Formulate an opinion on whether mediabroadcasts of terrorist activities should be limited to reduce potential impact on victims and non-victims.

The debate around media broadcasts of terrorist activities revolves around the potential impact that such broadcasts may have on both victims and non-victims. Some argue that limiting such broadcasts is essential in order to prevent potential harm, while others contend that these broadcasts provide a valuable public service by informing individuals about current events as well as providing an opportunity for reflection. This essay will consider both sides of this argument before concluding with an opinion on whether or not mediabroadcasts of terrorist activities should be limited.

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.

On the other hand are those who argue against limiting mediabroadcasting. They point out that it enables citizens to stay informed about homeland security threats and other international incidents which they would otherwise remain unaware off (Barreto & Diez Medrano, 2016). Moreover, broadcasting provides a platform for understanding different cultures and enhancing cross-cultural empathy; many viewers are moved to action after witnessing scenes from war zones or natural disasters abroad via television shows or news updates (Khamis et al., 2017). In addition, some believe it might encourage discourse between people within communities affected by terror attacks regarding how best to handle them going forward (Barreto & Diez Medrano., 2016). Such debates could lead to greater understanding of terrorism which might help reduce its prevalence over time.

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.