Sorry, I thought it was clear. Last time my town was bombed was '92. So, the suggestion is that the newspapers don't report that, so the terrorists don't get oxygen. But we all know, because we can see the bomb damage. But the newspapers aren't reporting it, so except by word of mouth we don't know what happened. We don't know how many people were killed, we don't know if a warning was phoned in beforehand, if the police have caught the bombers - we've nothing to go on but gossip. And it's always likely that gossip will exaggerate. Our families living elsewhere can't get information either, so they're going to feel uneasy as well - any day we might be being bombed, and they can't assume it's not happening just because they don't hear anything. Who is left feeling more secure?
I think that I'd rather know. If 34 bombs went off last year, in X, Y, and Z locations killing 41 people in total - I know where I am. I can make judgements about my probable safety, I can assess whether I think the government's approach to security matters is correct. If all I know is that a number of bombs may or may not have gone off in an unspecified number of places, which might or might not have killed anyone - how can I decide whether to go shopping in Belfast tomorrow, or whether to vote for or against a party that supports some particular Prevention of Terrorism act?
[I can't see how the proposition works if you don't include government - surely either no-one reports it, or everyone reports it?]