Posted: March 13th, 2023
Those who advocate for limiting mediabroadcasts of terrorism emphasize its potential negative effects, including the exploitation and re-victimization of individuals affected by terror attacks (Rothman & Kethineni, 2020). For example, those who were caught up in a terror attack may experience grief or trauma when confronted with images from the event; exposure to these images can also cause further psychological distress and even post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Hermann et al., 2015). Furthermore, repeated viewing or coverage of similar violent incidents could increase feelings of anxiety among members of the general public (Rothman & Kethineni, 2020). Consequently, it is argued that such coverage should be minimized so as to protect vulnerable populations from re-traumatization.
In conclusion then I believe there is merit in both arguments outlined here but ultimately I think mediabroadcasts should indeed be limited where possible in order to reduce their potential impact on victims and non-victims alike. While allowing people access to information regarding terrorism could potentially result in positive outcomes such as increased dialogue between peers and improved global understanding; simultaneously these same broadcats can inflict unnecessary harm on those impacted directly by acts of terror through re-traumatization and heightened levels anxiety across all audiences watching their screen(s). Therefore I do not believe we should sacrifice one group’s well being for another’s convenience – especially since there are alternative ways available for obtaining necessary information without causing undue distress upon either party involved.
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.