Both the Walsh and the Spencer readings posit a symbiosis between the media and terrorists. Explain that symbiosis. What does each party give the other? The Spencer article, in particular, considers the merits of limiting freedom of the press to cover terrorist attacks. What are the pros and cons of such an approach in a democracy? Is that a valid means of mitigating democracies’ vulnerability to terrorism? What do you think of Spencer’s alternative plan to limit terrorists’ ability to use the media to spread their message (changing the verbiage used to describe terrorist activity)? Is that likely to be effective? What are some measures the American press has taken to limit terrorists’ ability to use them?