Status of terrorism experts questioned

I know that I am not a great expert, but I know that I know more than at least a quarter of the "experts" who end up in the news. After reading this article I now know why. By reading the sites that I have linked in my sidebar, it is easy to figure out a lot more than the Media can figure out since they have heads inserted rectally. Yes, I mean you on MSNBC!

Read this full article and get an understanding about why the Media keeps getting it all wrong.

Status of terrorism experts questioned | higher news | EducationGuardian.co.uk: "...Since 9/11, research into terrorism has grown prolifically. According to the social science citation index, there were barely more than 100 articles relating to terrorism published in 2001; that figure had almost trebled by the following year and has carried on rising ever since, with more than 2,300 citations recorded last year.

So far, so pretty much what one might expect. After all, universities aren't immune to outside imperatives. Yet there is a new, more disturbing trend emerging within this field of the terrorist specialist as expert witness in terror trials....

...Not necessarily, Schmid maintains. 'While it is important to think about the relationship between academics and the counter-terrorism agencies, it is also important to think about the relationship between journalistic news values and terrorism. As long as 'good news is bad news' and 'if it bleeds, it leads' are top journalistic news values, those who produce violence for effect will always be able to receive ample coverage from the media. Terrorism is 1% bang and 99% publicity, as someone once put it. Terrorists depend on publicity, and on journalists and editors who provide that for them. That is a bigger problem than some academic experts testifying in court. I have never done so, but would not exclude it if I regard it as my duty as citizen.'"