The literature implicating the media as responsible for the contagion of terrorist violence has grown rapidly, but, under scrutiny, it appears to contain no credible supporting evidence and fails to establish a cause-effect relationship. Some students of terrorism have borrowed conclusions from the literature about the effects of televised violence and crime on viewers and have attempted to project them onto the coverage of terrorism. But not all terrorism scholars fully embrace this view, and some cite the diffusion of innovations such as bombing techniques and technical training rather than media coverage as the contagion factor. Conclusions drawn from studies of diffusion of innovations in other situations do not provide much support for the view of the media as contagion agents. This does not exonerate the media from excesses in coverage, although one important school of thought suggests that coverage may actually reduce the possibility of terrorist violence by removing terrorists' need to resort to violent acts to gain coverage. While it is probably inappropriate for journalists to interview terrorists while their group's terrorist acts are in progress, interviews not conducted during a specific event should be helpful. The chances of this idea being widely accepted, however, are very slim. Whatever the results of legitimate terrorist research, it will move closer to reality than the views that the media are wholly at fault and wholly blameless. (HTH)