Stephen Taylor’s essay was judged‘Best Criminology Project’ by the Company of Security Professionals, for a research-based dissertation.
This essay addresses the justification and continued reinforcement of the UK’s new anti terror legislation, in recognition of the disparity that exists between the ease of its application and the widespread opposition that many of its provisions still face. In an attempt to understand this inconsistency, the theories of Risk Society (Ulrich Beck, 1992), the Propaganda Model of Manufacturing Consent (Chomsky and Herman, 1994), and Hyperreality (Baudrillard, 1983), are applied, as well as an interview with Martin Bright (an expert court witness in assessing the scale of the threat faced by the UK, and Home Affairs editor of the Observer newspaper). The essay concludes with a discussion of how the recent developments in anti terror legislation can be better understood in the contextual frame of the aforementioned theory, and reflects on the implications that arise from this.
Tough legislation is all governments’ response to terrorism. This paper examines the triangular relationship between the public, the media, and the government, and focuses on the role of societal ‘panic’ as a key element to such emergency legislation. It looks at the role the media plays in the promotion of this panic, the developing relationship between the security services and the media, and discusses the relevance of these issues in relation to ‘risk’ society and actuarial justice.
The essay’s point of departure is the recent legislative responses to terrorism in the United Kingdom, and an examination of both the panic that surrounded their introduction, and the unprecedented dissent felt towards them. This will lead into a discussion of the implications that stem from this, including how these factors present us with the need to exercise caution when approaching ‘panic’ informed policy.
The essay considers the contribution of media, social and criminological theory in explaining the role of ‘panic’ in shaping anti-terror legislation, and will draw in particular on Chomsky and Herman (Manufacturing Consent) , Baudrillard (Simulations) 1983 , and Beck (Risk Society) 1992 .
This theoretical framework will be concretized through a first hand account of the changing relationship between the intelligence services and the media, provided by prominent journalist Martin Bright (Home Affairs Editor at ‘The Observer’) in a specially conducted interview. Bright gave evidence on the terrorist threat at a Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) case. A court document from the case, and the subsequent interview, casts light on the rarely discussed issue of how the intelligence services inform media. This arguably highlights an area where the government enjoy almost complete control of sourcing, and this, and other comments in the interview, will be further evaluated (for a full transcript of the interview, see Appendix 1). This provides the basis for consideration of some of the wider implications of the current ‘terror’ focus and the further amplification of ‘panic’.
‘We cannot be sure where or when they will strike. But we can be certain they will try… We also know that in part because the terrorists want us to live in fear, and want to damage our economy, and the well-being of our people, that they are capable of feeding false information to us in the hope that we over-react, and damage our economic and other interests’
(David Blunkett’s revised statement on terrorism, Home Office, 7/11/02 )
Prior to the Anti Terrorism, Crime, and Security Act of 2001 (ATCSA), anti-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom had been primarily designed to address the Northern Ireland problem. The Terrorism Act 2000 was intended to update the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989 (PTA), the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and sections of the Criminal Justice Act 1994, to deal with the emerging and wider implications of terrorism following September 11th 2001.
Like the US Patriot Act, the ATCSA was drafted within 2 months of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. During this period, the level of panic felt in response to the attacks on the world trade centre and the Pentagon was still at fever pitch. This led to the ATCSA being rushed through parliament without the usual scrutiny that acts normally undergo. This suggests that the force of the events, and the panic that was generated by them, was perhaps more significant a factor in assisting the passing of the legislation than the character of the legislation itself, and that there could be a correlation between the force of the panic and the speed of the legislative response.
The justification for this act was, understandably, the protection of the public, as governments were left reeling from a new kind of terrorist threat. However, the important question remains as to whether the panic felt was proportionate to the actual threat that was faced. Further questions are raised as to whether the existing criminal legislation was as inadequate for dealing with these threats as originally perceived. Indeed, the experience of the PTA (1989) was that of 7000 persons detained, a large majority have been released without charge, and only a small number have been charged with offences relating to terrorism. Furthermore, almost all could have been arrested under existing criminal law .
Critics of the new legislation complain that what has effectively been created is a two-tier approach to criminal justice, with conventional criminal law on one level, and anti-terror law on the other, with suspects falling into the latter category enjoying fewer rights and safeguards than the traditional criminal process. This is perhaps best demonstrated through the ‘detention without trial’ commonly associated with US terror suspects in Guantanamo bay, Cuba, but brought closer to home at HMP Belmarsh in the UK.
One of the most controversial issues surrounding the ATCSA 2001 is the return of the infamous policy of internment without trial, last used in Northern Ireland by Edward Heath’s conservative government. The 2001 Act provides that non-UK nationals may be detained without trial following the Home Secretary’s certification that the suspect is an international terrorist, or threat to national security. Other points of contention include section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 , which removes the ‘reasonable suspicion’ usually needed for searching suspects, which is being increasingly and controversially used at peaceful protests, most notably and recently
at the DSEi arms fair in London’s docklands .
It is these approaches to democratic standards that often provoke opposition amongst proponents of civil rights. Furthermore, negative responses have also been declared by senior MPs and Law Lords (including the Lord Chief Justice ), and celebrities and public figures alike. Controversial policy in the past, like the internment without trial in Ireland in the 1970s, has always been met with the dissent and protest that is a common part of the British democratic tradition.
The manner in which the recent legislation was passed fails to reflect the debate and controversy that is ongoing, concerning many of its provisions. Recently, opinion polls have suggested that the public, whilst considering that defence and security are top of the list for priorities, remain dissatisfied and distrustful of the government . These high levels of dissent, displayed in the aftermath of initial and continuing legislative responses to the terrorist threat, raise questions as to the important issue of the presence of any consensus which would have justified the demand for these measures being taken.
Mass media has been recognised as being politically significant since the dawn of the popular press during the late nineteenth century. However, other factors have contributed to the media becoming the powerful definer of debate that it is becoming increasingly seen as. The decline of the primary agents of political belief, namely the family and social class, twinned with the great technological advances in modern printing, real-time news presentation, the internet and information technology, have made media an increasingly powerful political actor.
Nowadays the public rely on the mass media more than ever before; and television and the internet are now seen as a much more important source of information than any type of political meeting. This same media have also become increasingly powerful economic actors, and led to what is seen as the ‘infotainment’ industry which sees organisations like Microsoft, AOL-Time Warner, Disney, and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation accumulating such extensive economic power that no government can afford to ignore them.
The media are also pivotal to the presentation of the terrorist threat, and also to the manifestation and maintenance of ‘risk’ discourse. Consequently, the contributions to media and sociological theory made by Chomsky and Herman (1994), Baudrillard (1983), and Beck (1982), are examined and applied in the following section.
1. Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman: Manufacturing Consent
"The raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print"
(Chomsky and Herman: 1994: 2 )
‘Manufacturing Consent’ (1994) identifies a media ‘propaganda model’ that re-evaluates the popular image of news as the upholder of truth, and presents a radical new view of the relationship between an elite consensus and the media. It is the rise in media power that the work of Chomsky and Herman focus on as being fundamental to their presentation of the ‘propaganda model’, which consists of 5 filters that news must pass through before being presented through mainstream media. The filters are:
1. the business interests of owner companies,
2. sensitivity to the views of advertisers, donors and sponsors,
3. the sourcing of news from ‘agents of power’ such as governments and think-
tanks,
4. ‘flak’, or pressure applied to journalists (including legal action),
5. unquestioned belief in market competition and capitalist ideology.
Their analysis, as the title suggests, focuses on the degree to which the mass media can subvert democracy and effectively mobilise support for government. Whilst this hypothesis ignores the role played by peoples own principles in filtering, and possibly blocking news messages, its value lies in its presentation (complemented with detailed case studies and examples) of how powerful a medium the media actually is, and how certain groups within society are able to harness this power to their own, often political advantage.
The model identified in their book is an example of the dominant ideology model of mass-media, which views media as being "…aligned to the interests of economic and social elites…to promote compliance or political passivity amongst the masses"
Other theories of mass media include:
? The Elite values model, which shifts focus away from ownership towards the way media output is controlled by individual professionals. It suggests that media moguls are only able to set a broad agenda and not directly influence the work of individual journalists.
? The Market model holds that media reflects rather than shapes the views of the general public. This occurs as the media agencies are primarily businesses concerned with profit, and subsequently provide people with what they want to hear.
Increasingly, there has been concern as to the evolving dynamics of the government’s relationship with the media. Politicians are undoubtedly concerned with maintaining public support as a means of remaining in office, and it is always possible that this could lead to a desire to hide what is negative. This has led to new techniques of ‘news management’ and ‘political marketing’, as an alternative to crude simplistic propaganda which would be wholly inconsistent to liberal democratic standards. One of the most tested of these techniques is the use of ‘spin’, which requires the manipulative presentation of information to achieve a desired response.
In the UK, New Labour have shown particular interest in their packaging of politics, and have come under frequent attack for their use of spin . Further recognition of the power of the media is reflected in the governments’ centralisation of its communications and dissemination of information through the Prime Ministers press office, most notably under the Prime Ministers former Director of Communications; Alistair Campbell. This has led to the governments ‘communication day’ which begins with a 9 am meeting attended by senior communications staff, the chief of staff, and specialist advisers and representatives from government. The meeting aims to streamline the day’s presentation and strategy, and certain individuals are assigned to resolve particular presentation issues that could arise during the day.
The result of this is that nothing is left to chance, and that the policy ‘message’ is ‘…carefully scripted, meticulously rehearsed, universally endorsed by party and government, centrally co-ordinated and favourably presented in the news media’ . As a further result, many new ‘units’ have arisen. The Media Monitoring Unit (MMU) compiles a daily digest of news media content with the purpose of identifying potentially problematic issues for consideration. The Strategic Communications Unit (SCU) is responsible for ‘…pulling together and sharing with departments the government’s key policy themes and messages’ . This involves drafting ministerial speeches with the insertion of phrases and sound-bites to illustrate consistency with the government ‘message’. The SCU’s key task, however, is preparing a weekly diary of important events, known as ‘the grid’. The purpose of this is to:
? Co-ordinate media presentation of stories for the coming week,
? Prevent clashes between different departments’ release of news,
? Ensure that positive developments are not overshadowed by ‘bad’ news,
? Leak ‘bad’ news on what is considered a ‘good’ news day for the government.
This has resulted in a structure which oversees the taut regulation of politicians relationships with journalists, and led to a ‘carrot and stick’ approach to media news management.
As a result of this, journalists have faced a tough choice: either accept the government line and be rewarded with the occasional exclusive, or remain critically investigative towards government and have interview requests denied, and ‘leak’ telephone briefings withdrawn –potentially fatal in an industry where ‘dead’ news is worthless.
The Hutton Enquiry , which investigated the circumstances surrounding the death of Government weapons expert David Kelly, tragically revealed what can happen when the interests of media and government are polarised. Kelly is reported to have committed suicide shortly after the release of his name as the source for a radio programme alleging the ‘sexing up’ of the government’s Iraq dossier. The events also served to highlight the blind determination and personal involvement with which Alistair Campbell oversaw the release of information to the press as ‘gate keeper’.
Applying Chomsky and Herman’s theory to developments in the UK proves fruitful. A brief analysis of recent developments in the news proves how easy it is to recognise the presence of any one, or a number of the ‘filters’ of their propaganda model. The first filter (business interests of media owner companies) can be demonstrated through Rupert Murdoch (owner of ‘news international’) and his backing of New Labour with ‘the Sun’ (traditionally a conservative tabloid), and more recently, the Daily express having "dramatically switched its allegiance to the Tories after seven years supporting Labour" . The description of the UK government’s use of ‘spin’, and the centralisation of its mode of dissemination correlate well with the ‘third filter’ (news sourcing). Finally, the Hutton Enquiry and Report is a clear demonstration of the fourth filter; flak (as a means of disciplining the media).
2. Jean Baudrillard: Simulacra and Simulation
"The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth –it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true."
(Ecclesiastes )
The work of the French Social theorist Jean Baudrillard provides another important insight into the blurred boundary that exists between reported news, and the reality that it purports to represent.
In his essay entitled Simulations , Baudrillard argues that our post-modern society is a place where signs have made a fundamental break from referring to reality, and accordingly; that the boundary between information and entertainment is blurred. This leads to a world of hyperreality, where the common distinctions between real and unreal become less apparent.
Baudrillard charts a movement from the ‘representation’ of something real to the ‘simulation’ that has no secure reference to reality. This alters the relationship between sign and referent to the extent that the connection becomes lost, as demonstrated in the following passage:
"These would be the successive phases of the image:
1.It is the reflection of a basic reality.
2. It masks and perverts a basic reality.
3. It masks the absence of a basic reality.
4. It bears no relation to any reality whatever: it is its own pure simulacrum.
In the first case, the image is a good appearance: the representation is of the order of sacrament. In the second, it is an evil appearance: of the order of malefic. In the third, it plays at being an appearance: it is of the order of sorcery. In the fourth, it is no longer in the order of appearance at all, but of simulation" (p.11).
Baudrillard presents us with an example situation where the simulating sign or image is removed from the priority of the reality that it originally served:
"…Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal. The territory no longer precedes the map, nor survives it. Henceforth, it is the map that precedes the territory – precession of simulacra" (p. 2).
The specific example of ‘9/11’ can be used as a succinct demonstration of Baudrillard’s ‘hyperreality’. Chernak et al (2003) , in their collection Media representations of 9-11 discuss how the media presented the September 11 crisis as an ideological ‘tour de force’, and examines how certain interpretations of the event are preferred to others. In doing so, it provides a range of examples of Baudrillard’s ‘simulation’, seen through the evolving style of presentation used by the various media agencies in their presentation of September 11th and the terrorist threat.
To show how "various media elevated specific meanings and ignored other readings when interpreting the events of September 11th" (p.3), the book uses studies concerning, amongst other things; the mainstream media presentation within 24 hrs of the attacks , the ongoing misrepresentation of Islam through the misuse of ‘Jihad’ , internet news treatment , an analysis of songs and music which responded to the events , and interestingly; an analysis of how comic books and their superhero characters incorporated the events into their stories .
The American media’s presentation of the events shows similarities with UK media’s initial coverage . The initial descriptions presented in "America under Attack" (p.85), of New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and US Rep Curt Weldon; "We’re at war. We’re absolutely at war", are translatable to those of the UK government representatives , and are also similar in their ability to help people make sense of what happened. This article in particular highlights how themes such as ‘war’, ‘military response’, ‘unity’, and ‘justification’ combines to form a visual and verbal frame which, in recognition of Baudrillard’s Simulations , remains divorced from the reality that it is supposed to represent.
As an example of Baudrillard’s ‘hyperreality’ in discourses on terrorism, the media representation of the recent war in Iraq is almost perfect. War, quite obviously, is a brutal experience, but as highlighted in News, Public Relations and Power , ‘real war’ and ‘media war’ are often very different experiences. In the media presentation of the war in Iraq, the death and destruction are both distant and distanced by the mediating, ‘third person’ role of the media. This is the reason, as well as the increasing importance of technology in war journalism, that the media are often accused of ‘dumbing down’ their presentation, and in effect, providing a simulation of war. This criticism is presented in Baudrillard’s essay: "The Gulf war did not take place" . Indeed, evidence of strategic ‘dumbing down’ can be seen in the avoidance of ‘enemy’ and civilian body count information, which stands in stark contrast to the prevalence of coalition death toll reports .
In accordance with democratic standards is the right to know what is being done ‘in your name’, for this reason conflict coverage is a critical issue for democracy. The recent terrorist atrocities in America have led to the overthrow of regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the media were there. However, how close the ‘simulations’ were to their ‘simulacra’ is debatable. Another succinct example of this can be seen in what is commonly presented as the moment of Saddam Hussein’s downfall; the demolition of his statue by American soldiers and Iraqi civilians -viewed as pivotal to the ‘true’ vision of Iraqi freedom. However, closer analysis of the situation reveals the behind the scenes stage management that resulted in the construction of an event likened to the fall of the Berlin wall .
3. Ulrich Beck’s ‘Risk’ Society and Actuarial Justice
‘Crime: together we’ll crack it’
(slogan used in previous government crime reduction campaign )
‘Crime: let’s bring it down’
(slogan of Home Office’s 2004 crime reduction campaign )
These catchphrases, whilst reflecting different attempts made by government to mobilise public interest towards combating crime, also represent a paradigm shift in how crime itself is perceived. The first slogan, optimistically, assumes that crime can be stopped, whilst the second highlights how, at best, it can only be reduced. This encapsulates a fundamental premise of ‘risk’ society and the actuarial justice that it produces, that of the acceptance of crime and the subsequent focus on management and risk aversion.
The contribution of Ulrich Beck’s The Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (1992) is valuable to both sociological and criminological discourse. It not only presents a radical reappraisal of ‘post’ modern society through its presentation of an alternative "society of ‘fate’, where subjects are merely preoccupied with preventing the worst" , but also provides a context for better understanding the new penology of actuarial justice
The basis of Risk Society, can be outlined in the following quotes from Erikson and Hagerty’s Policing the Risk Society :
"Risk society operates within a negative logic that focuses on fear and the social distribution of ‘bads’ rather than on progress and the social distribution of ‘goods’. It is characterised by a foreboding that is reflexively connected to its reliance on probabilistic thinking" (p.449), and: "Life is to be made real and liveable by risk technologies which tame chance in the landscape of fear" (p.449-450).
Bauman, in his Intimations of Post-Modernity elaborates further in his analysis, and presents it as a: "…scientific and rationalistic approach concentrating on the prediction and aversion of potential risks". The characteristics of risk society are therefore:
? A negative preoccupation with preventing the worst,
? A move toward the statistical management of aggregate populations, with the aim of maximising welfare and decreasing risk,
? A concentration on predictive techniques in social and crime control,
? The management of ‘risk’ as a reality, as opposed to academic and aetiological explanations of crime,
? An increasing emphasis on private security, to address the demand on the police, and to further assist in ‘risk’ management,
? The role of the police becoming increasingly advisory, and less central to criminal matters, highlighting a break from their traditional role.
The increasingly multi-faceted nature of ‘risk’ has meant that, in its various forms, it is addressed by agencies as diverse as the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU), MI5, the Police, the Probation Service, and the Home Office. As the characteristics show, the implications of these developments are felt increasingly in discourses on crime control. Beck’s analysis presents a sociological trend that reveals how penal modernism is evolving into a system of Actuarial Justice.
Actuarial justice is concerned with probability-based statistical categorisation, targeting, and management of ‘risk’ in crime control. Those targeted are the populations or categories with particular ‘high risk’ profiles. The most striking characteristic of actuarial justice is its change of emphasis from rehabilitation to control. Its rejection of aetiology can also be viewed as a rejection of social objectives.
The New Penology (Feeley and Simon 1992) , highlights how scholars of European and American criminal justice have observed a rising trend in targeting categories of offenders instead of individuals , and how the advance of statistical methods has resulted in "actuarial classification" being used "increasingly to define the correctional enterprise itself" (p.435). It also interestingly points out how the systems theory and operations research progression from its sole use in the area of business administration, to the field of military strategy and management, and then to public policy, can be "counted as among the most significant of current intellectual trends" (p.435).
The extent to which we have a new penal climate is debatable. Actuarial policy is still marginal outside of the US, which comes under constant criticism from recently substantiated claims of racial profiling . There is also the contention that Feeley and Simon exaggerate their claims, in recognition that there have always been actuarial elements of penology. Criticisms are also supported by recognition that in the UK, for example, there is still more focus on offences rather than offenders, which reflects the endurance of aetiological discourse. However, the rate at which actuarial policy has been implemented, and the Home Secretary’s determination to implement similar policy here, and encourage it overseas , does indeed suggest a move towards a new legislative climate .
An increasing amount of policies, trends, and events support the theoretical underpinnings of risk society and actuarial classification:
? The increasing use of CCTV (as a means of information gathering) in assessing risk, and the technological advances which accompany this (i.e. the use of facial-recognition software).
? The current enlargement and ‘de-mystifying’ of the intelligence services, undoubtedly as a response to the terrorist ‘risk’.
? Offender and sub-population/category profiling as risk analysis. This has been increasingly and controversially used in addressing the terrorist threat, one particular result of this being: ‘Islamophobia’. Liberty, the UK human rights watchdog, have pointed out that a vast majority of the people detained under new powers have been Muslims, and this has led to "isolation and growing feelings of alienation amongst some of the 1.6 billion Muslims in this country", and that government "is effectively criminalizing them as a community" .
? A renewed focus within the European Union, and particularly with New Labour, on the problem of social exclusion. This new ‘underclass’, arguably the late modern ‘other’ , is fundamental to policy making, and in the UK has resulted in the creation of the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU), and policies such as ‘New Deal’ –aimed at tackling youth unemployment, viewed as a pre-cursor to exclusion.
? The proposed introduction of ID cards, which would make the analysis, management, categorisation, and assessment of populations more effective.
? The encroachment of market values into the sphere of criminal justice policy, reflected in the increasing police use of sub-contractors, and the statistical management of prison populations. This reflects a diversion of funding, as the emphasis is moved from prevention to effective management, often with questionable consequences .
? The Governments most recent derogation from Article 5 of the Human Rights Act 1998, in response to the requirements of the ATCSA 2001. The derogation here refers to "the extended power to detain a foreign national where it is intended to remove or deport the person from the United Kingdom because the secretary of State believes that his presence is a risk to national security…but where such removal or deportation is for the time being impossible" . This can be deemed as actuarial in that it is intended to cover a situation where there may be a need to extend detention.
In Risk Society, Beck highlights how the developments outlined above are ‘modern’ enterprises; in as far as they employ scientific and rationalistic approaches to arrive at the long enduring notion of progress. In this case, the progressive goal is not an attempt to eliminate crime, but an attempt to make crime tolerable by systematic coordination which minimises possibility.
Beck also demonstrates how, like other modern pursuits that were equally relentless in their pursuit of ‘progress’, there are serious implications inherent in ‘risk’ discourse. In this case, the implications are in the self-fulfilling nature of risk, because the notion of ‘risk’ generates further ‘risk’. Accordingly, the more attempts that are made to avert risk, the more responses are required when inevitable further risks are posed.
This highlights the fundamental problem of addressing ‘risk’. It is an attempt to deal with something that ultimately exists only in a subjective capacity, and therefore remains intangible. For this reason, ‘risk’ cannot be ‘arrested’. At best it can be incorporated as a factor in social policy, but not used as a basis due to its circularity.
Other problems commonly associated with risk based approaches are:
? that it could lead to excessive criminalisation,
? that it could lead to the abandoning of the notion of ‘proportionality’ as offence and risk merge,
? that fear of crime could be exaggerated,
? that it could lead to weakened social cohesion and increased divisiveness as a result of increased fear,
? that it could lead to the enforcement of prejudicial stereotyping, heralding a ‘return to instinct’ as risk becomes increasingly subjective.
For these reasons the increasing focus on ‘risk’ analysis and discourse is problematic, and also highly significant when dealing with a prominent manufacturer of ‘risk’ in our time: terrorism.
