The January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill riots prompted widespread calls for the perpetrators to be labelled terrorists.
Two days after the riots, then-President elect Joe Biden slammed the mob as “domestic terrorists” and a number of US lawmakers and experts followed suit.
As for the media, CNN and CBS told staff they could refer to the riots as “terrorist attacks” or “domestic terrorism”.
The violent mob, fuelled by white supremacy and anti-government extremism, certainly fit the definition of terrorism, which the Oxford Dictionary defines as “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims”.
But referring to the Capitol Hill riots as terrorism can be seen as problematic when considering the dominant perceptions of the word and its implications for Muslim and minority communities.
Media framing: conflating terrorism with Islam and Muslims
In the 21st Century, the meaning and imagery associated with the word terrorism has transformed far beyond its simple definition. When many people in western liberal democracies hear the word terrorist, it’s the perpetuators of 9/11 that first come to mind.
It’s the ‘Muslim’ extremist, the ‘Islamic jihadist’ and the bearded ‘Arab’.
But these perceptions don’t necessarily reality.
According to the United States Government Accountability Office, far-right extremists were actually responsible for 73 percent of deadly attacks carried out in the US between 2001 and 2016, with the remaining 27 percent carried out by Islamic extremists.
The media’s framing of terrorism is largely responsible for shaping dominant perceptions that equate terrorism with Muslims.
Since 9/11, the dominant frames used by the media in their reporting on Muslims and Islam have been terrorism, violence and an existential threat.
In the media’s reporting, the views and actions of a minority who seek to legitimise their violence in the name of Islam are prioritised over the rich and vibrant cultures of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.
Disparities in the media’s coverage of terrorist attacks also amplifies fears towards Muslims and perceptions of an “Islamic” threat.
A 2019 study examined 3,541 news stories that covered terrorist attacks in the US between 2006 and 2015. The authors found that while attacks by committed by Muslims accounted for only 12.5 percent of the attacks, they received 356 percent more media coverage compared to other groups. These findings left the authors to contend:
Whether the disproportionate coverage is a conscious decision on the part of journalists or not, this stereotyping reinforces cultural narratives about what and who should be feared. By covering terrorist attacks by Muslims dramatically more than other incidents, media frame this type of event as more prevalent.
Source: Our World in Data, 2019
Reporting on terrorism and its implications
The media’s conflation of terrorism and Muslims can help us understand why, in the aftermath of Capitol Hill, several news stories emerged offering analyses within the context of Islam.
One article in the Washington Post drew parallels between the rioters and “Islamic jihadists” and a Business Insider article identified the growth of right-wing extremism in the United States as “similar to violent extremist movements throughout the Muslim world”.
These articles not only reinforce negative stereotypes about Muslims, but they detract from the situation at hand.
As one commentator pointed out in the aftermath of Capitol Hill:
Reliance on a reference to Islam to convey that white supremacist violence is bad is anti-Muslim. It implies that the only reference point for violence is Islam. And as a consequence, it will make it even harder for the general public to understand this violence in its very American historical context.
Other commentators urged against labelling the Capitol Hill riots as domestic terrorism, arguing it would only serve to empower the state to strengthen its counter-terrorism laws.
In a video posted by the New York Times, immigration activist Adama Bah argued that creating new anti-terror laws would backfire on innocent Muslims, Black and brown people, who have been disproportionately targeted by the laws since 9/11.
Source: @vigilantLOVEla 2021
These examples show how reporting on terrorism can inadvertently increase prejudice and/or harm to Islamic and marginalised communities, while underlining the need for responsible journalism when reporting on terrorism.
Reporting on terrorism: going against the grain
For journalists, analysing and reporting on terrorism is a challenging task. It requires one to go against the grain of the media frames that have dominated western society for decades.
In recent years, studies and guidelines have been put forward to assist journalists with reporting on terrorism accurately and responsibility.
In his report Fanning the flames: reporting on terror in the networked age, journalist Charlie Beckett provides useful recommendations for journalists when reporting on terrorism.
He stresses the need for fact-checking and the “better right than first” principle, while urging journalists to consider the way they frame their stories and to include informed comments and diverse views.
The ABC’s set of guidelines also provides equally important ways to report on terrorism.
The guidelines recognise the contested nature of the “terrorist” definition and state it should only be used if the events or statements are clear and unequivocal.
Journalists are urged to focus on the victims and survivors and ways in which the nation can mobilise in support.
The guidelines stress the importance of inclusive language and the representation of a diversity of perspectives within the community, so that no religious, ethnic or minority group is excluded.
By reporting on terrorism responsibly, journalists can contribute to fostering more inclusive communities, highlighting the increasingly important role of journalists in today’s society.
Featured image: Anti-discrimination NSW Gov, 2021
This was a really interesting read Renee. We’ve discussed the cyclical definitions of ‘terrorism’ in my undergrad pol-sci classes (i.e. terrorism is that which inspires terror) but I hadn’t thought of the policy implications for Muslims about labelling the Capitol Hill storming as ‘domestic terrorism’. I think that does go to show how we, as journos, need to be aware of how our reporting can have further repercussions down the track even if we mean well by using accurate labels.
This was written well Renee. I studied criminology for my undergrad and I learned the negative effects media framing has on minorities. The implications you discussed on reporting terrorism, reconfirms my prior knowledge on these issues. I definitely agree that the media is responsible for misrepresenting Muslims and creating the idea they are inherently dangerous. The solution to terrorism is often depicted through the demand for stronger intervention (tough on crime approach) and the exclusion of these groups (deportation/imprisonment). I believe journalist (including myself) need to educate themselves so we can fairly report on these groups.
On first blush ‘report things as they are’ is an obvious and commonsense approach: If it’s terrorism, report it as… terrorism. But as you have highlighted in your article, the cultural constructs of the world we work in (cultural constructs we play a part in building and perpetuating) as journos make our work far more complex than that. What comes to mind when reading your article is the coverage of the NZ mosque shooting in 2019 – where much of the coverage avoided naming the white supremacist gunman. He was called out as a terrorist, but was not given a chance at notoriety in this way. In turn, coverage focussed largely on the victims. We can hold this example close as future journos as one that helped unite a community in the wake of a tragedy. Thanks for this article, Renee.
Thank you, Renee, for this excellent article. I agree with you that when most people think of terrorism, they see it as synonymous with Muslims and that the media is, at least in part, responsible for that. Part of the problem can also be sheeted home to the rhetoric of politicians, who often opportunistically label certain things “terrorism” to create an ‘us v them’ mentality – which is often conducive to an easy election win, good opinion poll results or, as you pointed out, ever-expanding police powers and surveillance which target racial/ethnic minorities.
That said, I think perhaps what Biden was attempting to do when he called the Jan 6 rioters ‘domestic terrorists’ is highlight how the conduct of these so-called patriots posed an equal, if not greater threat, to the security of the United States as foreign extremists. I wonder if, say, Biden had only called them criminals whether he would have been criticised for double standards or racial bias.
In any event, I agree the media need to be really mindful of how they frame these events – perhaps it’s time to jettison the label ‘terrorist’ altogether and just call these people what they are: criminals. That label would lend far less legitimacy to calls for increased police powers and does not carry the same potential to inflame racial prejudice as the term ‘terrorist’.
Really interesting piece Renee.
Media framing is such an important issue, so fraught with danger and difficulty!
Charlie Beckett said in the piece you linked that some people argue against the use of the term terrorist/terrorism in journalism at all, and I have to say I agree.
It’s such a subjective term! Its utility for governments seeking to expand their policing and surveillance powers is clear, but for journalists? Unless they seek to further that agenda, I think it’s pretty useless.
I do wonder what the ABC guideline means by ‘clear and unequivocal’, given the equivocal nature of the term itself, and so many of the situations it’s applied to – one man’s terrorist, etc.
It’s good that there are the beginnings of change in how terrorism is framed in the media. It is horrible to think how many innocent Muslims have suffered due to careless reporting on terrorism events in the past. It is a sensitive issue that really needs to be considered very carefully, rather than the term being thrown around too much. So much damage has already been done – nowadays many people would still immediately conflate terrorists with Muslims automatically in their minds. I think it is better to avoid using the term and save it for the most serious incidences. It has become a word that is often laiden with racist undertones when used in Western culture. As you’ve laid out, journalists have an integral role in remedying this. Hopefully, as more time passes, the word terrorism will simply be considered only as an objective term and not one that can be argued as pertaining to one particular group/religion.
Really enjoyed reading this piece Renee!
Totally agree that framing is a critical responsibility of balanced and ethical reporting.
And when most people think of terrorism where almost ‘pavloved’ into thinking of racial and ideological stereotypes of Islamic extremism, so it’s refreshing to see information that supports the contrary, and also attempts to hold western acts of terrorism accountable too right?!
And hopefully with ASIO’s language shift o avoid ‘Islamic” left and right will reinforce this framing. But it is absolutely our job as journalists to be conscious of the language we are employing and not sensationalise religious or racial rhetoric.
Really interesting read, Renee. I completely agree that “better right than first” is the mode journalists should take – always if possible, but especially when reporting on terrorism. Words are so powerful, and for so long, journalists have been accomplices in contributing to harmful views around Islam. It would be impossible to measure how much damage has already been done, but mindful reporting and careful word choice can improve things moving forward.