Tareq 1

Sayema Tareq
Professor Lyra Hilliard
ENGL-101 Sect. BL02
March 5, 2013
Final Paper 1
What Are You Afraid Of?
There were only a few weeks until my seventh birthday when my classmates and I were
released from school early. Although I was excited to go home and play, I could sense something
grim thickening the air. At home my entire family was glued to the television, even my two
grandmothers who do not understand English very well. When I glanced at the television myself
I saw the video clip of an airplane crashing into a tall building, penetrating it as if it were made
of paper. Smoke and debris devoured the base of the building, sucking down the entire structure
into them.
Soon after when I returned to school I was surrounded by whispers and stares. I knew I
attended a predominantly Caucasian school but my tan skin and Bengali features never stood out
so much before. Students asked me why my people hated America and if I knew anyone in AlQaeda, the terrorist group responsible for the attack. Things were far worse for my mother who
wore hijab, a head covering worn by Muslim women. Cashiers at the mall were extremely rude
to her while many others kept their distance. I realized the only similarity between us and AlQaeda was our religion, one that we did not even practice the same way. But that was enough to
attract negative attention.
After many years had passed one would think society would become more educated and
tolerant of Muslims, especially in a country like the United States where a conglomeration of

Tareq 2
races and religions exist. But now as a freshman at the University of Maryland, there is still
discrimination against Muslims and a nationwide fear of Islam. I was curious about the source of
this phobia and came across the phrase fear mongering a few years ago when conducting
research for an essay. Fear mongering is the induction of fear by an entity to influence others and
seems to be a problem in todays media. My question is; what is the objective of fear mongering?
Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter, attempts to
answer this question in his 2007 Washington Post article, Terrorized by War on Terror. He
argues that President George W. Bushs administration created an exaggerated fear of terrorism
among Americans to advance political goals. Brzezinski claims that fear obscures reason,
intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on
behalf of the policies they want to pursue (Brzezinski 1). Fear prevents logical thinking, making
people vulnerable to the governments actions. When pushed to fear terrorism, the public turns to
the government to protect them by whatever means necessary, handing them more power to act
as they please. Brzezinski credits fear for the publics approval of the Iraq War and its tolerance
of controversial security measures like the USA PATRIOT Act, legislation passed in response to
9/11 that expands the governments surveillance powers among others (Brzezinski 1). Brzezinski
argues that fear mongering has contributed to Americans blindly supporting government actions
that claim to protect them from terrorism (Brzezinski 1).
In Brzezinskis argument I understand how fear mongering can help politicians gain
support for policies they want to advance. By pushing the public to fear something specific,
politicians can offer a solution for protection by means of the policies they are in favor of. This
may seem like an attractive proposal to the public, who then will begin to back those policies
even if they seem controversial because they think it is better to be safe than sorry. Irene Zubaida

Tareq 3
Khan, a Bangladeshi human rights activist, worries about the dangers accompanying these
policies and the true motives behind them.
In her article, The Rule of Law and the Politics of Fear, Khan expounds that fear
mongering is an indication of failed leadership because it is the governments way of distracting
people other issues of importance (Khan 3). For example, Khan acknowledges that terrorism is
an awful crime that should be dealt with. However, she believes America used it as an excuse to
wage war on Iraq and Afghanistan when it was not the true goal of the attacks (Khan 4). By
overexposing the public to stories of terrorism, the U.S. government was able to divert attention
away from the true motives behind the two wars.
I concur with Khans perspective that fear mongering can be used as a distraction. By
causing a frenzy regarding one issue, attention towards another can be redirected. Yet I do not
believe that distraction is the only reason behind fear mongering. I feel it is difficult to hide
controversial issues in a democratic nation for too long. Brzezinski and Khans arguments are
similar in that they both believe the government uses fear to accomplish certain goals. In her
article, Khan also shows concern for the governments abuse of excess powers given during
times of fear, as exemplified in Alia Maleks book.
Alia Malek is a civil rights lawyer for the US Department of Justice who compiled a book
of violations of rights perpetrated in the name of The PATRIOT Act titled Patriot Acts:
Narratives of Post-9/11 Injustice. One story was about Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen of
Lebanese origin who was enjoying a vacation to Macedonia when he was captured in 2004. He
was severely beaten, sodomized, and not informed of the nature of his arrest until he was handed
over to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and told he was suspected of terrorism. He was
heavily interrogated and threatened before they realized he was innocent. Over a year later he

Tareq 4
was finally returned home (Malek 111-29). El-Masri joined with the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) to charge the U.S. government for mistreating him, but the Supreme Court
refused to review El-Masris appeal because they claimed it could potentially expose military
secrets and serve as a threat to national security (Markon para. 11). El-Masri never went to trial
(Malek 129).
To see how much injustice can be brought about when a nation is subject to fear is
disturbing. It seems to me the only reason El-Masri was detained and tortured was because his
Lebanese descent appeared suspicious. On the other hand, terrorism is a threat that could put
thousands of lives at risk and treating innocent people harshly for the benefit of a larger
community can be justified. Perhaps fear mongering helps the government bend the rules to
protect its nation. Khan and Brzezinski would argue that allowing the government to act beyond
its limitations would lead to the abuse of that power. Thus far all the authors believe the
government plays a role in media fear mongering, but Susan Moeller disagrees.
Susan Moeller is a professor at the University of Maryland and provides another reason
for fear mongering in the media in her article, Media Literacy 101. Moeller speculates that
issues that seem to receive the most coverage by the media are new, violent crises that target
victims at random because these types of stories keep people coming back for more information.
These issues are not always the most dangerous yet receive a disproportionate amount of
coverage. These kinds of stories keep viewers on edge and increase ratings for news outlets
(Moeller para. 6).
Moellers main argument is that fear mongering is a form of manipulation by the media
to make more money, which I find immoral. Regardless, the argument seems valid and I do
believe it is one reason for fear mongering. For example, Moeller compares CNN and The

Tareq 5
Washington Posts headlines of the swine flu where one declares there is a huge pandemic to be
afraid of while the other says that there is nothing to worry about (Moeller para. 3). If the two
news outlets were reporting without bias, I feel their headlines should match. Unlike Brzezinski
and Khan, Moeller solely blames the media for fear mongering, leaving the government out of
the picture. I feel as though the government does play a role, but I question how it would control
what information media outlets present. While Moeller, Khan, and Brzezinski blame different
entities for fear mongering, some deny the existence of it altogether.
The editor of NaturalNews.com, Mike Adams, defends reporters against fear mongering
in his article Natural News Accused for Fear Mongering for Reporting Weather. Although his
article mostly responds to fear mongering accusations about Natural Newss method of reporting
the weather, he responds to accusations of distorted reports of crime as well. He defends himself
saying that whenever there is any kind of a threat, it is a reporters duty to make sure the public
is aware of it. Even if the slightest mishap is being reported, Adams believes it is better to be
overprotective and overly fearful than to not care enough about an issue (Adams 1).
Through evidence given by previous sources, I disagree that fear mongering is
nonexistent. For example, Brzezinski asserts that statistics have shown that the number of
international terrorist attacks has not changed since before 9/11, yet stories about terrorism on
the news have increased (Brzezinski 1). But according to Adams, the objective for fear
mongering is to inform the public so they can protect themselves. Adamss article helps me
recognize the rocky road between protecting a nation and trespassing legal parameters. Although
Brzezinski and Khan are opposed to the PATRIOT Act, what if it is a necessity in ensuring
protection against terrorism? This urges the government and the people to decide how far the
government can go to prevent terrorism without going too far.

Tareq 6
Ultimately I believe that news stories regarding terrorism are blown out of proportion and
that there are multiple reasons for fear mongering. It is a joint effort by the media and the
government to gain ratings and gain public support to achieve political goals respectively. I am
curious as to how the government would then be able to influence media reports. I also recognize
a reporters duty to inform society about issues worldwide, as described by Mike Adams.
Terrorism is a threat that should not be taken lightly because of the amount of damage it is
capable of. Nonetheless fearing terrorism has led to public approval of legislation such as the
PATRIOT Act and the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act, which infringe upon constitutional
rights. Is it okay for the government to act beyond constitutional restrictions to protect its
people? And is fear mongering ultimately helping society by keeping them on their toes about
threatening issues, or does it harm democracy by mobilizing the public to approve of autocratic
actions?

Tareq 7
Works Cited
Adams, Mike. Natural News Accused of Fear Mongering for Reporting Weather. Natural
News 31 Oct. 2012. Natural News Network. Web. 20 Feb. 2013. <
http://www.naturalnews.com/037759_fear_mongering_optimism_predictions.html>.
Brzezinski, Zbigniew. Terrorized by War on Terror. The Washington Post 25 Mar. 2007: n.
pag. The Washington Post. Web. 11 Feb. 2013. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613.html>.
Khan, Irene. "The Rule of Law and the Politics of Fear: Human Rights in the Twenty-First
Century." Buffalo Human Rights Law Review. 14 (2008): 1-14. Print.
Malek, Alia. Patriot Acts: Narratives of Post-9/11 Injustice. San Francisco: McSweeneys and
Voice of Witness, 2011. Print.
Markon, Jerry. Lawsuit Against CIA is Dismissed. The Washington Post. The Washington
Post Company, 19 May 2006. Web. 3 Mar. 2013. Jan. 2012.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/18/
AR2006051802107.html>.
Moeller, Susan. Media Literacy 101: How to Detect Fear-Mongering Pakistani Nukes and
Swine Flu. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc. The Huffington Post, 4 May 2009. Web. 19
Feb. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-moeller/media-literacy-101-howto_b_195502.html>.