Not to mention the availability of vastly more suitable communication channels. I recall American news media giving a similar justification for not showing video statements by Al Qaeda. It was certainly realistic to expect that Al Qaeda would engage in communications with malicious effect, but it seems like quite a stretch that they'd rely on CNN to be their C&C channel. Maybe it hadn't quite sunk in at that point that the Internet extends well beyond the US.

Its not a strech. Not showing videos released from terrorist groups, might be a valid strategy. After all, terrorism is a means of political communication through violence. When you remove one of the most potent channels of communication, you could remove the ability of these groups to 'terrorize'. Albeit, in times of facebook youtube and twitter this is not possible anymore.

So theoretically, a valid idea. Practically not possible and maybe even counterproductive.

That's an entirely different and far more rational argument for the policy. It does nothing to validate (and in some sense is the opposite of) the "secret messages" argument.

There are some people so desperately crying out for us to stop our government from killing innocent people overseas without our consent that they feel the situation is all but hopeless, so they start killing and causing destruction themselves to draw attention to the problem, and government simply doesn't want the voters to see that.

In case this has to be said, no, I will never defend the killing of innocent people.

But the big question I ask myself, and ask of others: Are you innocent?

What kind of nonsensical comment is that?

My tax dollars pay for this: https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/

Do yours?

My taxes support this at least. Ramstein Air Base is a relay station in the drone wars and is partly supported by the German government. And I don't like it either. The scale of it is disproportionate and counterproductive. With each drone bombing, they kill 2 terrorists and create 20 new ones.

Then I'm not sure why you're calling my comment nonsensical. You agree with it. Cheers, have a good one.

It seems like it would be a good thing for mainstream media outlets to not give their spotlight to terrorists

Why?

The terrorist's defining weapon is the propagation of irrational fear. When you broadcast their propaganda you become their weapon.

No, when you take away your citizens freedoms and liberties you become their weapon.

The politician who takes away freedoms is more like the accomplice.

It's like when a robber points a gun (fear based propaganda) at your head, and while you stand there paralyzed with fear their friend (the scheming politician) empties your pockets.

The media station which airs the fear based propaganda receives more views and profits, and the politcian that harangues on that fear gets more votes and power.