Daniel Byman comments on Lawfare concerning the difference between the public perception of the danger of terrorism attacks in the United States, and the public’s perception:
The public’s perception of the danger of terrorism is far worse than the reality. Even after fifteen years of a relentless global counterterrorism campaign, 40 percent of Americans believe the ability of terrorists to launch a major attack on the United States is greater than it was at the time of the 9/11 attacks, and another 31 percent believe it is simply the same. There is no evidence for either of these propositions.
Some of this misperception stems from the post-9/11 media environment. After the towers fell, reporting of terrorist plots, let alone actual attacks, has skyrocketed, particularly if the perpetrators have even weak connections to jihadist groups like al Qaeda or its even more evil spinoff, the Islamic State. The globalization of media meant that Islamic State attacks in Dhaka or al Qaeda attacks in Bali receive considerable press coverage, to say nothing of the attacks in even more relatable and accessible locales in Europe. All of this makes Trump’s claim that the media have neglected terrorism seem bizarre to terrorism experts, where the normal complaint is that the media do the terrorists’ job for them by giving them so much free publicity. Indeed, although the terrorism problem in Europe is more severe than that facing the United States, it too has not surged dramatically compared to past decades. The 1970s and 1980s saw many attacks. Recent years have seen bloody and horrific attacks, like the 2015 shootings and bombings in Paris that killed 130 people—but 1988 saw 440 people die, most of whom perished when Libyan agents bombed Pan Am 103.
Just like the Web, don’t go believing what any politician wants you to believe. Indeed, in an ideal democracy, the politicians would take the findings furnished by experts and use them when setting priorities, deciding on funding sources, and that sort of thing. When a politician rejects the findings of experts, the odds are you’re looking for someone grasping for power.
And be wary.
This started with the GOP rejecting various parts of science over the last few decades; Trump is merely the next step. He’s not new, but there may be one new facet: a news media willing to expose him. They need to keep on doing that, keep calling him a liar, and if & when he starts to fail to come through on promises, advertise that as well.
And keep working on his tax returns.
