The mainstream media’s perplexing performance following the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack by Nigerian-born Umar Farouk aboard Northwest Airlines flight 253 came to an abrupt halt in response to the 7.0 magnitude earthquake that jolted the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince. In the wake of the earthquake, estimations that 45,000 to 200,000 people are dead, countless wounded, and the complete decimation of the infrastructure to a region that accounts for approximately $233 million of the total Haitian exports to the United States.
The media’s attention shifted from the diabolical and threatening visage of al-Qa’ida and Islamic extremists in Yemen to a scene of horror and futility in Port-au-Prince. In response to the threats of terrorism, where one is less likely to die in contrast to a natural disaster, there is an iron-fist mentality; where the response to human-submitted chaos is force.
The events tragedy in Port-au-Prince systematically derailed the Yemen conversation of whether or not the United States should take military action because it would be unprecedented, illogical, irrational, and absurd for tens of thousands of deaths to be overshadowed by one Nigerian with his trousers on fire.
The tragedy in Port-au-Prince entranced international attention away from Yemen and the Nigerian with enflamed trousers. There is no argument as to the rationale behind this switch, as the Haitian earthquake involved the deaths of many. However, the rhetoric the media used when talking about the Christmas Day attack was one that constituted on the two premises of “what if he succeeded” and “what it means for American national security”. For our purpose it is useful to distinguish the coverage of the earthquake and the Christmas Day attack, as the former is an example of orthodox journalism while the latter is a filler, void of any real substance; no doubt that the establishment of a twenty-four hour news broadcast forced corporate news company executives to accept this filler material.
No clairvoyance is necessary to predict that once the viewership of the Haiti tragedy dwindles, the mainstream media will return to covering the debate against terrorism in the name of ratings. The past decade is riddled with the asperity that a single event, such as Hurricane Katrina or the December 2006 tsunami that killed 220,000 people along coasts of the Indian Ocean is filler between debates on extremism. It is insanity that suggests terrorism threatens more lives than natural disasters. Such a paradigm gives a response as to why the War on Terror (collective military operations since 2001) is paid with $1 trillion and the 2005 Hurricane Katrina devastation, which directly affected 800,000 people and killed similar numbers as terrorism in the United States starting with 9/11, was paid with $16.7 billion.
I bring this insatiable appetite for understanding the complexities of the human paradigm to this parabolic table of counter-terrorism because what is terrorism if it is not a mind-game? The objective for the counter-terrorist is to prevent the terrorist from terrorizing; to say to the probable terrorized that they should donate their confidence in the measures you are taking to protect them, a vote of confidence.
If sandbags placed around rivers in the dawn before a major storm is the preventative measure of natural disasters, then striking al-Qa’ida safe-havens in Yemen is the preventative measure of terrorism. Lunacy is turned into logic once the ends justify the means, thus the preventative measures in the War on Terrorism are justifiable, right?
If there is one true aspect of the mainstream media’s attention deficit, then it must be that events, such as the Haiti earthquake are unpredictable. Putting the sandbags around a flood prone river does not prevent the storm from coming. It only eases the repercussions of the storm;, it might stop some areas from flooding. Similarly, striking at al-Qa’ida safe-havens in Yemen does not prevent terrorism, as terrorism is an embedded part of human nature; counter-terrorism is easing the unsettled feeling of the terrorized.
We task government with our safety. Through votes and taxes we give them the legitimacy that is required to undertake preventative measures. If the New Orleans levees and 9/11 is any indicator of the capability of the government to safeguard lives, then we have sanctioned a dubious faculty to be our shield against danger.
As the Haiti disaster and Christmas Day attempt proves, tragedy and death is always lurking, and what we really ask of our government is whether or not our safety is built upon foundations of chance or upon action. Will the sandbags ever stop the storm from coming?
This was a guest submission written by Jeff Morris. Jeff Morris is a writer and Political Science Major at Appalachian State University. Email him at morrisjr@appstate.edu.
Consider following WeThePeoplePolitics.com on Twitter.
About Contributing Writers
Most Recent Comments