From the perspective of those who staged the events of 9/11, they were as successful as possible in terms of achieving their media goals. It has been suggested that religiously motivated terrorists do not want to communicate with the enemy. Instead, their conversation is with God. I cannot be convinced of this argument. I would certainly say that the perpetrators of September 11 were religiously motivated, even if they operated outside the mainstream of their religion. Yet everything in the production of September 11 points to an extreme awareness that the architects of this terror had of media coverage and media impact. They knew the effect they would have if they managed to pull off a quadruple hijacking with kamikaze flights hitting various targets. No terrorist group had ever committed a larger act or acts of terrorism than the ones we experienced on September 11. When terrorists strike hard, they certainly receive the attention of the media and their target publics.

	With no images available, the New York Times published a map on the day after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. In contrast, the New York Times featured numerous full-color photographs on the day after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The New York Times

In one respect commentators were right to compare the events of 9/11 to those at Pearl Harbor in 1941: Both attacks came as surprises. No one had anticipated anything like these events to occur. However, it is not a good comparison with respect to media and communication effectiveness. Not until three hours after the first bombing in Pearl Harbor were the attacks announced on the radio on the American mainland. Even then the announcers basically read from wire-service dispatches. It took more than a week before mainland newspapers were able to print the first pictures of the damage inflicted on Pearl Harbor. As we all know, there was instant live coverage soon after the first hit on the World Trade Center.