The Rhetoric of Fear - Essay Example

?The Rhetoric of Fear The unfortunate events that took place the 11th of September of 2001 brought about an intense consciousness to the world regarding to freedom and security; as a result of the situation of chaos that fallowed, people happened to be frightened and suspicious about everything. The immediate response to the sense of losing self-determination and continuous danger was to provide to political authorities the power to initiate and to maintain war with the aim to keep the country in peace. This contradictory perception of reality was well revealed by the dissertation of President W. Bush the night of September 11th (CNN "Cnn - Ex-President George W. Bush's Post 9/11 Speech") . The sequence of circumstances surrounding the 11th of September led to the establishment of what President W. Bush called “War on terror “, which became state policy (CNN "Bush Declares War"), meaning that early statements about repossession and revenge to encourage partisanship became an authentic war with no culmination in scene. The language that President W. Bush used to describe the situation and to target United States citizens was very important; it was aimed to shape people’s understanding about the conflict, to define what the problem was and how to think about and even what it has to be done to face the crisis. The events that occurred on September 11th constituted a convincing, powerful, available and understandable frame towards a fearful audience (Gershkoff and Kushner). Expressions like “acts of mass murder”, “terrorist attacks”, “terrorist”, “nuclear bombs”, “bombing”, and “evil” among others were, then, the representational trend of a new phenomenon: the culture of fear. Wars have the capability to stimulate general audience to be better informed, increasing their intake of news. People that are not informed about current issues usually take advice from the opinion of their leaders; at this point, information is not any more objective but liable to manipulation by elites, which lately will help to shape public opinion. The method by which media is able to shape public opinion is through manipulation of contents and through the tone they use to approach the general audience. Media covers political and current issues using political leader’s quotations and official speeches, therefore giving public authorities a scenario where to propagate their messages. Then, un-informed audiences using information from mass media as a source of their information is further vulnerable to respond and believe. If debate occurs, it will be carried up by elites and covered by media, though when deliberation does not exist or it is muted, one-side of information will emerge if other opinions are disposed under consideration. All this turned to be truth after September 11th when media responded respectfully, broadcasting government official positions. However, it is remarkable that while United States citizens are not well informed about politics, they do have resilient opinions on war, then it was surprising how people responded in favor towards the implementation of national security policies and ‘war on terror’ that the government launched after September 11th (Gershkoff and Kushner). The way by which critic situations (for instance, the Madrid train bombing (BBC)) are offered by media stands as a significant topic of studying, especially because of the influence it has over decision making of people and therefore, over the destiny of a nation. Due to the influence that shock and fear provoke, individuals become an easy target of manipulation (Chomsky). Emotions have enormous impact over the way we perceive our environment and consequently over the way we decide to respond (Vergano). From this point of view, society could easily be driven by fear; some can use this power to manipulate the general public to achieve political goals (Chomsky).Then, it becomes mandatory to understand how horror and suffering are represented on media and how they lead human reactions. The September 11th attacks changed the way of viewing acts of mass murder achieved by whatever means. Media-construction of war scenarios introduced “expectations of danger and risk” as central features of everyday life of people (Altheide "The Columbine Shootings and the Discourse of Fear"). The night of September 11th, President W. Busch talked to United States citizens on these terms: “These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong. A great people has been moved to defend a great nation”(CNN "Cnn - Ex-President George W. Bush's Post 9/11 Speech"). It was not emotionally gratifying to observe the crude scenes of people jumping from the Twin Towers on television or amateur videos (Koke2k12); but due to the nature of these and other scenes to incite irritation, distress and vulnerability they could be used as excuse to make audiences tender and fragile. Do you want a nuclear bombing to happen in your neighborhood? An article from the Department for Nuclear Safety and Security referring to threat perceptions of the post September 11th period, pointed to the necessity of a reinforcement policy of the global nuclear security regime, paying special attention to “weak links” that may offer easy objectives for terrorists or criminals acts. It also includes a list of possible means of terror: improvised nuclear explosive devices, radiological dispersal devices and bombings or sabotages against nuclear facilities (Taniguchi and Nilsson). The immediate consequence was that in the name of peace, freedom and safety, people started to admit the introduction of nuclear technology “for the benefit of mankind” and to approve aggressive emergency responses which by means of war could be able to protect the world from “evil”. A country having at hand sophisticated technology and a powerful army does not necessarily give its citizens security, wellbeing and freedom (WorldFrontlineMedia). For instance, wellbeing and security are very closely related, therefore, the perception of being in danger, whether real or not, will inevitably generate aggressive actions of self-protection. The processes that strengthened patriotism, internal control, and a major foreign policy shift, following the attacks on September 11th were conducted mainly by popular culture and mass media. News reports and advertisement’s depiction of fear, patriotism, consumption, and victimization contributed to the appearance of nationalism and collective cooperation; that were the first symptoms of the establishment of general fear. The desolation of September 11th forced United States to deal with the implementation of a national security program which, as a result, revitalized patriotism and solidarity: ‘’…terrorists killed thousands, but they could not destroy the American spirit… it was really a sort of coming together of people helping each other, supporting each other throughout the country’’ (Leland). Community was assembled by reason of fear rather than collective duties and under the support of nationalism and belligerence; demands were mainly concentrated on military defense, public order and internal security. The final result was a weird feeling of unity and strength. The culture of fear represented by the necessity of keeping a nation safe from nuclear danger, bombings, and terrorist actions turned out to be far and wide accepted. According to Altheide, there are three points that make this representational trend so powerful: the first one is related to the way in which fear motivated by shocking events (for instance, the risk of a terrorist bombing) turns into an eloquent approach for audiences that ultimately will bear a firm identity and character. The second one refers to government and business propaganda, where consumption and giving were emblematically linked; highlighting the patriotic duty to help the country get back on the right track. And the last one, the requirement of a clear object for retaliations that contributed to the construction of widespread figurative adversaries and goals (Leland). Analyzing the impact of the September 11th attacks from a critical perspective, we have to consider the nature of the events, the role of media and the rhetorical frame used by political figures during the occurrence of the events. Altheide suggests that escalating the discourse of fear towards terrorism (depending on emergent politics of fear) is a prevailing theme for news broadcast and standard cultural values. It is interesting that news reporting about bombings and mass destruction nuclear weapons often link these topics with ‘victimization’ descriptions, which at the same time make criminality, threat and fear relevant issues in everyday life of people. Victimization was evoked by titles like: “the lost world of 9/10: The Sept. 11 attacks and the end of American innocence.” Probably, much of the disorientation that fallowed the attacks has its origin on the unconscious psychological necessity to transfigure September 11th into the worst incident in history. That is revealed by the sensationalistic language used by media to explain what happened during that morning. The title that the New York Times in the attempt to describe what happened was “Witness to Apocalypse” (New-York-Times). Was the 9/11 truly the Apocalypse? In fact, it was a horrible tragedy but not the end of the world (Achenbach). Fear about everything represents a growing feature of our environment and reflects frequent cultural myths regarding ethics and social order. It is much easier to market audiences driven by fear and victimization. Furthermore, social problems could be constructed by changing the social discourse towards victimization and suffering. Media making use of linguistic and imaging devices try to direct people’s decisions and actions. On this way, clever propaganda together with powerful broadcast enables facts which cause distress (like the bombing of a place or the suspicion of being in possess of nuclear weapons) to create victimization which ultimately will explain or even make people respond to rather difficult events like the September 11th attacks. The way in which shocking and critical events (perhaps bombings) are presented by media to the general audience has a powerful influence on people’s reactions. Under fear or distressful situations general audience is more vulnerable to be directed towards one or another way of thinking. Striking situations create weird atmospheres where patriotism, self-defense and victimization feelings could rise, and eventually become the driving forces of society. The emotional brain of humans is susceptible to be manipulated by well employed rhetoric discourses. Acts of mass murder, terrorist attacks, terrorist, nuclear bombs, bombing among others, are of special interest in the study of representational trends because of the huge influence they have on the feeling of self-determination, freedom and well-being. The representational trend of a relatively new phenomenon in United States, the culture of fear, is portrayed in the thousands of media documents and files which were produced during and after the terrible incident of September 11th. The collapse of the Twin Towers changed the approach of observing and showing acts of mass murder achieved by whatever means. Media-construction of war scenarios, bombings and utilization of nuclear weapons have introduced the “expectant and recurrent feeling of danger and risk” as central features of everyday life of people. In the same way, speeches and discourses from President W. Bush and/or other high profile politicians usually utilized those terms to describe the circumstances that surrounded the attacks of September 11th. The rhetoric they utilized on their dissertations while addressing the events of September 11th was specifically structured to generate a specific representational trend related with the necessity of security. Furthermore, the contribution of media was to create an atmosphere of patriotism and victimization. The horrible circumstances and consequences of the attack provide the perfect and liable audience: it gave people an un-real feeling of security in which they believed that media was anticipating war events and bombings. The perception of continuous caution is rewarding for people looking for protection inside a society under the control of fear. For instance, by making more visible terrorist attacks, media offer to the general audience the desired opportunity to prevent any approach of the enemy. The main problem is that our brain is not always conscious of hidden messages; the reason is that facts almost always look informative and we are devoted to be prepared against eminent danger. Indeed, as information comes from reliable and widespread sources, it is considerably easy to accept facts without any question. Fear, which is initiated by criminal or imminent war situations accompanied by visible terror alerts, is perceived as crime and terrorism, making human making decision vulnerable of manipulation (Altheide "Terrorism and the Politics of Fear"). Works Cited Achenbach, Joel. "The Lost World of 9/10: The Sept. 11 Attacks and the End of American Innocence." The Washington Post (2010). . Altheide, David L. "The Columbine Shootings and the Discourse of Fear." American Behavioral Scientist 52.10 (2009): 1354-70. Print. Altheide, David L. "Terrorism and the Politics of Fear." Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies 6.415 (2006). Print. CNN. "Bush Declares War." 2003. Print. ---. "Cnn - Ex-President George W. Bush's Post 9/11 Speech." 2001. Print. Chomsky, Noam. "The Manipulation of Fear." Tehelka (2005). . Gershkoff, Amy, and Shana Kushner. "Shaping Public Opinion: The 9/11-Iraq Connection in the Bush Administration’s Rhetoric." Perspectives on Politics 3.03 (2005): 525-37. Print. Koke2k12. "9-11: People Jumping from World Trade Center (Warning: Graphic) ", 2011. Print. Leland, Mark. "Patriotism after 9/11 and Now." FOX 11 News (2011). . New-York-Times. "Witness to Apocalypse." New Yor Times (2011). . Taniguchi, Tomihiro, and Anita Nilsson. "Hot Spots Weak Links." IAEA BULLETIN 46.1 (2004). Print. WorldFrontlineMedia. "The World's Most Powerfull Military - the United States Military 2009." 2009. Print. Read More