La couverture de presse et ses fonctions légitimantes

This paper examines the legitimating function of press coverage by means of a specific case study of political violence. Dissident actors who resort to violence to achieve their political goals are generally treated by the authorities as common criminals. This criminal justice model is reproduced and reinforced in the press by selective focus on specific, narrow topics at the expense of political analysis. These topics include the victims, the threat of future attacks, police activity, and the declarations of those in authority. In the October Crisis of 1970, this process was temporarily disrupted and a transient symmetry was achieved whereby the point of view of the dissident actors and their supporters received as much attention as the official perspective of the authorities. With the invocation of the War Measures Act, this symmetry was destroyed and press coverage once again returned to an almost exclusive focus on official definitions of the situation. The author suggests that this pattern of press coverage reflects a transient disruption in the legitimating function of the media whereby, in normal times, the reporting of “news” can reproduce and reinforce official views of dissident actors who use violence for political ends

Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism in a Multi-Centric World: Challenges and Opportunities

The article begins by comparing the 1999 arrest of PKK leader, Abdullah Ocalan, in Italy and his release despite extradition requests from Turkey and Germany, and the 1977 arrest of Palestinian terrorist, Abu Daoud, in France and his release despite extradition requests from Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany. The contrast between the massive, worldwide response in 1999 and the more muted, localized response in 1977 is related to James Rosenau's turbulence model of global change. The article then compares two discourses about the possibility that terrorists could use weapons of mass destruction, one in 1999 and one in 1980, using the Aum Shinrikyo case as a referent. The earlier discourse explains why terrorists would not resort to WMD terrorism, except in certain exceptional cases, while the latter discourse suggests that WMD terrorism is inevitable and must be prepared for. The difference is again compared to Rosenau's turbulence model and the claims-making activities by (primarily American) security professionals. It is suggested that the 1999 discourse is not supported by the facts of the Aum case and that it risks imposing a threat assessment and policy prescription onto Europe that is not concordant with European realities