. It appears to me that Bigley's captors only delayed his execution and had no intention of ever letting him go. Once his usefullness had been diminished they killed him. The cruelty inflicted on this man's family in giving them hope just breaks my heart.

I like the point you make Valhall.

It would appear that any publicity gained from such a scenario would only serve to anger the countrymen of the hostage and all right minded people. Apart from keeping the subject high in the media's attention, I can't see that it actually gains the kidnappers anything positive at all.

Indeed, if anyone were to benefit from such publicity then it would seem that it would be those who were focus the kidnappers anger through public sympathy that would and has been generated.

As Valhall said, those who commit such acts do not seemed to grasp that rather than gain support all that is achieved is to alienate people from their cause, and I believe that the media coverage of this situation did play a part in aiding the kidnappers when deciding how long to extend this incident.

Still then, would the censorship of these happenings deter groups such as this from further similar actions? Much as the thought of censorship concerns me it would appear that it might well have that effect. In which case then why has, or is, there no such blackout at present at least untill the individual situations come to an end?

Undoubtedly the governments understand this situation better than us, must understand that such actions are only going to harden the hearts and minds of many against those who commit such acts. Perhaps this then is the reason no such blackout is fourthcoming. I find it hard to believe that the cause of any decision on the governments behalf here would be, as it is in my case, concern over censorship and freedom of the press. If this is the case though and a blackout would lose, at least in part, some of it's attraction thus lowering the risk or at least the frequence of further loss of life in this manner isn't the governements present stance wrong?

I would like to state again that I am still not certain of my position as regards this subject at present, and am especially concerned over the idea of governmental press censorship.

Jack

The one possible good that could come from keeping the media reporting on these people is the possibility that we may catch the group.The reason for extending time is to allow possible channels of communication to open and possible lead to id the location of the groups.In ken`s case i doubt any negotioation would have been serious rather a plan id location and rescue him.The only time this could end is when the people are caught.Hopefully something will happen soon,as you can bet these will not be the last hostages to go through this.One day someone will raise there head above the wall.

Originally posted by IMMORTAL
Giving the terrorists publicity in this fashion is working in favour of the respective Countries which are now occupying Iraq. When this type of scenario is shown on the major networks in Western-type Countries, it helps to generate the support in the poeple's minds, get the people more angry, etc. Think of the Nick Berg scenario. This is why it is glorified in the Western media. It is the agenda to generate the support for further occupation of Iraq.

It keeps the agenda going.

So, is this part of manipulative propaganda?

Personally I doubt if the group who are using these "terror" tactics would take account of what their actions may result in, especially their leader who is believed to be the one to actually carry out the killings abdwho, according to news reports, is considered nothing more than a "thug" by a lot of his countrymen in Jordan. I see him as politically inept; a psychopathic killer who sees himself, or would like to see himself as a "somebody" up there with Bin Laden. I see him as a "loner" with little meat between his ears who surrounds himself with equally psyhcotic sycophants, and who is perhaps considered a pariah by the vast majority of decent, law abiding Moslems. And with respect to his association with Al Quiada, I believe that in the grand plan, and it is reckoned Al Quaida in general and Bin Laden in particular, have a "Grand Plan", I would say that he is tolerated. Not supported, not encouraged, not respected - just tolerated because it suits. I am not in favour of any form of censorship; there are some who would say that seeing the horrors or war and terrorist violence hardens oneself to the extent that such things no longer shock, but if the public at large is kept ignorant, then there can be no real understanding or appreciation of just how horrific violence is. I harken back to the news footage during the Vietnam war. We watched as US B52 bombers dropped tons of explosives, we saw it from a distance and perhaps never really appreciated that hundreds might have been killed or maimed. But the during the Tet offensive, the whole world saw a captured Vietcong being shot in the head from close range. I'll bet it was a shock to the system of a helluva lot of people - watching something like that up close. I know it was a shock to me. My insides were churning for days afterwards.

It wasn't about the coverage or publicity of their action. They never mentioned it nor relied on it, if so they would've relied on the media to bypass their motivations/demands. Instead they relied heavily on the internet, the beheading never shown on the news ever but all in the internet. when did you see any beheading in the news? never, they relyed on the internet to exchange their demands.

In the same time the kidnappers didn't stop beheading untill their demands were met, example would be the Filipino hostage and the 2 french journalists and the 2 Italians etc. . .

The beahding will continue whether it was covered or not, if you met their demands they will release the kidnapped, if not he will be headless. Oh, didn't Bigley's brother tried to negotiate with the kidnappers but he was arrested by British authorities?

it was said the Nick Berg video was staged, as is most of the terror events unfolding. it just shows how completly out of touch some of you are. becoming infuriated over the death of one man, but not 10000. media manipulation is truely an amazing tool.

Originally posted by fanoose

It wasn't about the coverage or publicity of their action. They never mentioned it nor relied on it...

Fanoose, I beg to differ. The hostage takers may well never have mentioned the worldwide coverage this event recieved but I am positive that they were well aware of it and that it played a part in dictating how long this particular kidnapping lasted before it's regretable conclusion.

Originally posted by sturod84

It just shows how completly out of touch some of you are. becoming infuriated over the death of one man, but not 10000. media manipulation is truely an amazing tool.

On the contrary Sturid84 when I heard the statements made by Kenneth Bigley's brother about Mr. Blair having blood on his hands I found it hard to agree and heap blame Mr Blair for the result of this episode.

This does not mean I have not unhappy about the entire affair regarding the war in Iraq. It is my opinion that Tony Blair lied to the people of the UK and so while he may well have had his hands tied in this particular event I do find myself aggrieved over his role in this conflict, and feel that Mr Blair does indeed have blood on his hands.

The major selling point, as was fed to the nations press from Downing Street, was that there was 'an imminent threat' from Iraq. If I remember correctly the duration given was 45 minutes after recieving the order WMD's could be deployed. Throughout any defence of his actions Mr Blair has always relied on saying to the public wait for the WMD report.

Well the report is now out, and Tony Blair has not found the justification he promised us. I personally cannot understand how this has seemingly gone away so quietly, and was absolutely stunned when Mr Blair said the report justified his previous claims. There can be little more weighty than for a leader to take his nation into war.

Mr Blair's justification (and as far as I could gather this was the United States official position too) was not that there was a moral responsibility to depose the undoubtedly dangerous and cruel Saddam Hussien or that they might pose a threat in future. The threat was sold to the public as imminent.


Donald Rumsfeld, United States Secretary of Defense, stated in an interview with Infinity CBS Radio on November 14, 2002:

So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something...

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense of the United States, stated in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on September 18, 2002 :

But no terrorist state poses a greater and more immediate threat to the security of our people, and stability of the world, than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

But those who raise questions about the nuclear threat need to focus on the immediate threat from biological weapons.

George P. Shultz, former United States Secretary of State, stated in his op/ed published in the The Washington Post on September 10, 2002:

The danger is immediate.

www.whitehouse.gov...
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer

Q: Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?

MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely.

This has been proven incorrect, it is my opinion that the Prime Minister took this country into a war based on at best, a mistake, or at worst a lie.

That aside (my apologies for digressing), even if such events are detremental to fanatics like these they do not, as Valhall has previously stated, seem to recognise this point.

So acknowledging that these actions could be publicised to such an extent with the desired result being the strengthening of a governments position, would it be correct to place a mainstream media blackout (TV news, newspapers and radio) untill after the event in the hope of any future media coverage being non-existant discouraging, or rather lessening the appeal of future kidnappings and murders?

Jack

A minutets silence for ken bigley at the start of an Englang football game who the hell is he? why all the comotion?
he went out to iraq out of greed for a big fat last pay cheque..... and yet our troops lay there lives on the line everyday for a pitance what about them?
Why don't we have a minites silence for them at the start of every major sporting event?
our governments #in bull# propaganda to whip us into a frenzy justifying the war, its bull#....
#in bull# I tell ya...
Billy Connolly knows it too......

You could say that giving the terrorists so much media coverage is buying into them and giving them purpose...but you could also say that all the publicity makes Americans hate them even more, making them more likely to support a war.

Originally posted by IMMORTAL
Giving the terrorists publicity in this fashion is working in favour of the respective Countries which are now occupying Iraq. When this type of scenario is shown on the major networks in Western-type Countries, it helps to generate the support in the poeple's minds, get the people more angry, etc. Think of the Nick Berg scenario. This is why it is glorified in the Western media. It is the agenda to generate the support for further occupation of Iraq.

It keeps the agenda going.

When I hear that al Qaeda have committed an atrocity, I think al CIAda
When I hear the name Abu Musab al-Zarqawi I think of the connectedness of the Western intelligence services with Mossad and Pakistan's ISI, the latter the direct connection between the CIA and the Taliban
On the benefits ratio the advantage to the occupying powers in their fight against 'fanatical barbaric Muslim terrorists', in effect a racist construction, is clear. The benefit to Islam is decidedly unclear
Those kidnapped would, on the whole, appear to be freelancers, employees of independent companies, citizens of less involved nations, aid workers, journalists and so on. Who benefits if these are frightened off? The Halliburtons and other megalithic state corporations
I've watched three of these beheading videos now. The Berg video was most amateurish with its Abu Ghraib plastic chair, out off synch dubbed on screams, lily-white arms of the kidnappers and so on
Later ones are a bit more professional. But the one thing linking them all is a decided lack of blood. After all you are cutting roughly thru the carotid arteries and other major blood vessels. These are well known for spurting gushing blood all over when severed yet all these videos are excessively clean and dry. Don't want anything too messy - might mess up the message
My impression is that the section where the captives are kneeling before the captors is spliced on to the decapitation section. In between those events,off-video, the captive is killed in a more conventional manner, and maybe cut to allow the blood to drain off.
I've yet to see the Bigley video, but I think it might follow the general trend
Treat with extreme suspicion


[edit on 9-10-2004 by dh]