rhetoric of image repair

1388 Words3 Pages

Rhetoric of Image Repair after Terrorist Attacks For most people, terrorism is associated with momentary acts of bloody violence meant to instill fear and discontent within a targeted group. The violence, destruction, and despair connected to terrorism is part of a larger goal of communicating a message to get a desired response. The meanings behind such messages are sometimes unknown to the victims, or the government agencies often named in the missives sent by these groups. Citizens depend upon their governments and law enforcement agencies to protect them from terrorist attacks and to communicate about possible future risks, but sometimes crisis communication fails to convey a sense of a safety to the populace. There are inherent challenges within crisis communication during and after such events because these situations are tense, uncertain and threats may still be looming. Governments shape the image repair discourse of crisis communication during and after terrorist attacks by primarily using the internet and television to shift blame from themselves, boost public confidence by informing them of corrective actions taken, and to advise the public of possible concerns regarding future dangers. Technological advancements have greatly improved how quickly information is disseminated where traditional print methods such as letters, magazines, and newspapers have failed. Instant communication applications used on social media platforms enable governments to relay information to the public but they also doubly serve as tools for image restoration. Press conferences and media exposure in a 24-hours news cycles allows officials to explain and interpret what has happened as clearly and openly as possible. Moreover, governments can ... ... middle of paper ... ...approach, framing involves political actors selecting a particular viewpoint, struggling over the right to define and shape issues, and skewing the flow of information and opinions to their advantage. Framing becomes a discursive means to achieve political strength in influencing public deliberation. In short, framing is seen as a strategic action in a discursive form, because it involves strategic decisions on matters such as which frame to sponsor, how to sponsor it, and how to expand its appeal. As a result, public deliberation is a frame contest, in which frames rise and fall, prevail or disappear (Canel, 2012, 215). The public images of governments are protected after post-crisis events when news media positively portrays their actions, comments, and agenda. However, the case of the March 11, 2004, bombings in Madrid, Spain demonstrate how contrasting frames

Open Document