Funny events in anti-woke world

[XsjadoBlayde]

Terrorists Read Your Articles, Too: How To Report On Manifestos

The relationship between media and violent spectacle has evolved in the internet age. Our responses to propaganda have not, argues Emmi Conley.

www.logically.ai

In April 1995, the New York Times published a letter ostensibly from a group taking responsibility for the bombings in the case that the FBI had been calling "UNABOM," a contraction of "University and Airline Bomber."

The letter, actually written by one Ted Kaczynski, claimed that the purpose of the bombings was larger than the individual targets, and was an effort to gain attention. The letter promised to stop all terrorist activity if his manifesto was published in "New York Times, Time or Newsweek, or in some other widely read, nationally distributed periodical."

The letter also requested that six months after publishing, the document "become public property, so that anyone can reproduce or publish it." By September 1995, the New York Times and the Washington Post agreed to publish the 35,000-word manifesto in full with the encouragement of the FBI director and Attorney General, who hoped it'd stop the violence.

Terrorism is an act of communicative violence, and thus requires a public spectacle. Murder and assault are primarily meant to impact the recipients of the act, but terrorism is meant for an audience. For communicative violence to be effective, the audience needs to be both in a position to receive the message and capable of understanding it.

Attacks that are only seen and not understood are as ineffective as attacks that aren't seen at all. Many acts of terror rely on symbolic dates, targets, and group affiliations with known ideological stances to guarantee that the significance of the attack reaches its intended targets. However, lone actors, who either have no group affiliation or choose not to announce it, are more dependent on written explanations for their actions rather than context and attribution alone. This is especially relevant to current far-right extremists, who are mostly connected through online networks where group membership is fluid at best. It is more accurate to think of these connections as movements rather than individual organizations.

Before the internet made instantaneous worldwide communication and media sharing possible for nearly everyone, terrorists depended on news media. Attacks needed to be planned where there would be cameras, live broadcasts, and reporters who would direct the eyes of the world. Thus, manifestos were mailed to the press, and attacks were timed to coordinate with public events, busy commuter hours, or the evening news to guarantee maximum visibility. But the internet has changed the role of news media in distributing terrorist messaging. Public attacks are reliably filmed by phone cameras or live-streamed by the attacker, manifestos are published on forums or emailed as shareable PDFs, and the media contextualizes this content for relevant public discourse. The news media is no longer necessary for publicizing the words of an attacker, but instead for constructing the narrative around the attack. The old form of terrorism that Kaczynski practiced, in which violence was used to gain attention that could be exchanged for political legitimacy, is gone. For most of today's mass shooters, the violence is the message, the motive, and the reward all in one. Now, the manifesto is not a negotiation or a threat, but a post-mortem.

Despite that critical shift in the medium, the way we think and talk about manifestos has hardly changed. The popular understanding is still that a manifesto is both an attacker's autobiography and a rallying cry. They paint themselves as sympathetic characters who were sent down a pathway to violence after learning some terrible truth about the world that convinced them a final violent action was the most righteous choice. Like the Unabomber's manifesto, it is a call to action to be read, distributed, and emulated so that others may finish what they started. The manifesto outlines their hope to be a catalyst for change.

.

News media has a tendency to take a slightly different but no more critical approach and regard the manifesto as a subgenre of the suicide letter. It is a dead man's last words – embodying his madness – which demonstrate some pervasive individual or societal sickness. It is treated as a sort of glimpse into the mind of the attacker, which presents an unparalleled opportunity to understand what could drive a person to such a terrible act. In the wake of something as traumatic as an act of terrorism, there is an understandable instinct to unravel the who, what, when, where, and most importantly, why of the event. A manifesto provides all of these explanations, in detail, and in the attacker's own words. It's why manifestos are so often paired with violence. Another pamphlet mailed to the media or uploaded to a forum hardly creates a stir, but violence creates questions to which manifestos provide answers. And the public suddenly becomes very desperate for those answers.

Both of these approaches to the manifesto have a tremendous vulnerability. They require readers to take the author at their word, and disregard the possibility that they, as a reader, also play a role in communicating the intended significance of the violence and designing the public perception of the event.

To turn an investigative eye onto a manifesto, there is actually only one thing about it that is guaranteed to be true. The singular given about any manifesto is that it was written to be seen, read, and distributed. Thus, it contains things that the author wanted to be seen, and doesn't contain things that they didn't.


There is no way for an onlooker to know beyond a shadow of a doubt if the author was genuine in their beliefs, fully lucid at the time of writing or at the time of the attack, or if the manifesto was even complete. Only the attacker can ever know these things. However, too often as researchers, journalists, law enforcement, citizens, and activists, we find ourselves asking "What can the manifesto tell us about the author and the attack?" rather than the much more important question "Why is this the piece of media that the attacker wanted me to see?"

Reframing investigations and media coverage to interrogate that question opens the door to much more responsible and insightful analysis.

Terrorists also live in a world where news media exists. They see what the reporting looks like and how it changes the conversation every time there is a terrorist attack. They know their words will be picked apart and analyzed for clues, that their digital history will be dissected, their rooms searched, and that any media they created will be shared. They know this because the same process takes place every time, with every actor. When they create videos, manifestos, and leave behind their digital footprint, they do it with this information in mind. Yes, they are still designed to be radicalizing calls to arms, but also to serve as a handbook on how to portray them in the news. The things they leave behind are evidence of the story they wanted us to tell, and rather than telling it, we should deeply consider what type of action or conversation that story contributes to.

The Christchurch shooter famously filled his manifesto with memes, jokes, and inflammatory and contradictory statements. At one point, he joked he was radicalized by Spyro, a children’s video game, and that he was a fan of Candace Owens, an American conservative commentator.

He also frequently stated that he hoped his shooting would exacerbate tensions between the right and left on gun control issues in the United States, ideally to the point of civil war.

The trap he laid snagged several high profile commentators, politicians, and journalists, who were quick to point out that people who called for more gun control were playing into the shooter's hands, or that people who threatened to push back against gun control were contributing to his hopes for violence. Plenty of people at the time were quick to point out that the manifesto was bait, but it is glaringly obvious in hindsight what the shooter had done. The gun control debate would have happened whether or not the shooter stated it was his intention. Sure, he wanted Americans to argue over guns, but he also wanted Americans to argue over the fact that he said he wanted them to argue over guns. He created an additional layer of social tension through uncritical – but nonetheless highly predictable – reporting on his manifesto. He got to influence the narrative without a single interview.

Several shooters, most recently the one in Buffalo, have taken note of what the manifesto from the Christchurch shooter accomplished. The Buffalo shooter went a step further and published his Discord diary, which he'd also heavily edited. In addition to his livestream of the shooting, there were more than 850 pages of written material. As always, people rushed to gather what they could about him and his motivations from the materials he released. Despite the fact that he was familiar with and claimed to be inspired by the Christchurch shooter, there was still a failure by public figures and reporters to consider the materials in their full context. These materials are not just for other potential terrorists or white supremacists. They're also for the reporter, analyst, or law enforcement officer reading it.

As a society, we are starting the difficult process of coming to terms with the fact that the next shooter has likely sat through multiple active shooter drills. But when will the media, researchers, and analysts consider that the next terrorist is reading your article and taking notes?

There is much to be learned from what terrorists want us to see, as long as we approach them that way. To take them at their word is to comfortably play our parts as propaganda vectors precisely the way they wrote them for us. As long as terrorists have existed, terrorists knew they needed media attention, and that to get it, they needed to cause an event of such public importance that they couldn't be ignored. The media need not ignore them, but perhaps shouldn't allow them to control their own image either.

I don't know if the Buffalo shooter was fully radicalized by 4chan posts or his terrible toothache. I do know he really wanted me to think that he was, and I should figure out why that is before the next shooter sporting their own remixed journo-bait manifesto decides for me.

-

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I know this is serious conspiracy brain news, but I'm still stuck on "ReTruthed"

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I know this is serious conspiracy brain news, but I'm still stuck on "ReTruthed"

They lost the copyright case, nobody has to play along with their dumb naming.

 

[Trunkage]

So you plan to actually be the group they claim is against and oppressing them / coming to get them to make their stupid fearmongering now seem a bit less stupid because now people actually are that against them they're probably trying to track down the person IRL by now.

Who specifically is going to track this down and use it?

Yes it is a little corner, or was until you started to claim the likes of Daryl Davies are racists too and anyone else who doesn't fall in line all the time join in sufficiently fighting "The enemies".

People are generally against racism and see it as a bad thing

Really, you really don't get that's how some of this shit on the internet works that if you put up a big neon sign telling people to that a certain place has stuff they'd like they'd go there and congregate there?

You don't. Apply this to cancel culture. By your logic, you made cancel culture popular

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Who specifically is going to track this down and use it?

Racists, who wouldn't bother because they wouldn't know it was a thing that existed if people hadn't decided this was the greatest evil of the week to slay from behind their keyboards so they don't actually have to do anything just yell online about it enough.

People are generally against racism and see it as a bad thing

Yes, yes they do. Which brings up the question of the worrying need some people have to make sure everyone knows that's their position constantly by trying to find anything to go after on those grounds rather than let morons simmer in their little corner alone.

You don't. Apply this to cancel culture. By your logic, you made cancel culture popular

Nah, the fact it was working made it popular. Sunlight tends to kill bacteria though and has been happening a fair bit with such stuff when it's exposed to be activists who don't actually care about whatever property just making a point and making it look like they're doing something lol

 

[Gergar12]

I love the right wing's reaction to the Dark Brandon meme. It's been a good week for Biden. China's GDP forecast is 2.8% to 3.0% vs 3.3% due to drought and Covid shutdowns, and Russia is forced to call more men to fight in Ukraine and get lots of losses. Biden signed the veteran burn pits act, the student loan forgiveness executive order, and the inflation reduction act. He earned his Green New Deal Lite. Pakistan's anti-American head of state was couped by the military likely with help from the CIA. It's a good day to be either a liberal or a Vaush align leftist.



Disclaimer: In all seriousness the fact that the third largest river can just dry up means we are screwed due to climate change, but if I am going to die from a climate horrorfest I may as well do so smiling at the memes that came from Let's go, Brandon.

 

[Trunkage]

Racists, who wouldn't bother because they wouldn't know it was a thing that existed if people hadn't decided this was the greatest evil of the week to slay from behind their keyboards so they don't actually have to do anything just yell online about it enough.

I mean... They're racists. This specific piece of media wont stop them from being racist. Why would I even care?

Yes, yes they do. Which brings up the question of the worrying need some people have to make sure everyone knows that's their position constantly by trying to find anything to go after on those grounds rather than let morons simmer in their little corner alone.

If its racist, it racist. I can't understand why you would worry about the feelings of racist. The whole point of free speech is to make others feel bad. If we subbed in trans for racist here, you would be demanding that we are allowed to insult them

Nah, the fact it was working made it popular. Sunlight tends to kill bacteria though and has been happening a fair bit with such stuff when it's exposed to be activists who don't actually care about whatever property just making a point and making it look like they're doing something lol

Great, apply this exact thinking to the above situation

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I mean... They're racists. This specific piece of media wont stop them from being racist. Why would I even care?

It won't but it does help entrench them in more when you specifically go after and try to shut them down when they're fucking about in their own corner for the most part for once not actually harming real people

If its racist, it racist. I can't understand why you would worry about the feelings of racist. The whole point of free speech is to make others feel bad. If we subbed in trans for racist here, you would be demanding that we are allowed to insult them

You can insult them all you like but I do rather question the worth of a megaphone in the media shouting down the equivalent of a flee and deeming them a worth target to go after and try to shut down. If your plan is to end racist them how exactly is trying to shame your opposition into submission meant to work again, oh right it doesn't work because the only people shaming tactics have worked on are those who have bent the knee and taken up towing the line for the woke ideology and will try to defend or deflect most of the dumber shit that conflicts with other parts.
I believe the term is Hecklers veto when such a thing is done to try and use free speech to try and deny others their right too.

Great, apply this exact thinking to the above situation

Doesn't work in the above case because it doesn't rely on secrecy to operate. Hell it wants to be known and spread.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

-

While never engaging directly with the "dark brandon" memology, there was one I took under my wing before the stuff spilt over to where it is now, in the hopes it would get some solid usage;



Sadly no worthwhile opportunity ever cropped up to justify using it though. So it must be let back into the wild once again. God speed.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Fuck.






It will only get worse.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Jesus, they're saying that a third or half of Pakistan is literally under water. How do we even begin trying to fix something on that scale

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

In much lighter and less consequential news

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

In much lighter and less consequential news

Well they do say to write about your experiences and what you know and make that into part of your works lol.

 

[Chimpzy]

Chaos Biden? What, did he collect all the chaos emeralds? Cue the Crush 40.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Chaos Biden? What, did he collect all the chaos emeralds? Cue the Crush 40.

This has gotta be a Larp right?
This is a meme
people can't be believing this?

More and more I believe Q-anon is the biggest troll move in the world.

Chaos Biden, does no-one remember the God Emperor Trump memes?

Like Mad respect to the troll / trolls behind this, that was some work figuring out how to name Biden the main villain faction in Warhammer 40K to carry on that meme.

Like the whole Pizzagate kids being held in a Pizzeria basement........ that's from fucking Animorphs the TV series only it was a burger joint lol

 

[Casual Shinji]

In much lighter and less consequential news

Looks like ol' Joanne is more and more taking pages out of the Daily Beast's book when it comes to storytelling. This is a turn that's giving M. Night a run for his money.

 

[Gordon_4]

Chaos Biden? What, did he collect all the chaos emeralds? Cue the Crush 40.

New Chaos Marine chapter for 40K confirmed?

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Jesus, they're saying that a third or half of Pakistan is literally under water. How do we even begin trying to fix something on that scale

Pakistan is turning into a lake and Jackson, Mississippi can't flush its toilets. But everybody loves warmer temperatures, so why worry about climate change?

 

[Gordon_4]

But everybody loves warmer temperatures

I don’t recall the global survey with that question. And if it had occurred, I’d have said no.

 

[Dalisclock]

Pakistan is turning into a lake and Jackson, Mississippi can't flush its toilets. But everybody loves warmer temperatures, so why worry about climate change?

More time at the beach! More summer for everyone! Everyone loves summer! /S

Actually no shit saw that in an article from REASON a few years back. Libertarian speak and oil company propaganda sound suspiciously similar.