The Digital Historian Project

An Experiential Learning Partnership between the UGDSB and the DCMA

Reporting on acts of terrorism

When most big news stations report on terrorist attacks the focus on the human element of the attack. Their coverage primarily deals with the suffering and sometimes the political implications of the attack. This can lead them to sometimes act irrationally and say things in the heat of the moment that the may not agree with later with hindsight. Gwynne Dyer on the other hand, completely divorces the human element from his articles and looks at the situation objectively. However, this has the side effect of making him look cold and completely indifferent the suffering that the attacks cause. When looking at the two different styles of reporting terrorist attacks the question that comes to my mind is what is the proper way of reporting terrorist attacks, if there is one at all? Must we all look at all terrorist attacks objectively even when running the risk of coming off as cold and uncaring? Or should we look at the human suffering regardless of what irrational actions we may do because of it? What do you think is the correct course of action? 

Is Gwynne Dyer's way of reporting correct?

Is Gwynne Dyer's way of reporting correct?

Or is it the big news outlets?

Or is it the big news outlets?