Media is meant to inform, but is it stoking the flames of war in the Middle East? 

Media images from Israel and Gaza assault us on a minute-by-minute basis, at times making it hard to discern reality from propaganda. 

The Oct. 7 massacre and taking of hostages inside Israel by Hamas has resulted in full-scale war on the Gaza Strip, with searing images of life and death. Hostage families pour out their grief on television screens, reliving the day their homes and festivals were violated. 

Palestinian children cry and die against the sound of rockets and gunfire. Frightened human beings race toward the Rafah Gate in hopes of finding their name on a list to reach Egypt. 

Meanwhile, a deeply polarized America reacts with heightened political rhetoric and fear on college campuses — a microcosm of the wider pain and confusion stirred into a toxic brew of hate. 

What is the value of all this media coverage that has spanned traditional and digital platforms on every continent for a full month? 

On the one hand, we must be informed and aware of the situation to make sound political judgements. We cannot look away while our congressional policymakers make choices and President Biden and his team use shuttle diplomacy around the region. 

On the other hand, there is a hidden danger in overcovering this story — especially when it comes to shining a light on extremism and terrorism. 

What we have learned over decades about the nexus of media and terrorism is that too much reporting — especially of terrorists — can lead to more terrorism. 

In the case of Hamas, the U.S. State Department designated it a terrorist group in 1997. The European Union and other Western countries also consider it a terrorist organization and dozens of countries designate it as such, though some apply this label only to its military wing. 

Should we be giving Hamas so much name recognition? 

Studies going back 20 years reinforce that “the basic aim of the terrorist is to gain worldwide recognition, and this is facilitated by the symbiotic relationship” of a media interested in coverage, especially social media. Media helps in the radicalization of terrorists at home and abroad. 

Alan Krueger and Jitka Maleckova, scholars of the Middle East, wrote in 2003 that “terrorists use violence strategically to spread fear and disruption beyond the violent act itself.”  

“Terrorists are dependent on the publicity they receive[…] there is evidence that terrorists choreograph dramatic incidents to maximize their propaganda impact.” 

Think about the venues Hamas chose — a music festival and an ordinary Kibbutz — knowing the power of the act and the reaction it would get from media. The media, with wide reach and exponential power, especially in a digital era, disseminates information and images, especially where there is video, sounds and human stories. 

There are legitimates debates, differences and dialogue about the tinderbox of the Middle East today that should be covered and encouraged. Students and citizens need information, context and reporting to frame their thinking and bring facts and ideas to the table. But a daily feed and replay of senseless acts of violence is not helpful. 

So what is? 

Some suggest putting the brakes on social media reporting. Florida Sen. Rick Scott put out a statement early in the war, saying that “following reports that Iran-backed Hamas terrorists are using TikTok, Instagram and other social media platforms to release videos of hostages taken from Israel begging for their lives, [social media companies should] aggressively take down any such posts, stop the transfer of any financial support to terrorists, and remove the accounts of any terrorist, group or individual sharing this content immediately.” 

That might be a bridge too far. 

Others suggest encouraging people to read about the Middle East, not watch it — especially impressionable youth who might benefit from articles or podcasts that provide historic context without images that enflame. There are many good experts to read. 

The best strategy might be to go back to first principles. Overall, we need more civic education in middle school and high school. Colleges can do more to lower the rhetoric and raise the learning — to provide opportunities for reasonable debate and empathy, discussion, and thought-provoking conversations. 

Lastly, this would be a good time to focus on revitalizing our commitment to civics and community service. 

It all starts with tone. 

If we can introduce, from the president on down through Congress and to local officials and teachers, the concept of positive discourse, some quaint notion of listening before yelling, a modicum of respect for the opinions of others, and a general acceptance that morality matters and that we all have a responsibility to let other live without fear, we might lower the temperature just enough to become civilized again. A consequence of this war would thus become a teachable moment. 

Tara D. Sonenshine is the Edward R. Murrow Professor of Public Diplomacy at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.