World Report: The Student Journal for International Affairs / John Entingh / Fourth Estate Literacy / 1

A brief introduction to Fourth Estate literacy: The first step in understanding our mass-mediated culture of fear.

Fourth Estate Literacy: Understanding Our Mass-Mediated Culture of Fear

By John Entingh Undergraduate Studies in Behavioral and Social Sciences The Ohio State University

World Report: The Student Journal for International Affairs / John Entingh / Fourth Estate Literacy / 2 Abstract

This paper initiates discourse on mass-mediated terrorism literacy at its most basic level. Terror groups use wanton acts of violence to create a culture of fear in an attempt to gain mind control. The media then usurps the control and perpetuates the culture of fear for its own ends. More often than not, government entities manipulate the medias control through a controlled release of information. Because terrorism is a very real danger to all, and new forms of media are vying for control, people need to have the ability to understand where the true threat actually lies. The core principle is that humans have a tendency to become desensitized by overstimulation. Consistently perpetuating a culture of fear will inevitably desensitize human awareness to very real dangers. The most practical method for avoiding desensitization is through literacy of a mass-mediated culture of fear. In addition, by cultivating a culture of fear, the general public is distracted from asking critical questions on agenda setting. Without asking critical questions, agendas lack any sense of objectivity on all fronts. This brief introduction is not intended to be a comprehensive media-literacy course, only to initiate discourse on a growing phenomenon of the Fourth Estate and hopefully to encourage literacy of such. The general public has only one defense against cultivation, mind control, and the culture of fear, and that is Fourth Estate literacy.

World Report: The Student Journal for International Affairs / John Entingh / Fourth Estate Literacy / 3 Index Topic Page Number

Introduction to mind control . 4 Culture of fear ... 4 Origin of contemporary terrorist stereotype ... 4 - 5 Official definitions of terrorism ... 5 Gatekeepers ...... 5 Agenda setting .. 5 6 Political Triangle of Communication 6 News values ... 6 - 7 Rally effect ... 7 Fourth Estate . 7 CNN effect ... 7 - 8 Frame ... 8 Jose Pimentel: an example 9 -12 Cultivation Theory .. 12 Conclusion ... 12 References .. 13 - 16

World Report: The Student Journal for International Affairs / John Entingh / Fourth Estate Literacy / 4 A brief introduction to Fourth Estate literacy: The first step in understanding our mass-mediated culture of fear. More often than not, the media presents information in a way that creates mind control (Vigilant Citizen, 2010), which Psychologist Philip Zimbardo explains as "the process by which individual or collective freedom of choice and action is compromised by agents or agencies that modify or distort perception, motivation, affect, cognition and/or behavioral outcomes" (Zimbardo, 2002). Zimbardo further suggests that any human being is susceptible to such manipulation (1997 ). A popular method the mass media uses to establish mind control is through reporting on terrorism in a way to create a culture of fear, a term used by scholars, writers, journalists and politicians who believe that some in society incite fear in the general public to achieve political goals (Klaehn, 2005). While a terrorist organization will take the blame for creating the fear through wanton acts of violence, coercion, and intimidation, it is the media that captures these events in news casts and takes the control away from the terrorist organization. Politicians then exploit what the media created to their own ends. To better understand how this process works, we must focus our attention on how the media operates more than how terrorism operates; after all, no one disputes that terrorism is an attempt at mind control through a culture of fear. Yet what media consumers typically miss through this process are both the intended and unintended consequences of mind control as relates to agenda setting. We can begin our understanding of the mediated mind control process by looking at an example such as terrorism, an activity which has been used since the beginning of recorded history (What is Terrorism?). Our contemporary stereotype of a terrorist was shaped by mainstream media. This shaping largely began with the Munich Massacre, a name the media dubbed onto an event at the 1972 Olympics in Munich, Germany. Under worldwide media exposure, eight members of the Palestinian terrorist organization, Black September stormed an apartment complex housing Israeli athletes taking hostages (Rosenberg). The global media coverage of this event gave society the first real-time glimpse of masked Arab-Muslims slaughtering unarmed civilians with machine guns and hand grenades (See: Parsi). The extent of this media coverage established a stereotype of a terrorist and terrorism that would remain dominate in the public mind decades later. Almost as an afterthought, many story lines included a possible political motive; however, if one takes the time to peruse media archives, what is found may be surprisingly void of reference to the political motivates, some including no more than a

World Report: The Student Journal for International Affairs / John Entingh / Fourth Estate Literacy / 5 sentence (i.e. Bard; Reeve, 2006). Instead of focusing on the possibility of political motives, what is largely emphasized and immortalized in media is the wanton taking of innocent lives by Arab-Muslims (i.e., Wikipedia). The media created the sterotypical terrorist with a concrete image, and with that image came the fruits that feed a culture of fear. To clearly understand how the media is able to influence a culture of fear and thus exert mind control, one needs to first understand how complicated it has become to define terrorism. The path to enlightenment begins with a review of how humans, ostensibly free of mind control, have failed to agree on a definition of terrorism (Williamson, 2009; Schmid, 2011). We know that terrorism was defined by the League of Nations in 1937 as all criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public (Zalman). The United Nations then extended the definition of terrorism to any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act (AZDEMA). The U.S. Army Manual further modified the definition of terrorism to the "calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear. It is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies ... [to attain] political, religious, or ideological goals," (AZDEMA). However, many contemporary scholars define terrorism abstractly as the systematic use of coercive intimidation against civilians for political goals (Norris, Kern, & Just, 2003 ). The media profits from this diversity as it allows the concept of terrorism to be applied to a broader array of situations. We shall revisit the motives for broad applications below; suffice it to say for now that a close inspection of all contemproary definitons have three salient aspects: 1. There is a systematic use of force, coercion, and/or intimidation. 2. The action is not limited to military personal or government officials, but includes civilians as well. 3. There is a goal, purportedly to be political or ideological. One can see here that with numerous definitons of terrorism a broad framework is provided which allows almost any event that transpires in a public arena to be construed as a terrorist act. Once the terrorist label has been pinned onto a person or action, the stereotype invokes a clear and present danger in our minds.

World Report: The Student Journal for International Affairs / John Entingh / Fourth Estate Literacy / 6 At issue here is that our stereotype of a clear and present danger is being distorted to the point where one can no longer take media reports at face value, especially when it comes to breaking news. Those responsible for this distortion are the gatekeepers, those that regulate the flow of information (White, 1964). An important point is that the coloring of terrorism by gatekeepers is not the intended purpose of regulating information; arguably the intended purpose is for agenda setting (McCombs & Shaw, 1976). Agenda setting was first described as a very powerful influence of the media, or the ability to tell us what issues are important in two ways. First the press and the media do not reflect an objective reality; they actively filter and shape it; secondly, when the media concentrates on a few issues and subjects, this leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues receiving less attention (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). The recent trend in terrorism reporting is that only the most dramatic scene is focused on (lack of objective reality), and then shown over and over again which makes the situation appear to be the most important issue in society. Unfortunately, where gatekeeping and agenda setting was once the domain of media editors that decided what stories to cover and how to edit the information, politicians soon realized they too could act as gatekeepers and agenda setters (i.e., McCombs, 1972). Even worse, terrorist groups learned how to manipulate media for agenda setting more proficiently than politicans (Seib & Janbek, 2011; Nacos, 2007). In this sense, both politicians and terror groups stage events they know the media will rush to report, and then the gatekeepers step in to regulate the information being disseminated. The common goal of all involved is to further perpetuate the culture of fear as a means to achieve each groups agenda. Intuitively we may question the logic that terror groups have the ability to engage in agenda setting. One can reasonablely understand that the government and media form two sides of the Triangle of Political Communication with the public forming the third side (Nacos, 2007, pp. 15-16), but how would a terror group manipulate agenda setting? The answer is far simpler than one might expect. The reporting of news depends on if the event is deemed news-worthy. To make this assessment, the media has news values that determine if, and to what extent, an event gets covered. While there is no end to lists of news criteria (Ryan, 1991, p. 31), contemprorary scholars agree on six core values that are of major importance (i.e., Harcup & O'Neill, 2001; Tumber, 1999, pp. 3-4):

World Report: The Student Journal for International Affairs / John Entingh / Fourth Estate Literacy / 7 1. Impact: Who and how many people are affected? Just think how a story would be reported where only a single house was flooded as compared to hurricane Katrina that involved hundreds of thousands of people. 2. Prominence: The power and influence of the person, country, or organization involved always attracts interest. The United States is held as a super-power, attacks against it are always deemed news-worthy. 3. Proximity: Geographically or emotionally close to the audience. A suicide bomber in Madrid, Spain would not receive the attention in America that 9/11 did. 4. Timeliness: The newness of events. People tune into breaking stories the most. 5. Conflict: An event that involves disputes or violence between people, governments, or popular organizations, (i.e., Arab Muslims vs. Jewish). 6. Novelty: A seemingly bizarre, rare or strange event. (i.e., Underwear bomber or Tennis shoe bomber.) 1 With this minor amount of knowledge about how the media decides what to report on, and to what extent, masterminds of terrorism need only stage an event that would satisfy a majority of these news values to guarantee wide spread media coverage, and they do so with high proficiency (Seib & Janbek, 2011). Once the terrorist act is initiated, politicians sieze on the fear these terrorist attacks create (through media coverage) to their advantage in what is known as a rallying effect. The rally effect is a phenomenon of a heightened sense of patriotism that occurs during periods of international crisis or war (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2008). Political scientist John Mueller explains how three qualities happening simulataneously will create a rally effect: 1."Is international"; 2."Involves the United States and particularly the President directly" 3."Specific, dramatic, and sharply focused" (p. 64) Mueller explains that when these events occur, the president gains an increase in popular support, albeit short lived (1970). Historically, the more an event is covered by the media, the stronger the presidential support (Hetherington & Nelson, 2003). From this standpoint, the longer a president can keep the media focused on an event and make that event seem extremely dire, the longer he will enjoy his newfound popularity. No president has ever been as effective at this media manipulation than former president George W. Bush with his War on Terror (Hetherington & Nelson, 2003). The rallying effect has been documented as

This list was edited from a mass media and terrorism lecture given by Elizabeth Stoycheff at The Ohio State University on October 4, 2011.
1

World Report: The Student Journal for International Affairs / John Entingh / Fourth Estate Literacy / 8 being so influencial that local politicians have jumped on the anti-terrorism bandwagon in hopes of increasing their own popular support. It is worth noting here that former president George W. Bush probably did not take advantage of the rallying effect (and public) without minimal consent of the Fourth Estate. The Fourth Estate is a reference to the societal and/or political force or institution whose influence is not consistently or officially recognized, commonly held to be the media (Schultz, 1998). The influence of the Fourth Estate turns largely upon another media phenomenon know as the CNN effect. The CNN effect is a theory in political science and media studies that explains how the development of the popular 24-hour international television news channel known as Cable News Network (CNN) had a major impact on the conduct of states' foreign policy in the late Cold War period and that CNN and its subsequent industry competitors (mainstream media in general) have had a similar impact in the War on Terrorism. Political scientist and media expert Steven Livingston has identified three aspects that define the CNN effect: (1) a policy agenda-setting agent, (2) an impediment to the achievement of desired policy goals, and (3) an accelerant to policy decision making. (Italics in original), (1997). Notice that the second aspect is an impediment to desired policy goals which seems to place two sides of the political triangle (government vs. media) at odds whereas the theme so far has been a loose harmony between these sides. When it comes to terrorism, the CNN effect makes a departure here by diverting the impediment to the policy goals of the terror group; this often has the media grudgingly holding hands with government gatekeepers to set agendas (e.g., the Patriot Act). In this manner politics and the media may work in harmony to each others benefit. An event occurs such as an act of terrorism, which creates a rallying effect that increases popular support for politicians who act as gatekeepers. As gatekeepers, the political machinery wants to provide information that is deemed news worthy, but also must favor their agenda. For the information to be news worthy, it must contain the proscribed news values, and the more values the event covers, the more exposure the event will receive, which in turn increases the popular support of the political machinery. By providing this feedback loop through the CNN effect, the Fourth Estate acts as a gatekeeper which is not only actively participating in agenda setting, but is enjoying increased viewership which in turn increases advertising revenue. The fuel behind this feedback loop is

World Report: The Student Journal for International Affairs / John Entingh / Fourth Estate Literacy / 9 plain old-fashion fear. Numerous research projects have documented how reporting terrorist activities raises the public fear which in turn keeps media consumers highly vigilant of news sources for new information (Centre of Excellance Defence Against Terrorism, 2006). It is this same fear that creates the rallying effect and gives efficacy to the CNN effect. This is also the same fear that has allowed the gatekeepers to blur the concept of a terrorist and what constitutes a terrorist act in order to set agendas. It would be folly to think that politicans and media moguls sit around waiting for a terrorist attack while greedily rubbing their hands together. Rather, when an event does occur the gatekeepers frame the event as a crucial terrorist act that equates to a threat on national security, and this is where the diverse definitions of terrorism pay off. A frame in social theory consists of a schema of interpretation, more easily understood as a collection of anecdotes and stereotypes that individuals rely on to understand and respond to events (Goffman, 1974). The gatekeepers exploit the human propencity to rely on existing schema when presenting a story. Basically what happens is that in a period where events (like terrorism) saturate the human information gathering domain (mainstream media), people are quick to make an association between any event that seems ambiguous and/or violent to the recent exposure (Snow, et al., 1986). In the terms of agenda setting, the association between saturation and schema may motivate people toward the agenda being proffered (Snow & Benford, 1988). In this manner, the media informs the public of what to think about terrorists and terrorism, and then stretches those thoughts unquestioningly over any story line that includes the word terrorism or terrorist. The result is that the concept has been applied to such a broad set of situations and circumstances that any story which can be loosely linked to the terror stereotype can be framed as a dire threat to national security. With this simple recipe the Fourth Estate perpetuates the culture of fear. A prime example of how the culture of fear has been exploited can be found with Jose Pimentel, a young man from the Dominican Republic arrested on November 20, 2011 in New York for conspiracy to commit terrorism. When this terrorism story broke the primary gatekeeper was New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg held a press conference where city officials contended that Pimentel was an al Qaeda sympathizer plotting to bomb police and post offices and U.S. troops returning home. Pimentel was charged with possesion of explosives and conspiracy to commit terrorism, along with soliciting support for a terrorist act,

World Report: The Student Journal for International Affairs / John Entingh / Fourth Estate Literacy / 10 and then arraigned in Manhattan District Court. The breaking news did mention an informant, but did not devulge the level of involvement of this informant (i.e., CBS/AP, 2011). Acquitences of Pimentel describe him as being raised a Roman Catholic who converted to Islam, and had tried to circumcise himself (Rashbaum & Goldstein, 2011). ABC news framed the event as a lone wolf bomb plot and further emphasized that the devasting attack was one hour away. At the news conference police commissioner Ray Kelly contended, "We had to act quicklybecause he was in fact putting this bomb together." Kelly further contended that Pimentel was aligned with Anwar Awlaki, an infamous terrorist killed earlier in 2011 by U.S. troops. Gatekeepers claimed that Pimentel first came to the attention of authorities in May 2009, and had been tracked since that time. The media also informed us that Pimentel rarely left his home, authorities said, except to buy coffee and cigarettes -- one cigarette at a time, when he couldn't afford a pack -- and to smoke. His mother did not let him smoke in the apartment. (Esposito & Schone, 2011). During Bloombergs press conference a video was shown of a bomb built by police blowing up a car. The police bomb is alleged to have been similar to the one Pimentel was making (CBS/AP, 2011). In a thinly veiled attempt at objectivity, media accounts did include a statement by Pimentels lawyer Joseph Zablocki contending Pimentel was public about his activities and was not trying to hide anything, unlike a typical terrorist. Banners in most news reports remind us of how many terrorist plots have been foiled in New York this year and what a danger Pimentel was to returning troops. When one looks at how this story is framed, all the news values are in play. The impact would be on police officers, postal workers, and troops returning from war, a clear threat to national security. The prominence was set by including Anwar Awalaki and keeping his online terrorist activities salient in the minds of the public. The proximity, New York, plays on the schema of 9/11. The timeliness could not have been better, as it was reported as an ongoing investigation finally coming to success. There is nothing presented that needs further investigation: here is the evidence and the terrorist caught in the act only an hour away from detonation. The conflict is invoked by aligning Pimentel with al Qaeda as a sympathizer. The public has an existing schema of al Qaeda and an ongoing cultural and religious conflict. Last but not least is novelty. Here is a Latin American, typically Catholic, who has converted to Islam and taken up the Islamic terrorist cause. As an

World Report: The Student Journal for International Affairs / John Entingh / Fourth Estate Literacy / 11 exclamation point, the gatekeepers showed the video of a car being blown up to set the hook on the culture of fear. By invoking the culture of fear through references to international terror masterminds and organizations, and the eminent threat to police, government workers, and returning troops, the gatekeepers diverted attention away from a lack of objectivity in the breaking story. First and foremost is that Pimentel was arrested, charged, and arraigned in a state court and not federal court. Federal investigators looked at Pimentel over a year ago and made the decision to back off the case (Rashbaum & Goldstein, 2011). Next is the fact that the media attributes Mayor Bloomberg as authorizing the arrest. When does a politician authorize an arrest? Is that not the domain of a criminal justice system in a democracy? One must be careful to not confuse a domestic activity with an activity abroad. There were cases where President Obama had to give authorization for known terrorists to be put on the kill or capture list, but that was because our criminal justice system has no authority abroad and Obama as the commander in chief had to give authorization to military troops in foreign interventions. Another nagging question is how Pimentel purchased the bomb making materials he was arrested for possessing. All media accounts portray the man as extremely poor, and as ABC points out, Pimentel could not even afford a whole pack of cigarettes and had to purchase them individually. What about the comments made by attorney Zablocki regarding Pimentels openness and lack of attempting to cover up his bomb plot? By all accounts, Pimentel was posting daily updates to a web page on his anti-American ravings and details of his bomb plot. Last, but certainly not least, why wait over a year to shut this terrorist down? What is the benefit of waiting until the 11th hour to close in on terrorist activities? After a critical look, absolutely nothing about this individual or the situation resembles our schema of a terrorist or of a terrorist act outside of visiting web sites and buying some material from a building supply house, never mind there is no explanation as to how these purchases were made. The gatekeepers exploited the culture of fear which was then perpetuated by the Fourth Estate and in doing so, diverted the publics sense of objectivity. Since the original story broke on Pimentel, the New York Times has reported that the primary reason the FBI dropped the case was because of the involvement of the informant. From this media account, the informant provided the funds to purchase the bomb making materials, the place to make the bombs, and actually

World Report: The Student Journal for International Affairs / John Entingh / Fourth Estate Literacy / 12 had to help Pimentel with the rudimentary construction of the device. The Times also reports that Pimentel had been working on his bomb plot for two years. Two years to build a simple pipe bomb? The Times further explains that people said [Pimentel] would sit on a bench there for hours without talking: Hes like a zombie; hes in limbo all the time. The Times also contends that FBI declined the investigation (Rashbaum & Goldstein, 2011). Can a rational and reasoning mind wrap itself around the notion of the federal authorities not responding to a major terrorism case in New York City of all places in the world? Later reports confirm that a law enforcement official told the Associated Press that the FBI decided that Pimentel "didn't have the predisposition or the ability to do anything on his own" (Coscarelli, 2011). Further reports indicate that Pimentels public defender, Joseph Zablocki, was forced to step down from the case because his office was already representing the informant who was helping to build the bomb. The bottom line here is that the culture of fear diverts attention away from some difficult questions, questions that one may have never had the opportunity to ask if these events had happened abroad, such as with the grieving Black Widows in Russia, or the doctor on a privileged military base. Even if one can understand the gatekeepers are agenda setting, can the general public honestly look at this situation and determine what the true agenda is? Fortunately in the Pimentel case there were local and independent sources of information that allowed the media to engage in an original version of the CNN effect. But this is exceptionally rare in terrorism cases; almost never can the media obtain information independently on a terrorist from a foreign country, especially when that country is hostile to the U.S. Then, once a terrorist is stopped the media must rely on government gatekeepers for information, such as the case in the demise of bin Laden. The culture of fear is real, the tragic events such as 9/11 will live forever in our conciousness. However, we must also realize that mass-mediated mind control prevents us from seeing the truth. As media consumers, we would not want to argue the guilt or innocence of any suspected terrorist such as Pimentel; that is the jusrisdiction of the criminal justice system. However, mind control obscures the agenda setting of the gatekeepers. The focal point of the present discussion is that the gatekeepers are very aware of the cultivation theory, a social theory which examined the long-term effects of television on American audiences, which equates the power of television to the power of religion. In sum, television is to modern society what religion

World Report: The Student Journal for International Affairs / John Entingh / Fourth Estate Literacy / 13 once was in earlier times (Gerbner, et al., 1978). It is important to recognize that cultivation theory does not dissect "targeted and specific effects (e.g., that watching Superman will lead children to attempt to fly by jumping out the window) [but rather] in terms of the cumulative and overarching impact [television] has on the way we see the world in which we live" (Miller, 2005). When our worldview is based by fear, there is the propensity to not be objective. When we lose our objectivity, we have lost sight of what is happening right before our eyes, and we have in essence bowed down to the power of the Fourth Estate. This is especially important as the Fourth Estate is currently annexing alternative media such as the internet and social web sites.Terrorism is a complicated issue as it is; let us not further obscure what is already complex with information framed to develop mind control for agenda setting. The general public has only one defense against cultivation, mind control, and the culture of fear, and that is Fourth Estate literacy. References: AZDEMA. (n.d.). Various Definitions of Terrorism. Retrieved November 25, 2011, from The Department of Emergency and Military Affairs : http://www.azdema.gov/museum/famousbattles/pdf/Terrorism%20Definitions%20072809.pdf Bard, M. (n.d.). The Munich Massacre. Retrieved November 25, 2011, from Jewish Virtual Library: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/munich.html CBS/AP. (2011, November 20). NYC man arrested in bomb plot. Retrieved November 25, 2011, from CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57328403/nyc-man-arrested-in-bomb-plot/ Centre of Excellance Defence Against Terrorism. (2006). The media: The terrorist's battlefield. Fairfax, VA.: IOS Press. Coscarelli, J. (2011, November 21). FBI declined to take Jose Pimentel terror ase. Retrieved November 26, 2011, from New York Magazine: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/11/fbi-declined-to-take-josepimentel-terror-case.html Esposito, R., & Schone, M. (2011, November 20). Alleged 'Lone Wolf' arrested in New York on terror charges. Retrieved November 25, 2011, from ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/alleged-lone-wolf-josepimentel-arrested-york-terror/story?id=14994845

World Report: The Student Journal for International Affairs / John Entingh / Fourth Estate Literacy / 14 Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Jackson-Beeck, M., S.Jefferies-Fox, & Signorielli, N. (1978). Cultural indicators violence profile no. 9. Journal of Communication , 28 (3), 176-207. Goffman, E. ( 1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row. Goldstein, J. S., & Pevehouse, J. C. (2008). International Relations. New York: Pearson Longman. Harcup, T., & O'Neill, D. (2001). (). What is news? Galtung and Ruge revisited. Journalism Studies , 2 (2), 261280. Hetherington, M. J., & Nelson, M. (2003). Anatomy of a Rally Effect: George W. Bush and the war on terrorism. Political Science and Politics , 36 (1), 37-42. Hetherington, M. J., & Nelson, M. (2003). Anatomy of a Rally Effect: George W. Bush and the War on Terrorism. Political science and politics (36). Klaehn, J. (2005). Filtering the news: Essays on Herman and Chomsky's propaganda model. Montreal, Quebec: Black Rose Books Ltd. Livingston, S. (1997). Clarifying the CNN effect: An examination of media effects according to type of military intervention . Retrieved November 25, 2011, from John F. Kennedy School of Government's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University: http://tamilnation.co/media/CNNeffect.pdf McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1976). Structuring the unseen environment. Journal of Communication , 26 (2), 18-22. McCombs, M. (1972). Mass communication in political campaigns: Information, gratification and persuasion. In F. Kline, & P. Tichenor, Current perspectives in mass communication research . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public opinion quarterly (36), 176-187. Miller, K. (2005). Communications theories: Perspectives, processes, and contexts. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mueller, J. (1970). Presidential popularity from Truman to Johnson. American political science review (64). Nacos, B. L. (2007). Mass-mediated terrorism: The central role of the media in terrorism and counterterrorism (Second ed.). New York: rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

World Report: The Student Journal for International Affairs / John Entingh / Fourth Estate Literacy / 15 Norris, P., Kern, M., & Just, M. (2003 ). Framing terrorism: The news media, the government and the public. New York: Routledge. Parsi, D. (n.d.). Tragedy and triump: The 1972 Munich Olympics. Retrieved November 25, 2011, from WeJew.com: http://www.wejew.com/media/4825/1972_Summer_Olympics_Munich_Massacre_Documentary/ Rashbaum, W. K., & Goldstein, J. (2011, November 21). Informers role in terror case is said to have deterred F.B.I. Retrieved November 25, 2011, from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/nyregion/for-jose-pimentel-bomb-plot-suspect-an-onlinetrail.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=terrorism Reeve, S. (2006 , January 22 ). Olympics Massacre: Munich - The real story . Retrieved from The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/olympics-massacre-munich--the-real-story524011.html Rosenberg, J. (n.d.). Munich Massacre. Retrieved November 25, 2011, from About.com: 20th Century History: http://history1900s.about.com/od/famouscrimesscandals/p/munichmassacre.htm Ryan, C. (1991). Prime time activism: Media startegies for grassroots organizing. Boston, MA: South End Press. Schmid, A. P. (2011). The Definition of Terrorism: The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research. New York: Routledge. Schultz, J. (1998). Reviving the fourth estate . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Seib, P., & Janbek, D. M. (2011). Global terrorism and new media: The post Al Qaeda generation. New York: Routledge. Snow, D., & Benford, R. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International social movement research (1), 197-217. Snow, D., Rochford, E., Worden, S., & Benford, R. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement particpation. American sociological review (51). Tumber, H. (1999). Introduction to part I: Definitions of news. In H.Tumber, News: A reader (pp. 3-4). New York: Oxford University Press.

World Report: The Student Journal for International Affairs / John Entingh / Fourth Estate Literacy / 16 Vigilant Citizen. (2010, April 28). Mind control theories and techniques used by mass media . Retrieved November 26, 2011, from The Vigilant Citizen: http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/mind-controltheories-and-techniques-used-by-mass-media/ What is Terrorism? (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2011, from International Terrorism and Security Research : http://www.terrorism-research.com/ White, D. M. (1964). The gatekeeper: A case study in the selection of news. In L. A. Dexter, & D. M. White, People, society, and mass communication (pp. 160-172). London/New York: Free Press of Glencoe. Wikipedia. (n.d.). Munich massacre. Retrieved November 25, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre Williamson, M. (2009). Terrorism, war and international law: The legality of the use of force against Afghanistan in 2001. London: Ashgate Publishing. Zalman, A. (n.d.). The Many Definitions of Terrorism. Retrieved November 25, 2011, from About.com: Terrorism issues: http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism.htm Zimbardo, P. G. (2002, November). Mind control: Psychological reality or mindless rhetoric? Retrieved November 26, 2011, from American Psychological Association: Monitor on Psychology: http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov02/pc.aspx Zimbardo, P. G. (1997 , May). What messages are behind today's cults? . Retrieved November 26, 2011, from American Psycgological Association Monitor on Psychology: 14: http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studycult/study_zimbar.htm