What I would add, as well, is that we're in an age in which governments have so many more platforms than they did before.
There is one interesting U.S. government initiative from the State Department, which is controversial in terms of how effective it is. The State Department has a program called Think Again Turn Away, where they get on Twitter and they debate with jihadists. They produce things like.... For example, there was a tribute to bin Laden that jihadists had put together. They put together something that looked exactly the same, but it said in Arabic kind of the opposite of what the tribute had said. The tribute was something like “a lion in life, victorious in death”, and they said something like “disgusting in life, humiliated in death”.
It's interesting because it's a different kind of messaging. I don't think they have it 100% right, by any means, but I think it gets one thing very right, which is that you now have many other platforms than just the bully pulpit in which you can engage in this counter-messaging campaign. I think the State Department's program does take into account the values of honour and shame, and that's where some of its own kind of counter-propaganda is coming from.
One thing I would say is that it's important to pick out what platform we're using to determine what kind of language is appropriate for that platform. I think there are some platforms in which a different kind of language is appropriate than would be from a prime minister or a member of Parliament.