But they were still relatively rare until the s. In this chart we see the annual number of hijacking incidents and fatalities globally from onwards. This data is sourced from the Aviation Safety Network , which provides up-to-date and complete information on airliner accidents across the world. Here we see very few incidents in the s, with a small rise through the s and s. Until , there were never more than 10 incidents in a year.
But from to , there was a sharp rise in hijackings — particularly in the United States. Over this 5-year period there were hijackings globally. Most ended in no fatalities: 46 were killed, 25 of which happened in This is a measure we take for granted today.
Over the period from until , hijacking incidents across the world were fairly consistent, in the range of around 20 to 40 per year. In most years there were very few fatalities, although these were interspersed with fatal events which would kill tens of passengers. Four airliners were hijacked, two of which were flown into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.
Regulation was quickly tightened. Cockpit doors on many aircraft are now bulletproof and reinforced; security checks are now standard in most countries, including domestic flights at the time, many countries had no or random checks for domestic travel ; and levels of airport screening have been tightened significantly.
Many people are worried about flying because of the perceived risk of terrorism. Some may avoid flying completely. Aviation, especially commercial air travel, is very safe. If we put it in perspective of the number of the number of people flying, in there were only 0. This has improved significantly since the s when there was around 5 deaths per million passengers. Hijacking deaths are then only a very small fraction of the total from aviation.
In this chart we see the annual deaths from commercial airliners, and the number specifically from hijackings. This again highlights that hijacking fatalities are rare: with increased safety measures post there have been almost none. Spreading widespread fear is a key aim of terrorism. How effective have terrorists been in this regard?
How many of us are actually worried about terrorism? Many of the most comprehensive surveys on public opinion on terrorism have been conducted in the United States. This visualization shows public concern for terrorism in the US since Throughout this period — with the exception of — less than 0. The average over the period from to was 0. We also see that concerns were spiking after large terrorist attacks in the US or European countries. When we see a recent attack in the news, we become more worried it will also happen to us or family members.
We should treat these results with some caution. Is this asking about how likely we think this scenario is? The level of risk? People may interpret it differently. Because of this we should study how people change their behaviors based on this fear. Here we find more evidence that many people in the US are worried about terrorism.
There are certain locations and activities that are often the target of terrorist attacks: busy public spaces or countries around the world where attacks are more frequent. The chart shows the share of respondents who said they were less willing to do such activities.
A range of studies have looked at the impact of major terrorist incidents on airline demand, travel and tourism. Although passenger demand later increased again, analyses suggest that domestic air travel did not return to the levels which would have been projected in the absence of the attacks. In a separate post we looked at levels of concern about terrorism in the US. What about the rest of the world? Is it just as worried about terrorism? The WVS is a global research project running for decades, which assesses public opinion on a wide range of values and beliefs.
For a range of questions it provides comparable data from across the world. A terrorist attack. But the data is complete enough to provide perspectives across the world regions. But, compared to other countries this was relatively low. What becomes clear here is that there is not a clear relationship between concern about and prevalence of terrorism.
We see this in the scatter chart which plots the share who are worried about terrorism in a given country, against its share of deaths which result from terrorism. In most countries the probability of being in a terrorist attack is very low: terrorism accounts for less than 0.
Terrorism receives media attention which is disproportionate to its frequency and share of deaths. This is also the intention of terrorists. But they are very successful hijacking global news cycles. But media coverage of terrorism is also highly unequal: some events receive a lot of attention while most receive very little.
Which are the characteristics that influence whether an attack is covered in the media or not? A previous study which looked at terrorist attacks in the US from to found they received more attention if there were fatalities; airlines were a target; it was a hijacking; or organized by a domestic group. In a recent study, researchers looked at the differences in media coverage of terrorist events in the US from to They assessed how these factors affected the amount of coverage attacks received in the US media.
In this study the authors define five major news sources as CNN. It appeared to play less of a role for local outlets. From this analysis we also see that media coverage was higher when the perpetrator was arrested partly because an arrest is a reportable event in itself ; the target of the attack was law enforcement or government; and when people were killed in the attack.
Which events do and do not receive media coverage matter: evidence shows that media plays a defining role in shifting public opinion; perceptions of the importance of particular issues; and national policy conversations. In particular, increased coverage when a perpetrator is Muslim presents an unbalanced overview of US terrorism to the public.
In the dataset that this study relied on, Muslims perpetrated Combined with the fact that terrorism in general gets a disproportionate amount of media attention, the fact that the worst attacks — those that cause the greatest number of deaths — get most attention further exacerbates public fear.
One of the primary motivations for our work at Our World in Data is to provide a fact-based overview of the world we live in — a perspective that includes the persistent and long-term changes that run as a backdrop to our daily lives. We aim to provide the complement to the fast-paced reporting we see in the news.
The media provides a near-instantaneous snapshot of single events; events that are, in most cases, negative. 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. Terrorists may be deprived, uneducated, affluent and from both sexes. It can occur in developed and undeveloped countries, in a variety of regimes.
It encompasses ideology and religion. Though what gives rise to terrorism may be different from what perpetuates terrorism over time. Societies that are more exposed tend to be:. Full text [PDF - 1. Other theories over the causes of terrorism include: Perceptions of deprivation and inequality, especially amongst culturally defined groups.
This can lead to civil violence, of which terrorism may be a part. Terrorism represents social control from below, as attacks are directed upon targets symbolising central government or a superior community. A lack of political legitimacy and continuity, as well as a lack of integration for the political fringes, encourages ideological terrorism.
The Islamic State uses the internet to recruit followers. Nations also use terrorism tactics in other countries to safeguard their own national interest. Iran is known for supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon against Israel.
Terrorists often justify their bloody acts on the basis of perceived social, economic and political unfairness. Or they take inspiration from religious beliefs or spiritual principles. Many forms of terrorism were inspired by warfare between races, struggles between the rich and poor or battles between political outcasts and elites.
The former cartel of Medellin are considered narco-terrorists because they combine drug trafficking with terrorism tactics to intimidate government and population. Many terrorist groups are inspired by a specific interpretation of religious or prophetic scriptures. Al-Qaida and IS are two related groups that justify their violent actions as part of a crusade against nonbelievers. IS wants to establish a Caliphate , or an Islamic-ruled state.
Find out more about cookies and your privacy in our policy. Terrorism is a violent strategy used by various people and groups to achieve a certain goal. Read on to understand more about what terrorism is, the reasons why it happens, and how to cope with the media coverage around terrorism. Terrorism is the use or threat of violence that aims to spread fear in a population, and to advance a political, ideological or religious cause.
Terrorism is more of a strategy than just a random act of violence, as it always includes some sort of political, ideological or religious motivation on the part of the perpetrators.
0コメント