This paper explores the idea that the media "cause" or strongly motivate acts of terrorism. In an effort to refute this view the paper applies Kenneth Burke's dramatistic theory of communication to show that the motives and behavior of political terrorists can be explained without reference to the media coverage terrorism produces. The paper argues that terrorism would occur because of its symbolic and communicative values even if no media coverage were provided. Four assumptions are presented that have been refuted by existing research: (1) terrorists want a propaganda platform; (2) terrorists win sympathy for their causes; (3) coverage focuses on terrorists and their deeds; and (4) terrorism is contagious and the media spread it. The paper also contends that terrorism "causes" media coverage, and not the reverse. The approach advocated in the paper is effective in helping to formulate a theory of terrorism, because it helps in understanding terrorism, in predicting the forms in which it will appear, and in learning how to control it. The paper concludes that even though terrorism cannot be controlled, knowledge of the purposes it serves provides hope that it may be possible to avoid the radical estrangements that necessitate this violence, or at least find other forms for radicals' expressions of order. (Sixty-seven notes are included.) (MS)