The present is never our goal.
Past and present are means, only the future is our goal.
So we never live, but we hope to live, and always preparing ourselves to be happy it is inevitable that we are never. (B. Pascal)
Before the 11 September 2001 the studies on "terrorism" remained confined among the insiders and a small group of academics who mostly investigated motives and connections with the ideology of the superpowers and the Cold War. Already in the seventies there were few university or university institutes operating in the sector, both at the service of some government, and independent, who addressed the issue "political violence"In a professional manner, nevertheless the result of the research was always addressed to those who had to deal with it and rarely became a public domain. The investigation into the origin of the dissent initiator of terrorism embraced political, military, social and even philosophy, but never ascended to teaching . After the attack on the Twin Towers there was a significant change of direction and we witnessed a flourishing of institutions, bodies, study groups that have placed Islamist terrorism and Middle Eastern issues as the primary subject of their research. As a consequence there has been an overproduction of the so-called "gray literature", ie material published on the internet, which can be consulted and downloaded online. From this multiplication of studies and scholars, more or less serious, new professional figures were born, once found only in the spy stories at the "Three days of the condor". For example, just referring to the film mentioned, we remember the profession of a young Robert Redford (photo opening) who played the role of an OSINT researcher (Open Source Intelligence) entangled in one of the usual conspiracies hatched by the CIA. In the light of what has been produced by historiography on terrorism (doubled in recent years) this short essay wants to try to differentiate some professionals and delimit or enlarge their fields of investigation without forgetting the largest section, that of the storytellers who crowd the web pages and the newspapers.
The craft of the past
The profession of the historian finds between the pages of Apology of the profession of historian Marc Bloch's intellectual starting point for the delicate work of investigating our past. The scholar of Lyon, who together with Lucien Febvre founded the historical magazine Les Annales, asserted that history was the "science of men in time" and that a historian should base the story of facts on a careful analysis of sources, both oral and paper. Bloch did not have the means today and his training took place on the dusty banks of the archives: a place frequented today exclusively by those who want to "get bones" between the fascinating bare of original documents. The methodology impressed by Les Annales thus shaped generations of scholars, educating them to a certain rigor in the consultation of sources, but above all to a demanding "distance" from the subject studied to expose a version of facts free of any opinion: "the historian must understand, not judge". At this point we realize how respect the matter "terrorism" the traditional exploration approach is limited to a few scholars since the same "History of terrorism" lends itself little to the edition of anthologies or old-style compendia. If we want to draw a narrative chronology on terrorism, we must look at the valuable work of Alex P. Schmid and Albert J. Jongman, Political Terrorism, published in the 1988. Scrolling through the index we come across the chapter dedicated to the critical analysis of the various texts on "terror and terrorists" and what the two theorists say can be used as an advanced comparison to the methodology suggested by Bloch. It is no coincidence that Alex Schimd relies on a multidisciplinary academic approach using, moreover, critical tones compared to a young, broad, but actually with few valid references. The writer of political violence and terrorism - says Schimd - is generally devoid of experience because it has an academic orientation, without any direct comparison; and it is precisely here - according to him - the essence of the work of the historian that is not to defeat terrorism, but to understand its motives, origins and possible developments. Terrorist organizations must be studied within their political context, building a parallel with those who fight them. But here the real problem arises. If past history has a plethora of interminable sources, the most recent events related to political terrorism are cataloged on often unavailable documentation (because it is secreted for obvious security reasons) or revised by the government, government agencies and so-called think tanks.
The analyst next door
The profession of historian is essential from an academic path that leaves little room for improvisation. Of course, there are historians of various kinds whose criterion for analyzing the sources is debatable, nevertheless those who carry out this trade en amateur show the limits that make the difference between a reliable historian or a storyteller. The same can not be said of a professional figure emerged overwhelmingly thanks to terrorism: the analyst. We will see, in fact, how the title of analyst in the field of terrorism is rather in vogue and consequently subject to many abuses by braggartmen who love to pretend to be such.
Before delving into the tasks of a forecasting or strategic analyst, it is necessary to establish some key points for an appropriate distinction from the historian. They are two different jobs, but this does not prevent a historian from being an analyst and vice versa. If for the historian, however, the temporal units on which he investigates are the past, the present and the future, for the analyst they appear more restricted and immediate, that is to say yesterday, today and tomorrow. The most important thing that distinguishes an analyst from a historian, but above all a serious analyst from a storyteller, is the path that the latter has taken to acquire the information since the road is to the analyst as the archive is to the historian. Today, unfortunately, we witness several interviews or read articles whose authors qualify as analysts without ever having set foot outside the office walls. The analyst's main job is to store data and then provide his client with options. "The forecasting or strategic analyst - explains Andrea Margelletti (photo) president of the CeSI (Center for International Studies) - presents a series of possibilities to those who have to take measures on a specific issue, but never make the final choice since the latter it is exclusively the prerogative of politics ". Behind the scenes of an analyst's work are so-called agencies think tank, such as RAND Corporation: a colossus based in America and England that provides and breaks down information for government clients. Although the material executors of the studios live up to their fame, the unknown factor is if these "opinion makers" are truly reliable; RAND, for example, makes its analysts available to a client like the US government, and this, perhaps, could in some way jeopardize its objectivity, or at least give a partial address to the investigation. On the other hand, the same Achilles' heel of impartiality is also found in the historian when the latter binds his name to strong powers. Beyond the possible alteration of the sources, it is irrefutable that both historians and "serious" analysts share a broad spectrum of events and that both recognize the importance of the sources as the guiding principle of their studies.
Nobody's land: journalism
Terrorists act as actors on a stage: following the script is important, but what constitutes the real success is the audience that they manage to get from the show. Several failed attacks turned into unexpected victories for terrorism as they gained almost total coverage from the media. The media interest concerned not only the event in the strict sense, but also a morbid enlargement to other areas of the common life of the victims. We explain better. In the last few years, the Old Continent has been the subject of a worrisome series of attacks of an Islamist origin that have provoked fear and discouragement among the population affected. Faced with these events we have established how journalism has repeatedly thrown fuel on the fire attesting what should not be done in these cases: maximum deployment of cameras, airing in loop images of the post-attack scenario, interviews with victims and their relatives, and finally the invasion of program listings with broadcasts and following the best practices focused on the tragedy of the survivors. A succession of violent images, transmitted in the name of the sacred dogma of "we all have the right to be informed"; precisely in the case of terrorism, however, this principle can become a double edged sword or at least should be subject to more sensible assessments. In particular, the journalist tends to build a kind of transfer between the victim and the survivor passing the latter as a possible future target. How to overcome this then impasse? Is it correct to muzzle the mass media with respect to an event like the one in Berlin or Brussels? In Israel, for example, relations between networks and terrorism have been at the center of a long debate between the main publications and the government. So can a government intervene on the fundamental principle of freedom of the press without appearing as a regime censor? The answer given byInternational Institute for Counterterrorism of Herzlya was propositive and possible, in the sense that a proper review of what has been broadcast by the media on certain criminal acts related to terrorism is the conditio sine qua non to prevent the general panic by playing the terrorists.
In fact, journalists weigh more heavy responsibilities than a historian or an analyst because their message reaches a heterogeneous and non-specialist public. Add to this the increasingly worrying flourish of "fake news"In addition to the authentic junk produced by social media, corrupters of the same principle of correct information.
The demon that haunts a journalist takes the name of "news" and this must be spread before the competing newspapers, to the detriment of its accuracy: in the period between scoop and its diffusion runs, in fact, the risk of removing every filter useful to recognize the true from the false. For example, the climate of tension generated by a terrorist attack provokes a spasmodic search for the perpetrator, even arriving at erroneous and summary conclusions. The hysterical chronicle "hour by hour" of what happens on the scene of a suicide bombing or an Islamist commando outlines a series of unverified hypotheses on the number of victims and - most dangerous - on the number of bombers, hindering the investigative work of the forces order.
From what has been said so far, it would seem that journalists, more than information, often create disinformation; however, we remember that included in the category there are noble examples that for the correct narration of the facts have lost their lives by entering the battlefields or ending hostage of some group of cutthroats. In journalism, telling the truth has always a very high price and requires a human professionalism in dealing with certain topics on the other hand the media spectacularization of events is completely free, dangerous and bad taste.
storytellers social
Let's start immediately by saying that the storytellers, minstrels and troubadours of the court had their own dignity and a historic location of great importance. The task of the minstrel was, in fact, to fascinate the bystanders with fantastic tales which, however, were inspired by everyday life. It is not by chance that the sovereign listened carefully to what he had also declaimed because it was a way to feel the people's mood and to know what was happening outside the walls of the building.
Today, unfortunately, the storyteller has gone beyond the fairytale and narrative boundaries to enter into the daily news, but above all to impose his lively "interpretation of the facts" on the social forums. The contemporary singer has replaced the zither with the keyboard of a computer that does not produce courtly notes, rather a boring ticking from which come out meaningless sentences animated by hate, a profound ignorance and incompetence. The most unfortunate fact, however, is that these gentlemen are listened to and their opinion corroborated by a popular vulgate increasingly eager to give an opinion on everything, denying or supporting theses on which they know nothing.
Facebook, more than any other, is the arena in which "experts" of terrorism, immigration and special forces are eager to let others know how good they are in being false and pressured. Historians and analysts are at odds with their influence, nevertheless the journalist very willingly yields to the diabolical ascendancy of social networks only because they represent what people want to hear. It is a vicious circle on which politics is based, now accustomed to the use of posts to convey opinions or results. Well understood, far from demonizing the use of the Internet, we just want to raise some doubt about the real function of social media as containers of news confining the use - more appropriate - a mere instrument of gossip.
(photo: web / CESI / US DoD)
