Leaving aside the argument about what really makes news and indeed why news is actually produced, when I explain this aspect over here I probably oversimplify it but it works in a couple of ways.Originally Posted by yamiyugikun
We (The collective we) having been repeatedly saying how bad Terry T, AQ or any other number of threat groups are. We repeatedly highlight breaches of International and Humanitarian Law and we offer evidence of atrocities whenever we find it. If you look back to the beginning of any of our campaigns these facts are dutifully reported and in general (with western audiences at least) we achieve what we set out to do ... the public associates bad, evil whatever with whichever group we're fighting. IN Western audiences at least the dominant narrative is that Terry T and his mates are bad.
The opposite is also true. We get on the front foot early about how we're not like Terry T, AQ, whomever and we apply a whole heap of restrictions on ourselves because we're law-abiding despite that fact that it makes our job much harder. Again we create the perception and establish a narrative that we're the good guys and people (journos included) hold us to a higher standard because that's what we said we would do.
Therefore what makes news ... Terry T and his mates doing exactly what we said he does or us doing something that we said we wouldn't do because we're better than Terry.
Bookmarks