Popular in Political Science

Political Science

V-Dem’s Conceptions of Democracy and Their Consequences

University of Notre Dame Michael Coppedge

American Politics

Keeping the Republic

Boston College Marc Landy

British Politics

Entrepreneurial thinking: the politics and practice of policy impact

University of Sheffield Matthew Flinders

Canadian Politics

Parties and Elections: An End to Canadian Exceptionalism?

St. Francis Xavier University James Bickerton

Asian Politics

The Politics of Knowledge in Development

University of Delhi Madhulika Banerjee

American Politics

Fifty years of declining confidence and increasing polarization in trust

University of California Berkeley Henry Brady

American Politics

Wait and See?

View more insights in Social Sciences - Political Science - Political Economy

View more figures from University of Liverpool

View the page of Mariaelisa Epifanio

Read the Study

Next in Political Economy

Is There Really a Dictator’s Dilemma? Information and Repression in Autocracy

Scott Gehlbach | University of Chicago

Populism in Place: The Economic Geography of the Globalization Backlash

Lawrence Broz | UC San Diego

While conducting the British Social Attitudes Survey, Mariaelisa Epifanio examined public support for core freedom limits after the 2005 London bombings.

Image courtesy of interviewee. January 25, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

This video video discusses the impact of terrorist attacks, particularly focusing on the reactions of citizens in Western liberal democracies to counter-terrorism measures and the trade-off between civil liberties and security. It notes a notable shift in public opinion before and after significant attacks, such as the 9/11 attacks and the London bombings in 2005.

The author stresses that, in the aftermath of terrorist incidents, citizens often become more supportive of harsh security measures at the expense of their freedoms. There are two main theories regarding this phenomenon: one suggests that fear drives irrational responses, while the other contends that political elites and media play a vital role in shaping public attitudes toward security and freedom.

Interestingly, the immediate public reaction to the London bombings did not support drastic measures. Instead, a change in attitude occurred later, after politicians and media began emphasizing the threat posed by terrorism, suggesting that the delay in public shifts aligns more with media framing rather than an immediate emotional response.

The research anticipates examining public opinion trends in response to specific events and seeks to determine the driving forces behind those shifts in attitudes towards civil liberties and security measures, noting that understanding these dynamics remains crucial today amidst ongoing discussions about security and freedom in various contexts, such as immigration and public health crises.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP=LOCAL:00:00:00.000,MPEGTS:90000

1
00:00:00.145 --> 00:00:02.285
The general context is the following.

2
00:00:03.185 --> 00:00:07.845
Um, we know in the last, two, decades,

3
00:00:09.465 --> 00:00:14.365
we citizens in western liberal democra democracies have,

4
00:00:14.985 --> 00:00:18.405
witnessed governments passing

5
00:00:19.275 --> 00:00:24.125
very harsh counter-terrorist measures that heavily

6
00:00:25.165 --> 00:00:27.645
impinged on core freedoms.

7
00:00:29.745 --> 00:00:31.725
And this is particularly the case

8
00:00:31.735 --> 00:00:35.605
after the terrorist attacks in, New York,

9
00:00:35.605 --> 00:00:40.045
Washington DC in the Pentagon, the nine 11 attacks.

10
00:00:40.145 --> 00:00:44.765
And we can say that there is a world before nine 11

11
00:00:45.105 --> 00:00:47.445
and the world after nine 11.

12
00:00:48.905 --> 00:00:53.525
And actually there is no much disagreements on the rich in

13
00:00:53.525 --> 00:00:54.565
the research that

14
00:00:55.015 --> 00:00:59.055
after a terrorist attack, we citizens,

15
00:00:59.735 --> 00:01:03.415
residents in, western liberal democracies, on average,

16
00:01:04.675 --> 00:01:09.495
we tend to become supportive of harsh measures

17
00:01:09.605 --> 00:01:12.855
that are meant to reduce terrorist threats.

18
00:01:13.745 --> 00:01:18.525
And we are willing spontaneously almost to give up,

19
00:01:18.555 --> 00:01:22.485
fundamental freedoms for, the sake of,

20
00:01:22.585 --> 00:01:23.645
more security.

21
00:01:25.695 --> 00:01:28.905
This is not much of a contested issue

22
00:01:28.905 --> 00:01:33.025
because on average, many studies show that this is the case.

23
00:01:35.315 --> 00:01:39.835
What is more contentious is when do

24
00:01:39.945 --> 00:01:42.795
with which attitudes why,

25
00:01:44.125 --> 00:01:48.905
and who is more likely to give up freedoms for,

26
00:01:48.925 --> 00:01:51.145
the sake of, more, security.

27
00:01:51.885 --> 00:01:55.105
And there are two main views on that. Yeah.

28
00:01:56.565 --> 00:02:00.425
For, some, our reaction is,

29
00:02:00.425 --> 00:02:01.625
driven by fear.

30
00:02:02.325 --> 00:02:04.385
We irrationally

31
00:02:04.805 --> 00:02:08.805
and emotionally overreact by,

32
00:02:08.805 --> 00:02:12.925
because terrorism, spreads fear.

33
00:02:13.955 --> 00:02:18.125
Fear makes us change our perception

34
00:02:18.425 --> 00:02:23.285
of risk, exposure of becoming ourselves the target

35
00:02:24.345 --> 00:02:25.605
of terrorism.

36
00:02:26.275 --> 00:02:28.245
Yeah. And we irrational

37
00:02:28.385 --> 00:02:31.045
and spontaneously demand more protection.

38
00:02:31.065 --> 00:02:35.005
And here the classical example that is brought forward

39
00:02:35.385 --> 00:02:39.245
by the proponents of I rational reactions

40
00:02:40.025 --> 00:02:42.085
is the bad example.

41
00:02:43.305 --> 00:02:47.005
And what is that? Well, we know that the risk

42
00:02:47.345 --> 00:02:51.005
of dying in a terrorist attack is rather low

43
00:02:51.875 --> 00:02:56.295
and certainly low, lower than other hazards in,

44
00:02:56.395 --> 00:02:58.655
in life, such as,

45
00:02:59.665 --> 00:03:01.405
and dying in the bathtub.

46
00:03:02.035 --> 00:03:06.925
Yeah. However, we don't stop enjoying a warm bath, neither.

47
00:03:07.065 --> 00:03:10.885
We perceive that this is a risky activity.

48
00:03:11.715 --> 00:03:15.965
However, when it comes to, terrorism, since

49
00:03:16.845 --> 00:03:19.005
emotions are involved, right?

50
00:03:19.525 --> 00:03:21.605
Terrorism comes with no benefits,

51
00:03:21.705 --> 00:03:23.965
but only destruction and death.

52
00:03:25.035 --> 00:03:29.215
As such, we are, we change our evaluation of risk.

53
00:03:29.835 --> 00:03:32.935
We perceive we are more exposed ourself,

54
00:03:33.675 --> 00:03:36.375
and we demand spontaneously

55
00:03:37.425 --> 00:03:40.115
more protection against the

56
00:03:40.115 --> 00:03:42.835
threat for others.

57
00:03:43.805 --> 00:03:47.315
These, change of, attitudes towards security

58
00:03:47.995 --> 00:03:51.075
policies that impinge on civil liberties is

59
00:03:51.075 --> 00:03:52.395
not so spontaneous.

60
00:03:53.775 --> 00:03:58.515
Rather, these, branch of literature argues

61
00:03:58.625 --> 00:04:03.035
that we are primed by political elites,

62
00:04:03.255 --> 00:04:04.915
in particular politicians

63
00:04:04.975 --> 00:04:09.075
and the media into supporting the liberal policies.

64
00:04:10.095 --> 00:04:14.115
If you want this as a sort of top down inducement, right?

65
00:04:14.495 --> 00:04:17.675
We gather information about the nature of the threat

66
00:04:18.625 --> 00:04:21.035
from politicians and from the media.

67
00:04:22.385 --> 00:04:26.565
And this information then shape our opinion,

68
00:04:27.225 --> 00:04:29.165
about the, the nature of the threat

69
00:04:29.185 --> 00:04:33.325
and what is required to reduce the threat.

70
00:04:34.105 --> 00:04:36.805
And as such, we then become more willing

71
00:04:37.225 --> 00:04:40.805
to give up our freedom for the sake of, more security.

72
00:04:41.715 --> 00:04:46.405
This is sad, but would be consistent with a more recent

73
00:04:47.445 --> 00:04:51.825
or rational approach and responses to terrorism.

74
00:04:52.175 --> 00:04:54.655
Yeah, of course, these two

75
00:04:55.265 --> 00:04:57.375
mechanisms can, coexist.

76
00:04:58.655 --> 00:05:01.715
And so the sh the puzzle in short is

77
00:05:02.655 --> 00:05:06.555
do we irrationally overreact to terrorism

78
00:05:06.975 --> 00:05:10.235
and start demanding harsher measures,

79
00:05:11.415 --> 00:05:15.865
or are we primed by the elites in doing so?

80
00:05:16.805 --> 00:05:19.385
And that's what our paper seeks to understand

81
00:05:19.685 --> 00:05:21.985
by looking at the evolution

82
00:05:22.005 --> 00:05:24.425
of public opinion on core freedoms

83
00:05:24.425 --> 00:05:27.345
after the London bombings in 2005.

84
00:05:27.605 --> 00:05:29.505
That's why we focus in,

85
00:05:29.645 --> 00:05:31.625
on the terrorist attacks in London.

86
00:05:32.085 --> 00:05:34.905
And, first let me give you a bit of context,

87
00:05:34.925 --> 00:05:39.225
and in particular to remind to the young audience

88
00:05:39.615 --> 00:05:40.865
what happened that day.

89
00:05:42.645 --> 00:05:43.665
So we are in London.

90
00:05:44.325 --> 00:05:48.545
Uh, this was the, a Thursday 7th of July.

91
00:05:49.935 --> 00:05:54.465
This was, and London was struck by a

92
00:05:55.185 --> 00:05:56.705
horrible attack and considered

93
00:05:56.705 --> 00:05:58.845
that this was an unexpected shock.

94
00:05:59.845 --> 00:06:02.565
I don't know if you recall, but the day

95
00:06:02.625 --> 00:06:06.965
before Londoners were in a celebration mode.

96
00:06:07.395 --> 00:06:12.045
They were celebrating the decision to, award to the city

97
00:06:12.105 --> 00:06:16.045
of London, the 2012 Olympic Games,

98
00:06:16.985 --> 00:06:18.485
and everybody was happy.

99
00:06:19.105 --> 00:06:23.565
Uh, red Arrows, flew, over London.

100
00:06:24.395 --> 00:06:28.525
Yeah. People were in front of the TV back then.

101
00:06:28.525 --> 00:06:31.005
Social media were not the main channel

102
00:06:31.875 --> 00:06:33.045
were in front of the tv.

103
00:06:33.725 --> 00:06:36.885
Employees were stopped what they were doing

104
00:06:37.145 --> 00:06:39.365
to watch the announcement on TV

105
00:06:39.545 --> 00:06:43.925
and then cheering up the Prime Minister of, at the time,

106
00:06:44.185 --> 00:06:48.765
Tony Blair from the Labor Party held this,

107
00:06:48.985 --> 00:06:53.605
decision as the historical moment for,

108
00:06:53.665 --> 00:06:58.525
London with the Queen sending her warmest congratulations

109
00:06:58.625 --> 00:07:00.565
to the committee in charge of the bid.

110
00:07:00.795 --> 00:07:02.045
Everybody was happy.

111
00:07:03.565 --> 00:07:07.665
The day after, we are in the morning working day,

112
00:07:07.665 --> 00:07:12.295
7th of July, a Thursday rush hour,

113
00:07:13.465 --> 00:07:15.805
people commuting to, to work

114
00:07:17.145 --> 00:07:21.065
at 9:49 AM

115
00:07:22.515 --> 00:07:26.875
three, devices detonated

116
00:07:27.855 --> 00:07:31.195
within 50 seconds of each other

117
00:07:32.375 --> 00:07:35.555
on the London underground in very, very busy

118
00:07:35.655 --> 00:07:36.995
and crowded stations.

119
00:07:37.855 --> 00:07:41.025
Yeah. And less than, one hour

120
00:07:41.155 --> 00:07:44.105
after that, another,

121
00:07:44.965 --> 00:07:49.185
device detonated on a double decker bus again in,

122
00:07:49.215 --> 00:07:52.105
another central area, Tavistock Square.

123
00:07:53.325 --> 00:07:56.585
As a result of this attack,

124
00:07:57.555 --> 00:08:00.505
52 people were killed,

125
00:08:01.045 --> 00:08:04.465
and over 770 people were injured.

126
00:08:05.285 --> 00:08:07.465
And this was an unexpected shock,

127
00:08:07.965 --> 00:08:12.465
but it was known already by midday recall,

128
00:08:13.005 --> 00:08:15.865
no social media on tv Yeah.

129
00:08:16.045 --> 00:08:19.825
Or newspapers. It was known already by midday

130
00:08:19.975 --> 00:08:23.145
that this was not a simple accident on the London

131
00:08:23.145 --> 00:08:24.345
transportation system.

132
00:08:24.375 --> 00:08:27.065
This was a terrorist attack.

133
00:08:27.125 --> 00:08:28.585
And of Islamist nature

134
00:08:29.245 --> 00:08:32.065
and the perpetrators, the, the identity

135
00:08:32.325 --> 00:08:35.865
of the perpetrators became known, a few days

136
00:08:36.035 --> 00:08:40.345
after they were all British citizens, all radicalized,

137
00:08:41.125 --> 00:08:43.465
Islamist, terrorists,

138
00:08:43.725 --> 00:08:48.505
but everybody by midday knew that this was terrorist attack.

139
00:08:49.985 --> 00:08:52.245
Recall that what we want to know, to know,

140
00:08:53.635 --> 00:08:55.015
we want to know Yeah.

141
00:08:55.945 --> 00:09:00.205
Whether we can tease out

142
00:09:01.485 --> 00:09:05.355
whether we, react emotionally

143
00:09:05.815 --> 00:09:07.555
or, rationally.

144
00:09:08.065 --> 00:09:12.745
Yeah. And of course, in order to do so, the only thing

145
00:09:12.855 --> 00:09:16.985
that we could do is to enter into the mind of each

146
00:09:17.005 --> 00:09:20.945
and every one of us and see how we feel and think

147
00:09:20.945 --> 00:09:22.305
after terrorist attack.

148
00:09:22.325 --> 00:09:23.825
But we cannot do so unlikely.

149
00:09:24.685 --> 00:09:29.265
So, so one thing that we can do as researchers is

150
00:09:29.285 --> 00:09:31.025
to exploit timing.

151
00:09:32.795 --> 00:09:37.645
What does it mean if terrorism

152
00:09:38.505 --> 00:09:42.485
spread fear and we emotionally

153
00:09:43.865 --> 00:09:46.955
overreact to terrorism, then

154
00:09:47.855 --> 00:09:51.025
we should expect we demand

155
00:09:51.895 --> 00:09:55.825
more protection and harsher policies immediately

156
00:09:55.825 --> 00:09:59.745
after an attack in the, in the immediate trend.

157
00:10:00.485 --> 00:10:05.385
Why? Because the immediate trend is where fear is high

158
00:10:06.015 --> 00:10:07.985
emotion play a big role.

159
00:10:08.985 --> 00:10:10.105
Terrorism is very salient,

160
00:10:10.285 --> 00:10:14.745
and policy makers do not have yet the time

161
00:10:14.885 --> 00:10:16.425
to propose solutions.

162
00:10:16.815 --> 00:10:20.995
Yeah. If we are

163
00:10:21.455 --> 00:10:25.315
primed into supporting liberal policies, then

164
00:10:26.095 --> 00:10:29.615
we should expect a delay in public

165
00:10:31.195 --> 00:10:33.685
demands for harsh measures.

166
00:10:35.065 --> 00:10:39.285
How does the context that I just, highlighted

167
00:10:40.075 --> 00:10:44.135
help us London unexpected shock?

168
00:10:44.395 --> 00:10:48.515
We want to monitor the evolution of public opinion.

169
00:10:50.055 --> 00:10:55.035
How can we do so? Well, there is a survey, in,

170
00:10:55.055 --> 00:10:59.355
in the UK that is, carried out annually every year.

171
00:11:00.415 --> 00:11:04.555
And the survey monitors the mood of people on

172
00:11:05.075 --> 00:11:09.875
a large number of issues ranging from immigration, welfare

173
00:11:10.435 --> 00:11:13.875
spending, healthcare, political trust, security

174
00:11:15.955 --> 00:11:20.525
that year in 2005, this survey contained a number

175
00:11:20.665 --> 00:11:25.615
of items of questions that referred

176
00:11:25.615 --> 00:11:26.815
to civil liberties.

177
00:11:26.995 --> 00:11:31.335
In particular, respondents were asked whether they approve

178
00:11:32.395 --> 00:11:36.095
of measures that if implemented would

179
00:11:36.685 --> 00:11:38.855
massively reduce core freedoms.

180
00:11:39.315 --> 00:11:40.815
And to give you some examples,

181
00:11:41.445 --> 00:11:45.175
respondents were asked whether they approve of measures that

182
00:11:45.755 --> 00:11:50.015
ban free speech, ban, public demonstrations,

183
00:11:50.995 --> 00:11:55.925
allow the government to, intercept communication,

184
00:11:57.015 --> 00:11:59.925
allow the government to deny free trial

185
00:12:00.225 --> 00:12:01.885
to terrorist suspects.

186
00:12:02.195 --> 00:12:05.565
Yeah. Deport them or even use torture.

187
00:12:06.065 --> 00:12:10.745
So big issues. And so what do we do?

188
00:12:13.435 --> 00:12:17.815
The survey that year was, carried out

189
00:12:18.405 --> 00:12:20.735
between June

190
00:12:21.195 --> 00:12:26.135
and November with most of the questions

191
00:12:26.275 --> 00:12:29.255
and answers collected in July.

192
00:12:29.515 --> 00:12:30.975
And almost,

193
00:12:32.555 --> 00:12:35.015
so what do we do?

194
00:12:36.665 --> 00:12:41.055
Began The London bonding happened on the 7th of July.

195
00:12:42.375 --> 00:12:45.845
These allow us to compare answers

196
00:12:46.275 --> 00:12:50.045
that were given on these items by respondents

197
00:12:50.145 --> 00:12:54.845
before attack, with answers given

198
00:12:55.455 --> 00:12:57.285
after Git attack.

199
00:12:57.905 --> 00:13:02.205
And since the date of the interview is, was random

200
00:13:02.585 --> 00:13:07.005
or quasi random, this approach comes as close as possible

201
00:13:07.025 --> 00:13:10.005
to recover a causal effect of terrorism.

202
00:13:10.705 --> 00:13:14.005
But recall that we want to see the evolution of,

203
00:13:14.105 --> 00:13:15.205
public opinion.

204
00:13:15.465 --> 00:13:17.605
So what we do, we first distinguish

205
00:13:19.355 --> 00:13:21.635
responses on these items given

206
00:13:23.265 --> 00:13:26.365
in the immediate aftermath of the attack the first week.

207
00:13:27.585 --> 00:13:29.205
Why? So as I told you, we want

208
00:13:29.205 --> 00:13:31.285
to tease out possible mechanism,

209
00:13:31.345 --> 00:13:35.145
and that in the first week, well, they were all,

210
00:13:35.145 --> 00:13:36.425
we were all scared.

211
00:13:37.205 --> 00:13:39.985
Um, our fear was high.

212
00:13:41.165 --> 00:13:42.505
Yet politicians

213
00:13:42.685 --> 00:13:46.105
or the media, were not talking about what is needed

214
00:13:46.725 --> 00:13:48.145
to address the threat.

215
00:13:48.565 --> 00:13:52.865
So we can think of this, short, immediate run

216
00:13:53.325 --> 00:13:55.725
as the period

217
00:13:56.815 --> 00:13:59.325
where emotions play a role.

218
00:14:00.725 --> 00:14:04.665
And then we look at responses that were given

219
00:14:04.875 --> 00:14:09.185
after this, immediate run in the weeks

220
00:14:09.445 --> 00:14:11.425
and months that followed.

221
00:14:11.605 --> 00:14:15.265
And this time period, they can be considered as the time

222
00:14:15.395 --> 00:14:20.145
where after the initial shock, politicians

223
00:14:20.485 --> 00:14:23.985
and, the media start talking about the nature

224
00:14:24.005 --> 00:14:28.585
of the threat and what is needed to, address this,

225
00:14:29.445 --> 00:14:33.505
we find no changes in, attitudes

226
00:14:34.285 --> 00:14:35.505
in the immediate trend.

227
00:14:38.065 --> 00:14:40.715
Respondents interviewed immediately

228
00:14:40.715 --> 00:14:44.115
after the attack in the first week after the attack.

229
00:14:44.785 --> 00:14:47.035
Were no willing, no, no.

230
00:14:47.905 --> 00:14:49.795
They were not very much willing to

231
00:14:50.345 --> 00:14:54.525
give up change attitudes on their, on these fundamental

232
00:14:55.685 --> 00:14:58.605
freedoms for the sake of more security.

233
00:14:59.275 --> 00:15:02.205
Yeah. So this no

234
00:15:03.375 --> 00:15:08.135
reaction in the immediate trend seems to be more consistent,

235
00:15:08.385 --> 00:15:12.775
seems to run against, if you want the idea of an emotional

236
00:15:13.375 --> 00:15:15.215
overreaction driven by fear,

237
00:15:16.955 --> 00:15:18.415
we do observe a change.

238
00:15:18.835 --> 00:15:23.055
People do become supportive of measures

239
00:15:23.055 --> 00:15:26.295
that heavily cut back civil liberties,

240
00:15:26.515 --> 00:15:29.895
but with a delay starting from the second week and,

241
00:15:30.315 --> 00:15:31.535
and, and then onwards.

242
00:15:32.475 --> 00:15:35.935
And this delay in public, shifts

243
00:15:36.715 --> 00:15:40.735
is more consistent with some mechanism

244
00:15:40.875 --> 00:15:45.255
of priming rather than emotional

245
00:15:45.365 --> 00:15:46.375
love reactions.

246
00:15:49.065 --> 00:15:53.365
So these of course, calls for, possible explanations.

247
00:15:53.995 --> 00:15:56.285
Yeah. And first,

248
00:15:57.145 --> 00:16:01.565
and we, the, the natural, possible source of,

249
00:16:01.735 --> 00:16:03.925
persuasion can come from politicians.

250
00:16:04.595 --> 00:16:07.405
Yeah. And so what we do is the following.

251
00:16:07.465 --> 00:16:11.205
We check whether, changes on,

252
00:16:11.265 --> 00:16:14.485
in public opinion on these core freedoms

253
00:16:15.605 --> 00:16:18.845
happened in the aftermath of a press conference

254
00:16:18.995 --> 00:16:21.325
that was called by Tony Blair,

255
00:16:21.505 --> 00:16:23.285
the Prime Minister, again at the time.

256
00:16:24.585 --> 00:16:29.205
And this is a press conference where Tony Blair announced

257
00:16:29.355 --> 00:16:33.165
that the rules of the game were had changed

258
00:16:34.065 --> 00:16:37.485
and also anticipated all the harsh measure

259
00:16:37.595 --> 00:16:39.165
that the government was planning

260
00:16:39.225 --> 00:16:40.845
to introduce after the threat.

261
00:16:42.335 --> 00:16:46.725
Yet we find not much going on there.

262
00:16:48.375 --> 00:16:51.755
So we look at the, reporting, by the media

263
00:16:53.775 --> 00:16:55.915
of the terrorist events itself,

264
00:16:56.255 --> 00:17:00.755
and, how the threat was, talked about by the media

265
00:17:00.755 --> 00:17:03.235
during the whole, period we study.

266
00:17:03.705 --> 00:17:05.475
Yeah. And here

267
00:17:06.335 --> 00:17:10.555
we find some suggestive evidence of a media effect.

268
00:17:11.505 --> 00:17:16.155
That is the changes in attitudes that we show appear to

269
00:17:16.755 --> 00:17:20.235
coincide with the framing of the bombing

270
00:17:21.015 --> 00:17:23.675
by the media, especially tabloids.

271
00:17:24.705 --> 00:17:28.955
Basically, we observe a move from a actual

272
00:17:29.225 --> 00:17:33.875
description and chronicle description of the event itself

273
00:17:34.795 --> 00:17:38.855
to an emphasis in starting from the second week

274
00:17:39.305 --> 00:17:42.255
where we observe a shift in attitude

275
00:17:42.755 --> 00:17:47.255
to an emphasis on the perpetrators, their Islamic ties,

276
00:17:48.195 --> 00:17:51.445
the measures that are needed to, to address

277
00:17:51.665 --> 00:17:52.805
and tackle the threat.

278
00:17:53.865 --> 00:17:57.085
So this is, let's say, more consistent.

279
00:17:57.945 --> 00:18:00.845
The no effect that we find in the first,

280
00:18:01.665 --> 00:18:05.035
in the immediate run seems to be more consistent

281
00:18:05.465 --> 00:18:09.115
with a recent approach, with a wait and see approach.

282
00:18:10.095 --> 00:18:15.075
And consider that we do our best to exclude

283
00:18:15.415 --> 00:18:18.395
as much as possible other possible mechanism,

284
00:18:18.395 --> 00:18:22.595
because one may object well, but wait a moment, immediately

285
00:18:22.595 --> 00:18:25.075
after an attack of death magnitude,

286
00:18:25.845 --> 00:18:30.195
maybe people we were, are, we were just in a state of shock.

287
00:18:30.335 --> 00:18:32.075
We were not, we don't know

288
00:18:32.075 --> 00:18:33.195
what to, we don't know what to do.

289
00:18:33.215 --> 00:18:36.395
We didn't know what to do. Yet we test for

290
00:18:36.395 --> 00:18:40.155
that using other survey items that are more,

291
00:18:40.255 --> 00:18:44.915
if you want emotional items such as weather respondents,

292
00:18:45.015 --> 00:18:49.235
for example, perceived, their per personal exposure

293
00:18:49.375 --> 00:18:50.835
to terrorism increased,

294
00:18:51.295 --> 00:18:53.035
or whether the whole nation

295
00:18:53.135 --> 00:18:56.355
as a was more under the threat of terrorism.

296
00:18:56.415 --> 00:18:59.875
And we do observe a reaction on these items

297
00:19:00.025 --> 00:19:01.395
that is more consistent

298
00:19:01.395 --> 00:19:04.275
with an emotional reaction on this item.

299
00:19:04.455 --> 00:19:08.155
The people did, respond, which is, which seems

300
00:19:08.175 --> 00:19:10.835
to run against the idea of a numb

301
00:19:11.895 --> 00:19:13.275
numbed public.

302
00:19:13.455 --> 00:19:17.755
So there seemed to be something special about counter,

303
00:19:17.775 --> 00:19:19.075
security measures.

304
00:19:19.775 --> 00:19:22.555
And consider also that the shift

305
00:19:22.555 --> 00:19:26.915
that we document in the starting from the second week, well,

306
00:19:27.165 --> 00:19:30.555
those that in the second week started changing

307
00:19:31.145 --> 00:19:35.865
were more likely to shift attitudes were particular,

308
00:19:36.475 --> 00:19:39.905
particular respondents with no university degree

309
00:19:40.365 --> 00:19:44.545
and who were more likely to, vote

310
00:19:44.605 --> 00:19:47.345
for the conservative party in the previous election.

311
00:19:47.845 --> 00:19:51.465
But even there, even there, this subset

312
00:19:51.725 --> 00:19:55.585
of respondents did not react in the first week

313
00:19:55.935 --> 00:19:57.385
immediately after the attack.

314
00:19:58.605 --> 00:20:02.865
And all this we argue, seems to be more consistent

315
00:20:03.135 --> 00:20:07.505
with a recent response with people waiting

316
00:20:07.805 --> 00:20:10.625
and seeing, waiting for,

317
00:20:10.765 --> 00:20:14.025
to understand more about the nature of the threat,

318
00:20:14.045 --> 00:20:17.385
and then deciding whether or to support

319
00:20:17.485 --> 00:20:21.265
or not counter-terrorist measures the,

320
00:20:21.265 --> 00:20:22.505
the media criticized.

321
00:20:22.765 --> 00:20:26.065
Uh, we have some suggestive evidence of the media

322
00:20:26.585 --> 00:20:29.465
criticizing the government for lack of inaction,

323
00:20:30.245 --> 00:20:33.985
and out of the media, mostly tablos

324
00:20:34.375 --> 00:20:37.425
with distinguished between mainstream newspaper

325
00:20:37.445 --> 00:20:38.745
and, and Tablos.

326
00:20:39.285 --> 00:20:41.825
And we know that the readership of, this

327
00:20:42.045 --> 00:20:45.145
of Tablos usually correlates with some

328
00:20:45.765 --> 00:20:50.445
characteristics such as, political attitudes

329
00:20:50.475 --> 00:20:52.685
that are more conservative.

330
00:20:53.425 --> 00:20:54.525
And, yeah.

331
00:20:55.065 --> 00:20:57.645
So it seems that the discourse in the media

332
00:20:58.555 --> 00:21:02.245
matched very well the changes in attitude

333
00:21:02.435 --> 00:21:06.885
that we documents how the media talk about

334
00:21:07.445 --> 00:21:11.595
a certain, tragic phenomenon.

335
00:21:12.325 --> 00:21:15.615
Well, we started this interview with, two puzzles. Yeah.

336
00:21:15.915 --> 00:21:18.655
Who is, responsible for changes in attitude

337
00:21:18.715 --> 00:21:20.215
and fundamental freedoms

338
00:21:20.705 --> 00:21:23.975
after a terrorist attack is the public itself

339
00:21:24.035 --> 00:21:27.055
that's spontaneously demand for more, protection.

340
00:21:27.075 --> 00:21:29.095
And, the cost of civil liberties.

341
00:21:29.195 --> 00:21:31.175
Is it the, are the politicians

342
00:21:31.235 --> 00:21:33.615
or the media driving this change?

343
00:21:34.235 --> 00:21:38.255
And whether, which sort of response is consistent with a,

344
00:21:38.395 --> 00:21:42.695
an emotional or a reason or rational, reaction?

345
00:21:43.475 --> 00:21:47.015
Our paper suggests that the public appears to wait and see.

346
00:21:47.645 --> 00:21:51.375
Yeah. And, this seems to suggest a more

347
00:21:51.895 --> 00:21:55.175
rational rather than an impulsive, reaction

348
00:21:55.685 --> 00:21:58.495
with some suggestive, evidence of immediate effect.

349
00:21:59.115 --> 00:22:01.695
And this, we believe as larger implications

350
00:22:02.485 --> 00:22:04.975
because understanding how

351
00:22:05.555 --> 00:22:09.815
and when people shifts attitudes on core

352
00:22:10.475 --> 00:22:13.775
rights is, in our view

353
00:22:14.355 --> 00:22:17.495
as urgent today as it was in 2005.

354
00:22:18.035 --> 00:22:20.975
And indeed, we have many works that show

355
00:22:21.605 --> 00:22:25.815
that changes in public opinion are, usually used

356
00:22:25.815 --> 00:22:30.215
by politicians and pundits alike to justify policy changes.

357
00:22:30.355 --> 00:22:32.615
And this effect can be dramatic.

358
00:22:33.595 --> 00:22:38.055
It, it appears, if you want, that politicians do not,

359
00:22:38.675 --> 00:22:40.415
let the crisis go to waste.

360
00:22:40.555 --> 00:22:44.495
And to just think about the recent covid pandemics,

361
00:22:44.625 --> 00:22:48.975
which has shown how emergencies can lead to severe

362
00:22:49.725 --> 00:22:51.255
curtailment of civil rights.

363
00:22:52.175 --> 00:22:55.835
But more recently, think about the,

364
00:22:56.125 --> 00:22:59.235
immigrated debates about immigrations

365
00:22:59.975 --> 00:23:04.155
and the debate over the threat that immigrants pose

366
00:23:04.895 --> 00:23:09.635
to our societies, which led to proposed policies such

367
00:23:09.655 --> 00:23:13.835
as sending asylum seekers to Rwanda or,

368
00:23:14.335 --> 00:23:18.835
or jailing them into shelters

369
00:23:19.085 --> 00:23:22.155
until their, application is, is reviewed.

370
00:23:22.815 --> 00:23:26.395
And here I have in mind mothers

371
00:23:26.455 --> 00:23:30.675
and children who are mainly asylum seekers,

372
00:23:30.945 --> 00:23:34.435
fleeing violence in Central America, who have been

373
00:23:35.035 --> 00:23:37.875
detained in family centers in the us.

374
00:23:38.655 --> 00:23:42.355
And more recently, I have in mind the these days

375
00:23:42.875 --> 00:23:44.435
announcement of the

376
00:23:44.955 --> 00:23:49.245
Italian government of an agreement signed

377
00:23:49.395 --> 00:23:53.165
with the Albanian government to build two centers

378
00:23:54.105 --> 00:23:57.605
in Albania, where to detain people

379
00:23:57.915 --> 00:24:00.965
that are rescued at sea by Italian ships.

380
00:24:02.065 --> 00:24:06.325
So we believe that if our research is

381
00:24:06.345 --> 00:24:07.605
of any indication,

382
00:24:08.915 --> 00:24:11.965
medi media persuasion may be the driving force

383
00:24:12.825 --> 00:24:17.045
behind changes in support for closing borders.

384
00:24:17.565 --> 00:24:17.685
I.

Counter-Terrorism and the Erosion of Freedoms

00:00:00 - The general context is the following. we know in the last, two, decades, we citizens in western liberal democra democracies have, witnessed governments passing very harsh counter-terrorist measures that heavily impinged on core freedoms. And this is particularly the case
00:00:35 - Washington DC in the Pentagon, the nine 11 attacks. And we can say that there is a world before nine 11 and the world after nine 11. And actually there is no much disagreements on the rich in the research that after a terrorist attack, we citizens, residents in, western liberal democracies, on average,
00:01:09 - that are meant to reduce terrorist threats. And we are willing spontaneously almost to give up, fundamental freedoms for, the sake of, more security. This is not much of a contested issue because on average, many studies show that this is the case.
00:01:39 - with which attitudes why, and who is more likely to give up freedoms for, the sake of, more, security. And there are two main views on that. Yeah. For, some, our reaction is, driven by fear. We irrationally and emotionally overreact by,
00:02:13 - Fear makes us change our perception of risk, exposure of becoming ourselves the target of terrorism. Yeah. And we irrational and spontaneously demand more protection. And here the classical example that is brought forward by the proponents of I rational reactions
00:02:43 - And what is that? Well, we know that the risk of dying in a terrorist attack is rather low and certainly low, lower than other hazards in, in life, such as, and dying in the bathtub. Yeah. However, we don't stop enjoying a warm bath, neither. We perceive that this is a risky activity.

Public Response to Terrorism and Security Measures

00:03:16 - emotions are involved, right? Terrorism comes with no benefits, but only destruction and death. As such, we are, we change our evaluation of risk. We perceive we are more exposed ourself, and we demand spontaneously more protection against the threat for others.
00:03:47 - policies that impinge on civil liberties is not so spontaneous. Rather, these, branch of literature argues that we are primed by political elites, in particular politicians and the media into supporting the liberal policies. If you want this as a sort of top down inducement, right?
00:04:18 - from politicians and from the media. And this information then shape our opinion, about the, the nature of the threat and what is required to reduce the threat. And as such, we then become more willing to give up our freedom for the sake of, more security. This is sad, but would be consistent with a more recent
00:04:52 - Yeah, of course, these two mechanisms can, coexist. And so the sh the puzzle in short is do we irrationally overreact to terrorism and start demanding harsher measures, or are we primed by the elites in doing so? And that's what our paper seeks to understand
00:05:22 - of public opinion on core freedoms after the London bombings in 2005. That's why we focus in, on the terrorist attacks in London. And, first let me give you a bit of context, and in particular to remind to the young audience what happened that day. So we are in London. this was the, a Thursday 7th of July.
00:05:55 - horrible attack and considered that this was an unexpected shock. I don't know if you recall, but the day before Londoners were in a celebration mode. They were celebrating the decision to, award to the city of London, the 2012 Olympic Games, and everybody was happy. red Arrows, flew, over London.

London's July 7 Terrorist Attack: A Timeline

00:06:28 - Social media were not the main channel were in front of the tv. Employees were stopped what they were doing to watch the announcement on TV and then cheering up the Prime Minister of, at the time, Tony Blair from the Labor Party held this, decision as the historical moment for, London with the Queen sending her warmest congratulations
00:07:00 - Everybody was happy. The day after, we are in the morning working day, 7th of July, a Thursday rush hour, people commuting to, to work at 9:49 AM three, devices detonated within 50 seconds of each other
00:07:35 - and crowded stations. Yeah. And less than, one hour after that, another, device detonated on a double decker bus again in, another central area, Tavistock Square. As a result of this attack, 52 people were killed, and over 770 people were injured.
00:08:07 - but it was known already by midday recall, no social media on tv Yeah. Or newspapers. It was known already by midday that this was not a simple accident on the London transportation system. This was a terrorist attack. And of Islamist nature and the perpetrators, the, the identity of the perpetrators became known, a few days
00:08:41 - Islamist, terrorists, but everybody by midday knew that this was terrorist attack. Recall that what we want to know, to know, we want to know Yeah. Whether we can tease out whether we, react emotionally or, rationally.
00:09:12 - that we could do is to enter into the mind of each and every one of us and see how we feel and think after terrorist attack. But we cannot do so unlikely. So, so one thing that we can do as researchers is to exploit timing. What does it mean if terrorism

Public Reaction and Policy After Terrorism

00:09:43 - overreact to terrorism, then we should expect we demand more protection and harsher policies immediately after an attack in the, in the immediate trend. Why? Because the immediate trend is where fear is high emotion play a big role.
00:10:10 - and policy makers do not have yet the time to propose solutions. Yeah. If we are primed into supporting liberal policies, then we should expect a delay in public demands for harsh measures. How does the context that I just, highlighted
00:10:44 - We want to monitor the evolution of public opinion. How can we do so? Well, there is a survey, in, in the UK that is, carried out annually every year. And the survey monitors the mood of people on a large number of issues ranging from immigration, welfare
00:11:15 - that year in 2005, this survey contained a number of items of questions that referred to civil liberties. In particular, respondents were asked whether they approve of measures that if implemented would massively reduce core freedoms. And to give you some examples,
00:11:45 - ban free speech, ban, public demonstrations, allow the government to, intercept communication, allow the government to deny free trial to terrorist suspects. Yeah. Deport them or even use torture. So big issues. And so what do we do?
00:12:18 - between June and November with most of the questions and answers collected in July. And almost, so what do we do? Began The London bonding happened on the 7th of July. These allow us to compare answers

Public Opinion Evolution Post-Terrorist Attack

00:12:50 - before attack, with answers given after Git attack. And since the date of the interview is, was random or quasi random, this approach comes as close as possible to recover a causal effect of terrorism. But recall that we want to see the evolution of, public opinion. So what we do, we first distinguish
00:13:23 - in the immediate aftermath of the attack the first week. Why? So as I told you, we want to tease out possible mechanism, and that in the first week, well, they were all, we were all scared. our fear was high. Yet politicians or the media, were not talking about what is needed to address the threat. So we can think of this, short, immediate run
00:13:56 - where emotions play a role. And then we look at responses that were given after this, immediate run in the weeks and months that followed. And this time period, they can be considered as the time where after the initial shock, politicians and, the media start talking about the nature
00:14:29 - we find no changes in, attitudes in the immediate trend. Respondents interviewed immediately after the attack in the first week after the attack. Were no willing, no, no. They were not very much willing to give up change attitudes on their, on these fundamental
00:14:59 - Yeah. So this no reaction in the immediate trend seems to be more consistent, seems to run against, if you want the idea of an emotional overreaction driven by fear, we do observe a change. People do become supportive of measures that heavily cut back civil liberties,
00:15:30 - and, and then onwards. And this delay in public, shifts is more consistent with some mechanism of priming rather than emotional love reactions. So these of course, calls for, possible explanations. Yeah. And first,

Media Influence on Public Perception Post-Attack

00:16:01 - persuasion can come from politicians. Yeah. And so what we do is the following. We check whether, changes on, in public opinion on these core freedoms happened in the aftermath of a press conference that was called by Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, again at the time. And this is a press conference where Tony Blair announced
00:16:34 - and also anticipated all the harsh measure that the government was planning to introduce after the threat. Yet we find not much going on there. So we look at the, reporting, by the media of the terrorist events itself, and, how the threat was, talked about by the media
00:17:03 - Yeah. And here we find some suggestive evidence of a media effect. That is the changes in attitudes that we show appear to coincide with the framing of the bombing by the media, especially tabloids. Basically, we observe a move from a actual description and chronicle description of the event itself
00:17:39 - where we observe a shift in attitude to an emphasis on the perpetrators, their Islamic ties, the measures that are needed to, to address and tackle the threat. So this is, let's say, more consistent. The no effect that we find in the first, in the immediate run seems to be more consistent
00:18:10 - And consider that we do our best to exclude as much as possible other possible mechanism, because one may object well, but wait a moment, immediately after an attack of death magnitude, maybe people we were, are, we were just in a state of shock. We were not, we don't know what to, we don't know what to do. We didn't know what to do. Yet we test for
00:18:40 - if you want emotional items such as weather respondents, for example, perceived, their per personal exposure to terrorism increased, or whether the whole nation as a was more under the threat of terrorism. And we do observe a reaction on these items that is more consistent with an emotional reaction on this item. The people did, respond, which is, which seems

Public Attitudes Toward Counter-Terrorism Measures

00:19:11 - numbed public. So there seemed to be something special about counter, security measures. And consider also that the shift that we document in the starting from the second week, well, those that in the second week started changing were more likely to shift attitudes were particular, particular respondents with no university degree
00:19:44 - for the conservative party in the previous election. But even there, even there, this subset of respondents did not react in the first week immediately after the attack. And all this we argue, seems to be more consistent with a recent response with people waiting and seeing, waiting for,
00:20:14 - and then deciding whether or to support or not counter-terrorist measures the, the media criticized. we have some suggestive evidence of the media criticizing the government for lack of inaction, and out of the media, mostly tablos with distinguished between mainstream newspaper and, and Tablos. And we know that the readership of, this
00:20:45 - characteristics such as, political attitudes that are more conservative. And, yeah. So it seems that the discourse in the media matched very well the changes in attitude that we documents how the media talk about a certain, tragic phenomenon.
00:21:15 - Who is, responsible for changes in attitude and fundamental freedoms after a terrorist attack is the public itself that's spontaneously demand for more, protection. And, the cost of civil liberties. Is it the, are the politicians or the media driving this change? And whether, which sort of response is consistent with a, an emotional or a reason or rational, reaction?
00:21:47 - Yeah. And, this seems to suggest a more rational rather than an impulsive, reaction with some suggestive, evidence of immediate effect. And this, we believe as larger implications because understanding how and when people shifts attitudes on core rights is, in our view

Public Opinion and Policy Changes in Crises

00:22:18 - And indeed, we have many works that show that changes in public opinion are, usually used by politicians and pundits alike to justify policy changes. And this effect can be dramatic. It, it appears, if you want, that politicians do not, let the crisis go to waste. And to just think about the recent covid pandemics,
00:22:49 - curtailment of civil rights. But more recently, think about the, immigrated debates about immigrations and the debate over the threat that immigrants pose to our societies, which led to proposed policies such as sending asylum seekers to Rwanda or, or jailing them into shelters
00:23:22 - And here I have in mind mothers and children who are mainly asylum seekers, fleeing violence in Central America, who have been detained in family centers in the us. And more recently, I have in mind the these days announcement of the Italian government of an agreement signed
00:24:17 - in Albania, where to detain people that are rescued at sea by Italian ships. So we believe that if our research is of any indication, medi media persuasion may be the driving force behind changes in support for closing borders. I.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Research

Policy

Analysis