The persistent, large-scale trends of progress never make the headlines. But is there evidence that such a disconnect exists between what we see in the news and what is reality for most of us?
One study attempted to look at this from the perspective of what we die from: is what we actually die from reflected in the media coverage these topics receive? For each source the authors calculated the relative share of deaths, share of Google searches, and share of media coverage.
They restricted the considered causes to the top 10 causes of death in the US and additionally included terrorism, homicide, and drug overdoses. This allows for us to compare the relative representation across different sources. The coverage in both newspapers here is strikingly similar. And the discrepancy between what we actually die from and what we get informed of in the media is what stands out:. One way to think about it is that media outlets may produce content that they think readers are most interested in, but this is not necessarily reflected in our preferences when we look for information ourselves.
As we can see clearly from the chart above, there is a disconnect between what we die from, and how much coverage these causes get in the media. Another way to summarize this discrepancy is to calculate how over- or underrepresented each cause is in the media.
To do this, we simply calculate the ratio between the share of deaths and share of media coverage for each cause. In this chart, we see how over- or underrepresented each cause is in newspaper coverage. Numbers denote the factor by which they are misrepresented.
Homicides are also very overrepresented in the news, by a factor of The most underrepresented in the media are kidney disease fold , heart disease fold , and, perhaps surprisingly, drug overdoses 7-fold. Stroke and diabetes are the two causes most accurately represented. But there is another important question: should these be representative? The first is that we would expect there to be some preventative aspect to information we access.
There are several examples where I can imagine this to be true. People who are concerned about cancer may search online for guidance on symptoms and be convinced to see their doctor. Some people with suicidal thoughts may seek help and support online which later results in an averted death from suicide. Some imbalance in the relative proportions therefore makes sense. But clearly there is some bias in our concerns: most people die from heart disease hence it should be something that concerns us yet only a small minority seek [possibly preventative] information online.
Second, this study focused on what people in the USA die from, not what people across the world die from. Is media coverage more representative of global deaths? Not really. The relative ranking of deaths in the USA is reflective of the global average: most people die from heart disease and cancers, and terrorism ranks last or second last alongside natural disasters.
Terrorism accounted for 0. The third relates to the very nature of news: it focuses on events and stories. Whilst I am often critical of the messages and narratives portrayed in the media, I have some sympathy for what they choose to cover.
Reporting has become increasingly fast-paced. Combine this with our attraction to stories and narratives. The most underrepresented cause of death in the media was kidney disease. But with an audience that expects a minute-by-minute feed of coverage, how much can possibly be said about kidney disease? Without conquering our compulsion for the latest unusual story, we cannot expect this representation to be perfectly balanced.
Media and its consumers are stuck in a reinforcing cycle. The news reports on breaking events, which are often based around a compelling story. We come to expect news updates with increasing frequency, and media channels have clear incentives to deliver. This locks us into a cycle of expectation and coverage with a strong bias for outlier events.
Most of us are left with a skewed perception of the world; we think the world is much worse than it is. The responsibility in breaking this cycle lies with both media producers and consumers.
Will we ever stop reporting and reading the latest news? But we can all be more conscious of how we let this news shape our understanding of the world. And journalists can do much better in providing context of the broader trends: if reporting on a homicide, for example, include context of how homicide rates are changing over time. This requires us to check our often unconscious bias for single narratives and seek out sources that provide a fact-based perspective on the world. This antidote to the news is what we try to provide at Our World in Data.
It should be accessible for everyone, which is why our work is completely open-access. Whether you are a media producer or consumer, feel free to take and use anything you find here. Shares of deaths, media coverage and Google searches over time The interactive charts present the full annual data series published by Shen et al. Due to data availability Google Trends data only runs from the year to In our research on terrorism we rely on the Global Terrorism Database GTD as a key source of data on incidents and fatalities from terrorism across the world.
It does, however, have limitations which we think should be clear before making inferences from trends or signals represented by the data. In the area of terrorism research, there are now multiple databases available which attempt to record and detail terrorist incidents across the world.
We take a more detailed look at the differences in estimates from these three databases here. In it was officially published as an academic output in the journal Terrorism and Political Violence , and since then has been one of the widely used resources within academic research on terrorism. The GTD is therefore well-respected and highly-regarded as a comprehensive data source on global terrorism. The GTD — as with other terrorism databases — are curated through records and analysis of print and electronic media.
We expect that the collation of incidents across the world today and in the recent past is sufficiently complete to understand the global distribution of terrorist incidents and how they have changed over time.
A valuable resource which also provides impressive accounts of terrorist incidents across the world is the many detailed entries in Wikipedia by year, by region or by country.
Using this as a cross-reference with the GTD, we have high confidence in the completeness of global data in recent years. Where we have less confidence is the completeness of the data for inferring longer-term changes. The GTD extends back to In their accounts of the GTD, the authors of the database acknowledge that data for this earlier period most likely undercounts the number of terrorist incidents and victims. The shift to digital media in recent years has made this process much easier.
Global records of terrorist incidents — at least in the first half of the dataset — are therefore likely to be an underestimate. We have found no research which attempts to quantify the extent of this underestimate, so we cannot say by how much. We do think some countries or regions — most notably the US and Western Europe — have a high degree of completeness over these decades. Until the GTD was collated by Pinkerton Global Intelligence Service PGIS which trained US researchers to identify terrorist incidents from reports, governmental records and international media to assess the risk of terrorism for clients.
We would expect that this mandate would mean records are skewed towards more complete coverage of incidents in the US and countries with better reporting and records of incidents, such as Western Europe.
But for major incidents, there are closely matched. For other regions we would caution against inferring trends over this complete time period. One key reason we have reservations about the completeness of earlier data is that there are several incidents we would have expected to have featured in the GTD which are not included. The other limitation to inferring particular trends in terrorism are changes in methodology and shifting — or unclear — definitions of terrorism over time.
Even within the research community there are differences in its scope, and there are often blurry lines between what constitutes terrorism as opposed to other forms of violence such as homicide and civil war. We discuss the definition of terrorism used by the GTD here and how its methodology differs from other well-known databases here. But an additional question when trying to understand changes, is whether the GTD had a consistent definition and methodology over time.
As previously mentioned, the GTD has been maintained by four organizations since With time — and particularly with the shift towards maintenance by an academic organization — the criteria for a terrorist incident improved and refined over time.
Whilst researchers have attempted to retrospectively revise estimates particularly of the period from to based on updated criteria, the authors caution that there will inevitably be issues in data consistency over this period. This inconsistency will, most likely, be expressed in an underestimate of terrorist incidents earlier in the dataset. For this reason, again, we would be cautious about trying to infer changes in the prevalence of terrorism globally and across most regions since In terrorism research, there are multiple databases available which attempt to record and detail terrorist incidents across the world.
Nonetheless, estimates of the number of terrorist incidents and fatalities vary across these databases. Understanding why these differences exist is important for how this data is interpreted, and what we can conclude about the prevalence, causes and consequences of terrorism.
Our understanding of the sources and frequency of terrorism can have a significant impact on many areas of society and policy, including immigration, counterterrorism efforts, and international relations.
Why is this the case? In a study published in the Journal of Peace Research , Sandler looked at the differences in methodology, estimates, and conclusions from the various terrorism databases in detail. Domestic terrorist incidents are those where the venue, perpetrators and victims are all from the same country: for example, a terrorist attack committed in the United States by a US citizen against victims from the US. If an attack involves more than one country — if the venue or victims of the attack are not the same country as the perpetrators — then it is classified as transnational.
During this time it included domestic incidents, whilst RAND did not. Since — when RAND also included domestic attacks — their figures have converged. Unstructured variables include summary descriptions of the attacks and more detailed information on the weapons used, specific motives of the attackers, property damage, and ransom demands where applicable.
A multi-disciplinary team of University of Maryland faculty members developed the GTD data collection methodology by applying fundamentals of social sciences and computer and information sciences. The process starts with a pool of more than two million open-source media reports published each day. The GTD team combines automated and human workflows, leveraging the strengths and mitigating the limitations of each, to produce rich and reliable data.
Detailed information including definitions of terms, and data collection methods can be found in the GTD Codebook. Users of the GTD should carefully consider the implications of data collection methods and, in particular, interpret trends over time with caution.
Users can find a training module that provides an overview of the GTD and an introduction to using Microsoft Excel to analyze the data on the Using the GTD training page. Country Reports on Terrorism - Statistical Annex. Terrorist Attacks on the Homeland. Dynamics of Terror and Counterterrorism. Distinctive Characteristics of Terrorist Groups. Modeling Risk of Future Terrorist Attacks. Predisposing Root Causes of Terrorism. Big, Allied, Dangerous, and Charitable?
Guerilla Insurgency: The Springboard to Terrorism? Skip to main content. Erin Miller. Project Details Abstract:. Timeframe Project Period:. June to January More Information Related Projects:. Keywords Topics:. Selected Publications. Global Terrorism in Background Report. Overview: Terrorism in Background Report. Terrorism in Mali Fact Sheet. Policy Congressional Testimony.
The Geography of U. Terrorist Incidents, Journal Article. Terrorism Book Chapter. Tracking Global Terrorism, Book Chapter.
Building a Global Terrorism Database Report. News References. MSN: How many Canadians have fallen victim to terrorism? Washington Times: White supremacism, systemic racism don't exist in the U. Terrorist attacks in were mainly concentrated in Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria.
These countries saw 78 percent of the deaths and 57 percent of all attacks in the world. Since , only 3 percent of deaths caused by terrorist attacks took place in Western countries, including Australia, Canada, members of the European Union and the United States.
In the U. The opposite is true. According to American University professor Audrey Cronin , terrorism as a tactic does not work well. Cronin studied terrorist groups worldwide since The groups lasted an average of eight years before they lost support or were dismantled. No terrorist organizations that she studied were able to conquer a state, and 94 percent were unable to achieve even one of their strategic goals.
This is an updated version of an article originally published on Sept. Why are some societies more exposed to terrorism than others? What are the common theories and hypotheses concerning the causes of terrorism? Published by the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, this paper surveys theories on the causes of terrorism, as well as those for explaining terrorism on an international or world system level of analysis.
Discussions about the causes of terrorism are controversial, with many people viewing the focus on underlying causes, motivation and grievance as implicit with justifying violence. A dispassionate outlook is required to understand the driving forces and devise effective long-term counter measures.
However, no comprehensive review of why some countries experience terrorism more than others, exist. Explanations are varied and disagreements occur.
For example, psycho-pathological explanations for terrorism tend to divest terrorism of socio-economic and political motivations. While researchers agree that one of the characteristics of a terrorist is normality, psycho-pathological factors amongst group leadership can play a significant role. Other theories over the causes of terrorism include:.
0コメント