留學生新聞專業dissertation——美國主流媒體如何代表公眾的“恐怖主義”

Abstract摘要

9月11日襲擊紐約世界貿易中心和五角大樓可能是美國歷史上最戲劇化的媒體事件。襲擊發生在世界貿易中心的金融中心,位于美國五角大樓和中央圖標的美國軍事力量。這一打擊試圖向美國證明,美國是如此的脆弱,容易受到恐怖襲擊,即使是最強大的國家。布什政府操縱美國主流媒體和國家，“恐懼”讓美國公民對阿富汗戰爭采取反對政策，美國企業媒體也是如此。媒體的力量的站在“9/11恐怖襲擊”,“恐怖主義”和“反恐戰爭”的層面上產生了大量的實證研究,思考,討論，在歷史和當前社會媒體中產生了重要作用。凱爾納(2007)稱,襲擊美國開放了世界歷史的新紀元,世界范圍內的“反恐戰爭”被引爆,正當化的政治和國家特別是美國,開始抑制恐怖戰爭和軍事措施。布什政府操縱美國主流媒體和國家，“恐懼”由美國公民引發。
 
The September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and on the Pentagon were probably the most melodramatic media spectacles in the American history. The attacks happened on the World Trade Center the financial center of the United States, and the Pentagon the central icon of military might of the United States. This strike against the US was trying to attest that the United States was so fragile and vulnerable to terrorist attacks, even if it was the most powerful country. The Bush Administration manipulated both the American mainstream media and national “fear” which was experienced by American citizen to accomplish a rightwing agenda and call for a war against Iraq and Afghanistan with the collusion of the American corporate media. The power of media representation of “9/11 terror attack”, “terrorism” and “war on terror” have produced a large number of empirical researches, reflections, and debates on media’s role in history and in current society.
 
Chapter 1: Introduction引言
 
1.1 Background

The September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and on the Pentagon were probably the most melodramatic media spectacles in the American history, which was, of course, a worldwide media event. The attacks happened on the World Trade Center the financial center of the United States, and the Pentagon the central icon of military might of the United States. This strike against the US was trying to attest that the United States was so fragile and vulnerable to terrorist attacks, even if it was the most powerful country. McLuhan’s “global village” seems to be full of terror, damage, trauma and death.#p#分頁標題#e#
 
According to Kellner (2007), the assaults on the United States opened up a new epoch in world history in which worldwide “war on terror” was detonated, and countries especially the United States, legitimated political suppress and military measures in the Terror War. The Bush Administration manipulated both the American mainstream media and national “fear” which was experienced by American citizen to accomplish a rightwing agenda and call for a war against Iraq and Afghanistan with the collusion of the American corporate media. The power of media representation of “9/11 terror attack”, “terrorism” and “war on terror” have produced a large number of empirical researches, reflections, and debates on media’s role in history and in current society. In this dissertation, I will explore the representation of “9/11”, “terrorism (terrorist)”, “war on terror” in the American mainstream media in and after 9/11, and try to explain how they are influenced by “fear” and manipulated by the Pentagon.
 
1.1.1 Terrorism
 
Terrorism is defined as “the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims” in the Oxford Dictionary (online), and “(threats of) violent action for political purposes” in Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2008). However, in the international community, the definition of terrorism has evidenced contentious. Different definitions of terrorism have been used by government bodies and other legal systems in their own national legislation. Such divergences make it difficult for the United Nation to unify the definition of terrorism (Diaz-Paniagua, 2008). However, the United Nations General Assembly proposed “the declaration on measures to eliminate international terrorism” in 1994, which described terrorism as follow:
 
“Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”(United Nation, 1994)
 
Regardless of how to define terrorism, it is always violently charged. Those violent behaviors intentionally target or ignore the safety of civilians in the hope of attaining publicity for a group, individual or cause. Therefore, terrorism always carries strong pejorative connotations. As political label, this term has often been used to denounce violence or threats of violence by some actors as immoral, sinister, undiscriminating, and unjustified.
 
1.1.2 History of Terrorist Attacks
 
Terrorist attack is “a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims” (Online Dictionary, 2014). The origins and practice of terrorism go back to the 1st century AD Sicarii Zealots, a Jewish extremist group, who killed some remarkable collaborators with Roman rule (Chaliand, 2007), although some dispute whether such act was a true meaning of terrorism. The first use of terrorism itself occurred during the “Reign of Terror” in the French Revolution. It was used to describe the actions of the Jacobins, who dominated the revolutionary state and pursed cruel punishment such as mass executions by guillotine to build power. The term terrorism was associated with state violence continued until the middle 19th century, when it started to be related to the anarchist groups. Anarchism often colluded with rising anti-monarchism and nationalism, was the most remarkable ideology associated with terrorism.#p#分頁標題#e#
 
The late 19th century witnessed attacks by various non-governmental groups were fairly frequent, including the assassination of the U.S. President Abraham Lincoln (who was killed by a slaverism-zealot in 1865) and Czar Alexander II of Russia (who was killed by an underground in 1881). In the early 20th century, terrorism was still increasingly involved with a large contingent of anarchist, fascist, nationalist and socialist groups which continued to inspire political violence. During that time, many of them turned to the anti-colonial battles in ‘third world’.
 
During the World War II, strategies of partisan, guerrilla were applied and resistance movements were organized by the Allies. For instance, in June 1941, the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) blew up the Pessac power station in France and destroyed the electric railways and paralyzed communication infrastructure of western France (BBC History, 2011). According to Foot (1967), who was a British military historian and former British Army intelligence officer and also served to the SOE, points out that, such tactics can be regarded as terrorist attacks. By the late 1960s, terrorism was used by the Nixon administration to describe a large variety of activities and groups，and became a prevalent designation to refer to hostile groups of the United States administration and their allies during the World War II. In this era, the US was extensively denounced for its criminalities against noncombatants in Vietnam and some other places, and intervening in politics of other nations by violence. This contributed to the appearance of “state terrorism” that was also often applied to Israel (Herman, 1998).
 
In the late 20th century, well-known violent attacks like the Oklahoma City Bombing in April 1995 and Sarin Gas Attack on the Toyo subway in March 1995 were also attributed to terrorism. In the 21st century, after the September 11 attacks in 2001, terrorist attacks became unprecedentedly more commonplace, from Moscow Theatre Attack in 2001, to London Bombings in 2005, to Mumbai Hotel Attacks in 2008, to Norway Attacks in 2011, to the latest Kunming Attacks in 2014.
 
1.1.3 September 11 Attacks
 
On September 11, 2001, four coordinated terrorist attacks were launched by al-Qaeda upon the United States. Thousands of people died in these attacks, including all the innocent passengers and a dozen of hijackers in the four planes. The attacks also caused serious damage to the US and negatively impacted on global markets. Since the day of attacks, Wall Street and stock market were shut down for almost a week, and the non-emergency civilian airspace was also closed in the US, Canada until September 13, consequently stranding thousands of passengers all over the world. Besides, many other closings and cancellations followed the attacks, out of regard for fear of further attacks or respect for misery of others. Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of tons of toxic dust, according to Gates (2006), containing not less than 2500 contaminants, were spread across Lower Manhattan as a result of the slumping of the Twin Towers. Around 18 thousand people were calculated to go down with illnesses due to the toxic debris (Shukman, 2011). The terrorist attacks therefore had, not only material impact - damaged the US and global economy, but also psychic impact - traumatized a country with fear.#p#分頁標題#e#
 
1.1.4 Why 9/11 is still important?
 
As a matter of fact, the World Trade Center was attacked by Islamist radicals associated with Osama bin Laden back in 1993. This provided a preview of the more horrendous September 11 attacks that shook the world. According to Kellner (2003), the terror spectacles of the September 11 attacks was considered to be the most extravagant impact on the targets in the US history, and the foremost foreign assault on the continent of the US since 1812. Some ones may argue that the September 11 Attacks happened a dozen years ago and people have overreacted with this event and made this tragedy bigger that it is. However, from my standpoint, it was and still is tremendously important and need to be further explored due to several reasons as follow:
 
First and foremost, it happened in the United States the most powerful country in the world, rather than in some war-torn regions of the world, if so that would be considered as it should be. Besides, the attacks happened somewhere very special: the World Trade Center the financial center of the country, and even, some may contend, the world; and the Pentagon the central icon of military might of the United States. They are not some buildings that people may have never heard of like some casual department stores or office buildings. The World Trade Center represents the business elite and its occupants are all household names. According to Trivedi (2001), it can be regarded as the representation of the prevalent cultural and financial imperialism of the United States. The Pentagon harbored the instruments and devices for protecting the US from all attacks; however, the attack on the Pentagon “has shattered the nation’s complacency” (National Geographic Today online, 2001). Attacks on such remarkable buildings selected by terrorists intended to terrorize the whole United States, do be enough to shock the whole world.
 
Furthermore, the September 11 Attacks resulted in complete alterations in the US foreign and security policy (BBC News Magazine, 2011). For instance, the US Congress passed the Homeland Security Act in 2002, creating the Department of Homeland Security, and also enacted the USA Patriot Act, which however was criticized for its invasion to the privacy of citizens without a warrant (Eggen, 2004). Following the September 11 Attacks, the US also launched the “war on terror” and invaded Afghanistan to depose Al-Qaeda, and invaded Iraq to strike "axis of evil"(identified by Gorge W. Bush). The September 11 attacks seemed to indicate that, since terrorism can permeate into the soil of the United States, it can also continue to destroy the foundations of other states across the world. Unfortunately, the facts have exactly proved this. In the past dozen years, militant attacks, a single of which killed more than 20 people, occurred all over the world (BBC News Magazine, 2011).
 
Last but not least, the 9/11 Attacks was involved in the political conspiracies. Advocates of the conspiracy theories claimed the Attacks was deliberately ignored, or assisted, or even, some argued, designed by the US government to justify the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and carry out the pipeline plans lunched by the American oil companies (Peter, 2008), although experts had believed these theories were unreasonable (Bild, 2010). The State Department condemned “terrorism” and “terrorists” publicly in the 2006 statement of national security strategy, in order to debunk the conspiracy theories that had been constantly preached among the public. However, in 2007, A Zogby poll entrusted by 911 Truth.org showed that 63.6% of the US citizens held that Arab fundamentalists should be accountable for the attacks, while 26.4% believed that the US government deliberately ignore and allow them happen for reaching political, economic and military purposes, and 4.8% held that that attacks were backed or originally designed by the US government (X-911T.spo., 2009). Whatever the truth of 9/11 Attacks is, Griffin (2007) suggests that there are still many individuals or groups believe conspiracy theories should be part of the September Attacks truth movement.#p#分頁標題#e#
 
1.2 Research Aims
 
This dissertation has majorly four aims:
 
I. to represent the post ‘9/11’ Media Spectacle
 
II. to explore the motives of the attacks and the subsequent “war on terror”
 
III. to explore how American media represent “terrorist” and “terrorism”
 
IV. to explore how American mainstream media is manipulated by the U.S authority
 
1.3 Overview of Dissertation Structure
 
In the following Literature Review part, this dissertation will firstly illustrate that how media reacted to the September 11 Attacks and how American media help shape social memory, construct individual’s view of history and contemporary reality (Kellner, 2010: 88). Secondly, it will attempt to figure out whether the terrorist attacks launched majorly due to Huntington’s Clash of civilization (1996). The it will try to explain how three figures ”danderous” Muslim men, the “imperiled” Muslim women and the “civilized” West proposed by Sherence Razack (2008) symbolize the “war on terror”. Finally, it will briefly explain why American films have much more influence on the audience across the world, and how they represent the terrorists through instilling “orientalist” ideology. It will also deconstruct terrorists in the American media by embedding a racialized imaginaire of “Others” who are unfolded on media coverage.
 
In Methodology part, this dissertation will mainly employ the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Fairchough’s Three-Dimension model and case study to help to find how the American media represent “terrorism” and “terrorists”. In detail, it will illustrate four cases, in which I will explain what and how the media represent “terrorism” or “terrorists”, or “war on terror” by using Three-Dimenstions model. Each case study will be equipped with specific case analysis.
 
In Discussion/ Analysis part, this dissertation will review the September 11 attacks and explain where media “fear” comes, and how such “fear” influences their media report. It will also demonstrate that, to some extent, the American mainstream media has been manipulated by the U.S. authority t, and will give some examples helping to prove the media situation.
 
In Conclusion part, this dissertation will give a brief summary of what has been covered in the paper. It will also point out some limitations of this dissertation in terms of contents, research methods.
 
Chapter 2: Literature Review文獻綜述
 
2.1 Post ‘9/11’ Spectacle of mainstream media:
 
Mainstream media refers to the media distributed through the largest spreading channels. The term also can indicate “those media mostly representative of the prevalent flows of thought, effect, or activity. In the United States, it often refers to those big news conglomerates since 1990s, when newspapers and broadcast were suffered mergers by larger news corporations. Media ownership concentration has arguably contributed to a homogenization of views presented to the audiences. This means, in the U.S., there is an absence of a variance in media viewpoints (Chomsky, 1997). However, the arrival of the internet has allowed for various views existing in the public and different viewpoints to mainstream media (Tkacheva, 2013).#p#分頁標題#e#
 
During and after the 9/11 attacks, a large number of related reports constantly appeared on the media around the world. The September 11 attacks in 2001 had dominated public attention and provoked a large number of discourses, reflections and writings. Media exposure may be a main object of those launching terrorist acts, to uncover issues that if not would be disregarded by the public. Kellner (2010: 88) notes that “Powerful media spectacles help shape social memory, constructing individual’s view of history and contemporary reality”, and “Resonant images help construct how people see and interpret the world.”
 
In a global media world, grandiose spectacles of terror have been orchestrated to get global attention, dramatize the matters of the organizations involved, and accomplish specific political purposes. Terror spectacles of the September 11 unfolded in a city that was extensively media-saturated all around the world, and they released a fatally drama through live broadcast. The images of the airplanes crashing into the World Trade Center buildings and their collapse were transmitted repeatedly on television, as if repetition could control an exceedingly traumatic incident. The spectacles of terror were transmitted throughout the whole world, with the global audiences watching the attack on the United States and attempts of New York to deal with the assault. They provided indelible images that audiences would never forget. The spectacle continued day and night with individuals being dragged out of the ruins, and the poignant search for survivors and tries to cope with the assault produced resonant symbolic images imprinted deeply into viewers’ memories. The message delivered by the spectacle was that the United States was not so Invulnerable to terrorist attack and terrorists could make massive damage, and anyone could suffer a violent attack at anytime and anywhere, even in ‘ Fortress America’ (Kellner, 2003).
 
2.2 Clash of civilization?
 
On the day of the September 11, the networks sprang up a large number of national security state clerisies, commonly ranging from the rightwing to the ultraconservative, to expound the terrorist attacks. Jeane Kirkpatrick who was a former Ambassador of United Nations and Reagan-Administration defender, laid out an abbreviated version of Huntington’s Clash of Civilization (1996) through the Fox Network and argued that there was a war just around the corner between the West and Islam. The clash of civilization theory, which was developed by Political scientist Samuel P. Huntington in 1992, is that different cultural and religious identities are the main source of clash after the end of Cold War. Huntington suggests that accompanied the end of the Cold War, an ideology age ended and a normal situation will be characterized by cultural and religious conflict. He wrote in “The Clash of Civilizations?” in the Foreign Affairs’ summer 1993 issue:
 
“The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.” (Huntington, 1993)#p#分頁標題#e#
 
Huntington also proposes that civilizational clashes between Muslims and non-Muslims, especially the Western-Islamic conflict, are especially prevailing, and the “bloody borders” are identified between these two civilizations. More current causes resulting in a West-Islam conflict, according to him, are the Islamic Resurrection and exploding population in Islam associated with the values of Universal Salvation form the West, which is the opinion that all civilizations in the world should accept Western universalism, consequently enraging Islamic fundamentalists. He also deems that all the historical and recent reasons joined, would contribute to a bloody battle between Western and the Islamic civilizations (Huntington, 1993). Huntington’s clash of civilization study was concluded by Amartya Kumar Sen (1999), who is an economist and a Nobel Prize winner in his article “Democracy as a Universal Value” that individualist sense, rights and freedoms can be only found in the West, which makes the Western civilization unique among all the societies. However, also in that article demonstrably mentioning Huntington and his theory, he argues that "diversity is a feature of most cultures in the world, and Western civilization is no exception”. In fact, Huntington’s theses have been also criticized harshly by numerous other scholars (Fox, 2005).
 
Paul Berman, who is a writer on politics and literature, argues that there are no different cultural boundaries in the current day, and there is also no Western or Islamic civilization. He believes that a civilization conflict is not evidently convincing, particularly when referring to the September 11 terrorist attacks. He points out the fact that numerous Muslims spend a plenty of time learning and receiving the Western culture. Berman also suggests that clash comes about due to philosophical beliefs different societies share, setting cultural or religious identities aside. Literary theorist Edward Said (2001) argues that civilizations in Huntington’s theses are fixed, not fully considering of the dynamic interaction of civilization. As a plainspoken supporter of Arab affairs, he also maintains that the proposition of civilizational clash is an instance of a pure unjust racism, and “a sort of parody of Hitlerian science directed today against Arabs and Muslims"(Said, 2007: 293). Avram Noam Chomsky, who is an American linguist, political commentator and activist, criticizes the notion of the clash of civilizations as merely being a crafty justification for the U.S. Military for any atrocities that they want to perpetrate.
 
2.3 Race Thinking and Orientalist Discourses:
 
To symbolize the “war on terror”, Sherence Razack (2008) proposed three figures: the “danderous” Muslim men, the “imperiled” Muslim women and the “civilized” West, which are also referred in Michelle Aguayo’s article “Representations of Muslim Bodies in The Kingdom” (Razack, 2008). She refers to “race thinking”, which was defined by Hanna Arendt (2008: 8) as “a structure of thought that divides up the worlds between the deserving and the undeserving according to descent”, and maintains that “race thinking undergirds the making of empire”, “all Muslims became marked as outside political community when they are assumed to carry within them the possibility of threat to the nation” (Razack, 2008: 18-19).#p#分頁標題#e#
 
She points out those Muslim communities are prevented by the Western from the political community, and also illustrates complicated ways in which the West, especially the U.S seeks for empire unfolds after the September 11 event (Aguayo, 1999). Besides, when analyzing the “imperiled” Muslim women, she argues that the alleged Western feminists are complicit mediators in the era of global “war on terror”, as the atrocities which were executed on the Muslim society is justified through feminist discourse of “salvation” of Muslim women from their barbaric men and outdated laws. However, Zillah Eisenstein argues that neither the help of the West nor the Western women, are successful to inspire Muslim women to reveal that mistreatment or ferocity upon them is a complete infringement, and he deems that “women all over the world command their rights and freedoms on their own grounds” ( Eisenstein, 2002: 96).
 
2.4 Post-9/11: Representation of “terrorist” in the terrorism-themed American films
 
Among various forms of representation of 9/11 attacks, films and documentaries obviously have much more influence on the audience across the world. Film is seen as a significant art form, a popular entertainment source, and an influential intermediate for educating or instilling citizen. It is composed of a series of moving images coupling with the sensory stimulus, and thus gives it a mighty power of communication. As Tzanelli (2005: 99) note, movie is a “social drama” in its best form, due to its ability to construct, criticize and reproduce “realities, conflicts and dilemmas”. French movie critic and theorist André Bazin also maintain that film’s essence exists in its capability to automatically represent reality, although many early film theorists argue that it is its difference from reality that is film’s essence (Stam, 2000 & Bazin, 1971). Comforting to the present socio-political situation, Slouka (1995) wrote in his book War of the Worlds:
 
“Increasingly removed from personal experience, and over-dependent on the representations of reality that come to us through television and the print media, we seem more and more willing to put our trust in intermediaries who ‘re-present’ the world to us.” (Slouka, 1995)
 
After the September 11 event, there has been a climate of “terrorism” and the “war on terror” in the American films, which convey a new-style “cultural currency” (Aguayo, 2009). In inspecting the representational criteria and politics in the American movies’ shaping of terrorists’ images post-911, a critical engagement with the films is obligatory so as to disclose the complicated ways in which terrorists are frequently depicted as Muslim bodies considered treacherous, pre-modern and savage in the popular culture of America.
 
Jack Shaheen, who has analyzed more than 900 Hollywood films (Aguayo, 2009), lays a foundation for testing how the Hollywood movie type reproduce and stereotypes the Muslim bodies in American popular culture. He illuminates the ways in which the American cinema has defamed the Muslim societies by representing Muslim bodies as greedy for money, wicked men or eroticized young girls or women. Shaheen emphasizes that such stereotypes hazardously structure Arabs in negative roles which are intentional and politically driven, considering the U.S. foreign policy and military measures toward the Arab Region. It seems to be particularly unfair, as the Hollywood film has international circulation and powerful influence on the globe that, consequently, will help to represent a society with the images that the U.S. wants it to be. This approach can not only eliminate the Western encounters with “others”, but also as Shohat and Stam (1994:201-202)note, “The flawed mimesis of many Hollywood films dealing with the Third World…has less to do with stereotypes per se than with the tendentious ignorance of colonialist discourse.”#p#分頁標題#e#
 
In their examinations of the American thriller movie The Seige (1998), Downing and Wilkins also have underlined the way in which the American amusement media confines their discourses about Muslims and Islam. They state that the American media’s exposition about Muslims makes full use of the “Orientalist” ideology to construct them as inferior and uncivilized hominids, therefore effectively maintaining discriminatory identifications and relations of the Muslim societies. They also point out the complex way in which Arabs and Muslims are structured and regarded in banal roles, by using an interdisciplinary method to examine the film, which contains news discourses and spectator understandings (Aguayo, 1999), and carefully restate Stuart Hall’s view of media texts as a “site of struggle” (1980: 128-138).
 
According to Gottshalk and Greenberg (2008: 61-89), stereotypical roles are always closely linked to bigger political strategies and constructions that are universally penetrative and can exist in cultural products such as comics and editorial cartoons, in which the notion of “Islamophobia” will be mobilized in their unique representations. “Islamophobia” refers to “a social anxiety toward Islam and Muslim cultures”, and they consider that it depends very closely on a sense of “other” (Gottshalk &Greenberg, 2008: 5). Those political editorial cartoons resonate with viewers, for the reason that they come from common sense and, consequently, are processed to be easily comprehensible, attracting the viewers to which they talk about. The information they create of the collective story of the Arabs and Muslims creates an infernal circle of “we” versus “others”, which was a chief theme in America’s foreign policies, particularly in the Bush administration’s strategic planning of justifying the “war on terror” and normalizing atrocities exerted upon the Muslims.
 
Chapter 3: Methodology研究方法
 
3.1 Theoretical underpinnings
 
Discourse, in itself, is a wide term with many definitions, as Titscher (2000: 42) notes, it “integrates a whole palette of meanings”, including sociology, linguistics, philosophy and many other subjects. According to Fairchough (1989: 24), “discourse” refers to “the whole process of social interaction of which a text is just a part.” This means the term “discourse” is broader than the term “text”. Obviously, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is “not a homogenous model, nor a school or a paradigm, but at most a shared perspective on doing linguistics, semiotic or discourse analysis” (van Dijk, 1993: 131). Norman Fairclough defines CDA as:
 
“a discourse analysis that aims to explore opaque associations of causality and determination between (a) discursive practice, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes, to investigate how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power; and to explore how the opacity of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony.” (Fairclough, 1993: 135)#p#分頁標題#e#
 
Notably, the relationship mentioned by Fairclough is bi-directional. Amjad Khan concludes that “discursive practices are constitutive of social structures” simultaneously “the social structures determine discursive practices.” (Khan, 2009: 25). What CDA differs itself from other discourse analysis is its trait of ‘critical’. In his book Discourse and Social Change, Fairclough (1992: 9) points out that “’Critical’ implies showing connections and causes which are hidden; it also implies intervention, for example providing resources for those who may be disadvantaged through change.” The objectives of many CDA followers want to accomplish have been summarized by Batstone (1995: 198-199):
 
“Critical Discourse Analysts seek to reveal how texts are constructed so that particular(and Potentially indoctrinating) perspectives can be expressed delicately and covertly; because they are covert, they are elusive of direct challenge, facilitating what Kress calls the “retreat into mystification and impersonality.”
 
Aim to the question of how CDA is undertaken, Norman Fairclough (1989) suggests three levels of discourse: (1) social conditions of production and interpretation (i.e. the social context that contributes to the origination of the text), (2) the process of production and interpretation (i.e. how the text is produced and how this acts on interpretation), and (3) text (the product of the former two stages) (1989: 24-26). This conception later developed to the Three-Dimensional Model (TDM).
 
Fairclough’s TDM for CDA gives us an analytical framework for examining specific texts. He proposed that one should not only analyze the texts or the processes of production and interpretation, but also analyze the relationship among texts, processes and their social conditions, which is to say, one should not only analyze “the immediate conditions of the situational context, but also the more remote conditions of institutional and social structures” (Fairclough, 1989: 26). He divided discourse into the following three dimensions: text, interaction and context. As for George W. Bush’ address about “war on terror”, text refers to the speech he has delivered; Interaction involves within the circulation of the address through any forms, and context refers to the background, of course, the September 11 attacks. The following figure shows the relationship between text, interaction, and context:
 
Fig. 1 Discourse as text, interaction and context (Fairclough, 1989)
 
Later, Fairclough (1992) revised the model and respectively used the term text, discursive practice and social practice instead of the previous three terms: text, interaction and context. He further proposed that “text is the product of semantics, the sound system, and cohesion-organization above the sentence level” (Fairclough, 1995b: 57). The first area aims to explore traditional and functional linguistic methodologies, and the second is discursive practice including “production”, “distribution” and “consumption” of the text and all of them rely on specific social practice. In this case, discourses are considered as communicators of ideology and therefore the analysis is mainly focused on what Fairclough (1992) called the “ideological framework”. The third area is social practice and in this area, ideology hidden in the text and its relationship with language are revealed finally at this level.#p#分頁標題#e#
 
Based on the above three dimensions of discourse, Fairclough (1989) further put forward a three-stage procedure to conduct CDA: description, interpretation and explanation.
 
(a) Description:
 
Description is the stage which deals with the formal properties of the text. (Fairclough, 1989) To be specific, it refers to the linguistic features of vocabulary, grammar, textual structures and so on, which are analyzed by Halliday’s SFG, such as transitivity, modality, themes, etc.
 
(b) Interpretation:
 
“Interpretation is concerned with the relationship between text and interaction – with seeing the text as a product of a process of production, and as a resource in the process of interpretation” (Fairclough, 1989: 26)
 
(c) Explanation:
 
“Explanation is concerned with the relationship between interaction and social context — with the social determination of the processes of production and interpretation, and their social effects” (Fairclough, 1989: 26) The analysis at this stage is related to the broader socio-political and historical contexts. As for the political address, the hidden ideology and its relationship with language are uncovered finally at this stage (Fairclough, 1989).
 
The revised three-dimensional model of critical discourse analysis can be illustrated in Figure 2 below:
 
Fig.2 Three-dimensional conception of discourse (Fairclough, 1992)
 
According to Fairclough (1992), the three levels of analysis each serves a particular purpose and interacts with each other. As a result, by the combination of the three-level analysis, the underlying ideology hidden in discourse is revealed.
 
3.2 Case analysis
 
3.2.1 Case (1):
 
Description
 
“War on America”, “America’s New War”, draw example of Pearl Harbor (1941)
 
Interpretation
 
Media representation:
 
Production, circulation, consumption of media sources
 
Explanation
 
Call for all-out war, justify “war on terror”
 
Case (1) Analysis:
 
After the September 11 attacks, the U.S. Radio and television provided a platform for dangerous and extreme fanatics to vent their feelings and spread the most invasive, frenzied, and occasionally lunatic opinions, generating a consensus around the requirement for instant military involvement and all-out war. Some provocative slogans such as “War on America” and “America’s New War” frequently appeared on the U.S. television networks, as if the US was at war and only a military operation was proper. All these zealots and slogans with certain intension were attempting to push the nation into hysteria and make it sure that a military action and war must come. Not astonishingly, talk radio let out abhorrence and mania, appealing to retaliation and war on Arabs and Muslims. To the subsequent later, as Kellner (2003) suggests, even mainstream radio journalism was brewing war fever, filled with hyper music, deeply nationalistic feelings, and all-inclusive violence-mania and war propaganda. For instance, the Attack on Pearl Harbor (1941) was excavated onto broadcast news as an analogy to the September 11 attacks, in order to elicit a necessity of revenge like what the U.S. fought back Japan, and pave the way for a coming war.#p#分頁標題#e#
 
3.2.2 Case (2)
 
Description
 
dualist approach : “us” vs. “other”, justice vs. wickedness, freedom vs. terror, those ruled by terror vs. those side with freedom
 
Interpretation
 
Media representation of Bush’s speech:
 
Production, circulation, consumption of media sources
 
Explanation
 
Make sense of “fear” that comes from “other”, demonize “terrorists”
 
Case (2) Analysis:
 
Many commentators on the U.S. corporate media provided similarly unilateral and Manichean explanations of the source of the September 11 attacks, imputing to their favorite enemies in the contemporary American political spectrum as the cause of the terrorist attacks. Eric Lichtblau (2009), in his book Bush’s Law: The Remaking of American Justice, briefly explained what happened to the journalism after the September 11 Attack. Bush's Law is a work resulting of the combat between the journalism and a surreptitious administration. It uncovered some facts that citizens were falsely arrested as terrorists due to cursory and incompetent investigation in a period of terror, and the Bush administration illegally wiretap domestic communication. As Lichtblau wrote in the book: "We in the media were no doubt swept up in that same national mood of fear and outrage" (Lichtblau, 2009).
 
While Bush attributed the national “fear” to his abstract “other” and enemies, as the film Bowling for Columbine (2001) directed by Michael Moore reveals, the American corporate media were adept at exploiting fear in their massive presentation of violence and homicide, and dramatization of a large scale of threats from extraneous “other” and opponents and within daily life (Kellner, 2003). Notoriously, President Bush also used Manichean discourse to structure the wicked “other” who assaulted the United Stated and to bring into focus the virtue of the US against the forces of evil, using absolutely dualist approach. In his speech, Bush described the dispute as a war between justice and wickedness, between freedom and terror, between those ruled by terror who wanted to smash American prosperity and freedom and those side with freedom. According to Bush, the word “freedom” referred to what the United States was striving for and what the terrorists were objecting to. Kellner (2001) points out that “freedom” for Bush signed the ability to say and do whatever he desired to, in his lifetime of offering economic deregulation, in favor of his corporate followers, and partaking himself in doubtful political and business activities.
 
3.2.3 Case (3):
 
Description
 
“Operation Enduring Freedom”, never mention “democracy”, “eradicate evil from the world”, “to smoke them out”, “those barbarian”
 
Interpretation
 
Media representation of Bush’s speeches：#p#分頁標題#e#
 
Production, circulation, consumption of media sources
 
Explanation
 
Bring “humanitarian” behavior, “democracy” and “liberty”, Justify “war on terror” and violent acts on Muslims,
 
Case (3) Analysis:
 
The Bush Administration originally named the war on terror “Operation Infinite Justice”. Disconcertingly, in outlining the aims of that war, President Bush had never referred to “democracy”, and the name for the war against terror renewed as “Operation Enduring Freedom.” (Kellner, 2003) Bush’s speeches such as “eradicate evil from the world,” “to smoke them out,” “those barbarian,” were broadcast to the public, which were like mantras repeated over and over that the war against terror was a combat for freedom. Bushspeak displayed an Orwellian-style Doublespeak in which war on Iraq was pursuit of peace, the aggression into Iraq was its deliverance, undermining their infrastructures was “humanitarian” behavior, and the slaughter of innumerable innocent civilians and destruction of a nation would bring “democracy” and “liberty”. Nevertheless, the political theory historically proposes that freedom must be conjugated with concepts like equality, justice, or democracy, to offer satisfactory political theory and legalization for political action. It is accurately the indifference to the democracy and the scorn for national self-determination that has characterized American diplomatic policy in the Middle East over the recent years, which is considered as a major reason why the U.S. was intensely hatred by many individuals and groups in that region.
 
3.2.4 Case (4)
 
Description
 
Linguistic missions: using words like “abuse”, “immoral acts” or “wrongdoing”, deliberately linguistic omissions of “torture”;
 
disguised replacement of concept: position those torture measures as some techniques
 
Interpretation
 
Media representation：
 
Production, circulation, consumption of media sources
 
Explanation
 
normalize the invasion and conquest of other nations; beautifies the war as “liberation” and “salvation”
 
Case (4) Analysis:
 
In fact, analyses of the news coverage were arguably unsatisfactory, as proved by many academics such as Edward Said (1997) and Gadi Wolsfeld (1997). Another example, before the September 11 Attacks, the four foremost American newspapers named waterboarding torture that is a penalty used to torture suspect to tell the truth. However, after the exposure that the Bush Administration was involved in waterboarding of susceptible terrorists in 2004, the four major newspapers nearly never mentioned waterboarding as torture (Bonner, 2011). Even when the news coverage unexpectedly turned back in 2004 to the attention to the American maltreatment of jailbirds at Abu Ghraib, the reports were all selective, and sympathetic to America (Aguayo, 1999). When pictures of the mistreatment of prisoners were exposed to the public, there was a great failure to identify the absolute colonially violent acts enacted the U.S. military.#p#分頁標題#e#
 
According to Nacos and Torrres-Reyna (2007), this was achieved by deliberately linguistic omissions of the word “torture” that was substituted by words like “abuse”, “immoral acts” or “wrongdoing”. Such logic was synergetic with discourses of the outstanding American military officers in terms of the alleged “infrequency” of those colonial violence acts. Another way adopted by the news media was to position those torture measures as some techniques, which were employed to force prisoners (some were suspects) to disclose information important to the homeland security and the worldwide “war on terror”. In this light, linguistic omissions and replacement of “torture” with less threatening words normalize the invasion and conquest of other nations under the name of global peace, liberation of Iraq, the salvation of Muslim women (mostly in Afghanistan), rhetoric with which the American are able to identify particularly when the roles cast are of the male Muslims as terrible suicide bombers, and of female Muslims as covered under their veils and oppressed by their husbands.
 
Chapter 4: Discussion/Analysis討論分析
 
4.1 “9/11” and “fear”
 
The September 11 assaults were considered to be ‘the most documented event in history’ in a 2002 HBO Film in Memoriam which shared a collage of pictures collected from professional journalists and moviemakers, and extracurricular cameramen who at times adventured their lives to record the major incident (Kellner, 2003). Just like other main media spectacles, the spectacle of the 9/11 terror attack took up television screen for the next several days without any commercial advertisement as the foremost television networks concentrated on the assaults and their aftershocks.
 
After the September 11 Attacks, the journalism was full of fear and failed to do their job (Bonner, 2011). Indeed, after the 9/11 attacks, Al-Qaeda terrorists were widespread, and “related to Al-Qaeda” came to be, proposed by Bonner (2011), a “journalistic mantra”, and still is widely used today. They were so anxious to label any lawless gang that commits crime “related to al-Qaeda”. They refused the truth, and their eyes have been blinded by fear and unease. Bonner also points out that, journalists were indifferent to civil liberties. Desolated reports that alleged terrorist suspects were held by the US in secret jail were long disregarded by editors. When suggested that his newspaper dedicate its remarkable exploratory aptitude to uncovering the secret jails, a veteran editor at a mainstream newspaper in America said: "We wouldn't publish it even if we knew" (Bonner, 2011).
 
In 2003, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) released an investigation report about Percent of Iraq War Media Sources, in which an overwhelming majority of sources are in support of the invasion. The FAIR report is illustrated in Fig. 4 bellow:#p#分頁標題#e#
 
Fig. 4 Percent of Iraq War Media Sources (FAIR, 2003)
 
The bar chart reveals that 76% of American sources were in support of the war, while only 3% of American sources oppose to the Iraq war, which could be easily left out.
 
4.2 Media manipulation?
 
In addition to fear, American mainstream media was also arguably manipulated by the Pentagon through privileging the ‘clash of civilization’ model, creating a binary dualism between’ good’ American civilization and ‘evil’ Islamic terrorism, and extensively spreading war fever and revengeful emotions and discourses that appeared to and enforced some degree of military intervention. According to Kellner (2003), news anchors and publicists framed the September 11 event as a military strike, with the ABC news anchor Peter Jennings asserting that the response will have to be enormous if it is really in effect. The following years, an increasing number of “expert advisors” were employed by the television companies to explicate complicated incidents to the public. Those military advisors, who were hired by the broadcast corporations, closely affiliated with the Pentagon, and they typically expressed the opinions from the U.S. authority.
 
Under this circumstance, they had more propaganda conduits for the Pentagon than their own analyses. As Reporters Without Borders (2006) proposes, the U.S. media lost a tremendous amount of freedom during 2004 and 2006, and journalists who doubt “war on terror” are in some case considered to be suspicious.
 
Generally, speaking, the American corporate media was lack of debate, which had resulted in an aggravating democratic crisis in America. The media is expected to discuss significant problems with freedom and transparency, and to develop a wide variety of opinions, however, during the era of terror on war, it had given Bush administration and its military a large privilege. At this time, the assumption of control of broadcasting by companies, who would exploit cataclysm and war to gain profit, seems to be pernicious. Besides, one-dimensional militarism must worsen the present crisis, instead of making solutions to the terrorism issues. Media in a democratic nation should critically discuss urgent problems facing the country in the terrorism crisis, rather than inciting war fever and encouraging military solutions to those issues.
 
In his book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, Scott McClellan the press secretary of George W. Bush confesses that the U.S. authority has passed on lies to the media, and lies that the media presents based on facts. He characterized the American news media as, generally outspoken, and committed to reporting the truth. However, the U.S news corporations were often subjected to the American authority, as McClellan notes,” that "the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House", particularly involves with war against Iraq (McClellan, 2008: 156). In this case, American media seems not be manipulated by the White, but more likely to be voluntary to ingratiate itself with the American authority for specific purposes, for instance, for purpose of making profits or in some case keeping the job.#p#分頁標題#e#
 
Chapter 5: Conclusion
 
5.1 Research Conclusion
 
The term of terrorism (also antiterrorism) is a complicated phenomenon that has encountered massive debate amongst the politicians and academics in the last decade, and it occupies a significant position in both national and international affairs. Beside, terrorism is arguably emotionally charged, therefore making it particularly uneasy to define. In simple terms, it refers to the violence or the threat employed by individuals or specific groups to accomplish certain objectives which are otherwise unachievable (Turner, 1996).
 
Since the September 11 attacks, speeches on terrorism and “war on terror” have been part of American media for a long period of time. The novelty of the ‘9/11’ event was attributed to the combination of skyjack and the use of the planes to slam into representative buildings – World Trade Center and the Pentagon to shake national economy and urban life, and traumatize a nation with horror. Message that was conveyed by the strike against the US was trying to attest that the United States was so fragile and vulnerable to terrorist attacks, even if it was the most powerful country.
 
The September 11 attacks in 2001 had dominated public attention and provoked a large number of discourses, reflections and writings. The clash of civilization theory, which was developed by Political scientist Samuel P. Huntington in 1992, was used by the Western politician to give a justification for the “evil” terror attack, and “just” “war on terror. According to Huntington (1996), civilizational clashes between Muslims and non-Muslims, especially the Western-Islamic conflict, seems to be inevitable, as defined the “bloody borders” between these two civilizations. While cultural conflict may probably cause bloody war, it should not be used as a slogan of alleged “just war” or any justification to produce wars.
 
Sherence Razack (2008) proposed three figures: the “danderous” Muslim men, the “imperiled” Muslim women and the “civilized” West, to symbolize the “war on terror”. Razack explains why and how Muslims are margined by the Western society. As a kind of cultural reference, film is different from other references like literature, poem, music, due to its nature of dependence on medium. Film is seen as a significant art form, a popular entertainment source, and an influential intermediate for educating or instilling citizen. After the September 11 event, there has been a climate of “terrorism” and the “war on terror” in the American films, which convey a new-style “cultural currency” (Aguayo, 2009).
 
In this dissertation, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Fairchough’s Three-Dimensions model and case study are used to better explain the representation of “terrorism” and “terrorists” in media after “9/11”. Fairchough (1992) developed and revised Three-dimensional model of critical discourse analysis, which are “description”, “interpretation” and “explanation”. This model has successfully help to explain what and how the media represent “terrorism”, “terrorists”, and “war on terror”.#p#分頁標題#e#
 
In fact, analyses of the news coverage were arguably unsatisfactory, as proved by many academics such as Edward Said (1997) and Gadi Wolsfeld (1997). American mainstream media was proved to be manipulated by the Pentagon through privileging the ‘clash of civilization’ model (Huntington, 1996), ‘orientalist’ ideology, creating a binary dualism between’ good’ and ‘evil’, “us” and “other”. Given the September 11 attacks, terrorism, terrorist, or “war on terror”, American media is rarely divorced from political propaganda, and they often lack of debate. In the present “war on terror” climate, these representations of Muslims and Islam as terrorists through various ways can be considered to be in accordance with a “continuum of prejudicial social policy” and real violence upon underprivileged groups (Shohat & Stam, 1994: 183).
 
5.2 Study Limitation
 
5.2.1 Content limitation
 
One significant problem of this dissertation is that it is failed to detailedly explain the relationship between film and media. When talking about mainstream media, they mostly refer to major news media in a nation, for example in America, National Broadcasting Company (NBC), American Broadcasting Company (ABC), Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today and so on. In this case, the representation of a film cannot be categorized into the representation of mainstream media.
 
According to Huntington’s Clash of Civilization (1996), this dissertation indeed notes that there are civilizational clashes between Muslims and non-Muslims, especially the Western-Islamic conflict, and it suggests that war seems to be inevitable between these two civilizations. However, no specific example or concrete account of how such civilizational conflicts give rising to war associated with “terrorism”.
 
5.2.2 Research method limitation
 
This dissertation explicitly illustrates some major methods used in this paper: the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Fairchough’s Three-Dimension model, and Case Study, which qualitatively help to explore the research aims. However, I think a good Methodology part should combine both qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative analyses can only generalize and summarize the conclusion, rather than calculate the conclusion which wihtou doubt will be more accurate and convincing.
 

References:文獻參考

1. Aguayo, M. (2009) ‘Representations of Muslim Bodies in The Kingdom: Deconstructing Discourses in Hollywood’, Global Media Journal -Canadian Edition. Volume 2, Issue 2, pp. 41-56

2. Arendt, H. (1994) ‘Race-Thinking Before Racism’, The Review of Politics. Volume 6, Issue 1. pp 36-73. Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1944. Published in August 2009 [online] Available at: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5267052#p#分頁標題#e#

3. Batstone, R. (1995) Grammar in Discourse: Attitude and Deniability, in Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B. (eds.) Principle & Practice in Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 197-213

4. Bazin, A. (1971) What is Cinema? essays selected and translated by Hugh Gray, Berkeley: University of California Press

5. BBC History: “Behind enemy lines”, The Special Operations Executive 1940 – 1946. By Nigel Morris. Last updated 2011-02-17. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/soe_01.shtml#four

6. BBC News Magazine. After 911 Global effects of the war on terror. 9 September 2011 Last updated at 17:00. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-14844727

7. Berman, P. (2003) ‘Terror and Liberalism’, in Jacobsen, K. (review) Logos 2.3. W. W. Norton & Company.[online] Available at: http://www.logosjournal.com/jacobsen.pdf

8. Bijal P. Trivedi for National Geographic國家地理雜志 Today September 13, 2001 National Geographic Today, 7 pm. ET/PT in the United States, is a daily news magazine available only on the National Geographic Channel. Click here to request it. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0913_TVsymbol_2.html

9. Bonner, R. (2011) The Media and 911: How We Did? SEP 9 2011, 11:31 AM ET. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/the-media-and-9-11-how-we-did/244818/

10. Chaliand, Gerard. The History of Terrorism: From Antiquity to al Qaeda. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. p.56

11. Chomsky, A. N. (1997) "What makes mainstream media mainstream", Z Magazine, [1]

12. Chomsky, A. N. (2001) ‘Clash of civilizations?’ in Chomsky’s response to a question‘the present conflict between the Taliban and the US and its allies can be seen as a "clash of civilizations" of the kind expected by Samuel Huntington’, in a lecture on ‘Militarism, Democracy and People’s Right to Information’ at a public forum convened by the National Campaign for the People’s Right to Information.[online] Available at: http://www.india-seminar.com/2002/509/509%20noam%20chomsky.htm (in April, 2014)

13. Diaz-Paniagua (2008), Negotiating terrorism: The negotiation dynamics of four UN counter-terrorism treaties, 1997–2005, p. 47.

14. Eggen, Dan (September 30, 2004). "Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional". Washington Post. Retrieved 2011-09-04.

15. Eisenstein, Z. (2002) ‘Feminisms in the aftermath of September 11’, Social Text 72, 20(3), pp.79-99

16. Eric Lichtblau, Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice, Eric Lichtblau. Publisher: Anchor (May 5, 2009)

17. FAIR, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting. (2003). Figure 4 was retrieved from: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Iraq_War_Media_Sources_Opinion_Percentage.svg

18. Fairchough, N. (1989) ‘Critical discourse analysis in practice: interpretation, explanation, and the position of the analyst’, Language and Power. London: Longman Group UK Limited. pp. 109-140#p#分頁標題#e#

19. Fairchough, N. (1989) ‘Discourse as social practice’, Language and Power. London: Longman Group UK Limited. P.24

20. Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. London: Polity Press.

21. Fox, J. (2005) Paradigm Lost: Huntington's Unfulfilled Clash of Civilizations Prediction into the 21st Century, International Politics 42, Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 428-457

22. Gates, Anita (September 11, 2006). "Buildings Rise from Rubble while Health Crumbles". The New York Times. Retrieved 2011-09-04.

23. Gottschalk, P., Greenberg, G. (2008) ‘Stereotyping Muslims and Establishing the American Norm’, Islamophobia: Making Muslims the enemy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 61-89

24. Gottschalk, P., Greenberg, G. (2008) ‘Introduction’, Islamophobia: Making Muslims the enemy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 5

25. Griffin, David Ray (2007). Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. Olive Branch Press. ISBN 978-1-56656-686-5.

26. Hall, S. (1980) ‘Encoding-decoding’, In Hall, S. et al. (Eds.), Culture, media, language. London: Hutchinson. pp. 128-138

27. Herman, Edward S. (1998) The Real Terror Network: terrorism in Fact and Propaganda. Boston: South End Press.

28. Huntington, S. P. (1993) ‘THE NEXT PATTERN OF CONFLICT’, The Clash of Civilizations?, [online] Available at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/48950/samuel-p-huntington/the-clash-of-civilizations, retrieve in April, 2014

29. Huntington, S. P. (1993) ‘THE FAULT LINES BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS’, The Clash of Civilizations?, [online] Available at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/48950/samuel-p-huntington/the-clash-of-civilizations, retrieve in April, 2014

30. Kellner, D. (2003) ‘ 911 Spectacles of Terror and Media Manipulation: A Critique of Jihadist and Bush Media Politics’. http://logosonline.home.igc.org/kellner_media.pdf

31. Kellner, D. (2003) “9/11, Spectacles of Terror, and Media Manipulation: A Critique of Jihadist and Bush Media Politics”. [online]http://logosonline.home.igc.org/kellner_media.pdf or http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/911terrorspectaclemedia.pdf

32. Kellner, D. (2007) ‘The Media In and After 911’, International Journal of Communication 1 (2007), Book Review. pp. 123-142

33. Khan, A. (2009) ‘Critical Discourse Analysis of William Blake’s Poem The Sick Rose’, VFAST Transactions on Education and Social Sciences, Volume 3, Number 2. pp. 24-28

34. Knight, Peter (2008). "Outrageous Conspiracy Theories: Popular and Official Responses to 9/11 in Germany and the United States". New German Critique 35: 165–93. doi:10.1215/0094033X-2007-024.

35. McCarthy, A., C. (2012) Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy. Encounter Books, (September 18, 2012)#p#分頁標題#e#

36. McClellan, S. (2008) What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception. Public Affairs.

37. Michael Richard Daniell Foot. Resistance: An Analysis of European Resistance to Nazism 1940-1945. Publisher: Methuen, 1976.

38. Nacos, B. L., Torres-Reyna, O. (2007) Fueling Our Fears: Stereotyping, Media Coverage, and Public Opinion of Muslim Americans. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

39. "Neue Videos vom 11. September aufgetaucht – New videos of September 11 released". Bild. September 10, 2010. Archived from the original on 18 September 2010. Retrieved September 18, 2010. "Es heißt, die Organisation besitzt eine Affinität zu Verschwörungstheorien. [It is said that the organization is sympathetic to conspiracy theories.] ... Freigegeben wurden die Informationen nur, weil das „International Center for 9/11 Studies“ geklagt hatte. [The information was released only because the "International Center for 9/11 Studies" complained.] ... Augenzeugen hatten immer wieder von Explosionen berichtet, bevor die beiden Türme zusammenbrachen. [Eyewitnesses have repeatedly reported explosions before the towers collapsed.] Experten halten diese Theorien für unsinnig. [Experts believe these theories are nonsense.]"

40. Online dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/terrorist+attack http://www.audioenglish.org/dictionary/terrorist_attack.htm http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/terrorist_attack#word=terrorist%20attack

41. Oxford Dictionary: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/terrorism

42. Razack, S. (2008) Casting out: The eviction of Muslims from western law and politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

43. Reporters Without Borders. (2006) "North Korea, Turkmenistan, Eritrea the worst violators of press freedom", [online] Available at: https://en.rsf.org/north-korea-turkmenistan-eritrea-24-10-2006,19384.html

44. Said, E. W. (1997) Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

45. Said, E. W. (2007) From Oslo to Iraq and the Road Map: Essays. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. p.293

46. Sen, A. K. (1999) ‘Democracy as a Universal Value’, Journal of Democracy 10.3. pp.3-17. [online] Available at: http://www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/files/Democracy_as_a_Universal_Value.pdf

47. Shohat, E., Stam, R. (1994) ‘History whitewashed in Mississippi Burning’, Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the media. Psychology Press. pp. 179-207

48. Shukman, David (September 1, 2011). "Toxic dust legacy of 9/11 plagues thousands of people". BBC News. Retrieved 2011-09-11.

49. Slouka, M. (1995) War of the worlds: Cyberspace and the high-tech assault on reality. Now York: Basic Books.

50. Stam, R. (2000) Film Theory: an introduction, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers#p#分頁標題#e#

51. Titscher, S., Wodak, R., Meyer, M., Vetter, E. (2000) ‘How to Obtain Material for Analysis: An Overview’, Method of Text and Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. p.42

52. Tkacheva, O., Schwartz, L. H., Libicki, M. C., Taylor, J. E.,Martini, J. (2013) Caroline Baxter Internet Freedom and Political Space. RAND Corporation. p.35

53. Turner, M. J., Switzer, K., Redden, C. (1996) American government: Principles and practices. USA: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

54. Tzanelli, R., Yar, M., O’Brien, M. (2005) “Con me if you can”: Exploring crime in the American cinematic imagination. Theoretical Criminology February. Vol. 9, No. 1. PP. 97-117

55. United Nation. (1994) United Nations Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism annex to UN General Assembly resolution 49/60, "Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism", of December 9, 1994, UN Doc. A/Res/60/49.[online] http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/49/a49r060.htm

56. United States Department of Justice. (2010) "The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty".

57. Van Dijk, T. A. (1993) Editor’s foreword to Critical Discourse Analysis, Discourse and Society 4, pp.131-142

58. Van Dijk. T. A. (1998) ‘Introduction: What Is Critical Discourse Analysis?’, Critical Discourse Analysis. [online] Available at: http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf

59. Wolfsfeld, G. (1997) Media and political conflict: News from the Middle East. London: Cambridge University Press.

60. "X-911T.spo" (PDF). Retrieved July 20, 2009.