Drop Down MenusCSS Drop Down MenuPure CSS Dropdown Menu
Alternative Text Alternative Text Alternative Text Alternative Text
Survivor of US Drone Attack:
Obama Belongs on List of World's Tyrants

Poisoning Black Cities: Corporate Campaign to Ethnically Cleanse US Cities Massive Marches in Poland
Against Authoritarian Threat of Far-Right
Ethiopia’s Invisible Crisis: Land Rights Activists Kidnapped and Tortured

Global Perspectives Now Global Perspectives Now

Boston Bombers Were Called 'Terrorist' Before Their Identity Was Known - But Not the Known White Supremacist With A Manifesto

The Boston Marathon bombing was widely called “terrorism” when people had no idea who committed it or what motivated them. (cc photo: Aaron Tang)
The Boston Marathon bombing was widely called “terrorism” when people had no
idea who committed it or what motivated them. (cc photo: Aaron Tang)
By Jim Naureckas
In the wake of mass violence, a nation struggling to understand turns to its news outlets to see how they frame events. The language journalists use in the immediate aftermath of a bloodbath helps form public attitudes and has a major impact on official reactions.

When two bombs went off at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013, killing three and injuring hundreds, it was inevitably a huge story: A search of the Nexis news database for US newspapers on the next day turns up 2,593 stories mentioning the marathon, virtually all of them about the bombing. Of these, 887, or 34 percent, used the word “terrorism” or a variant (“terrorist,” “terroristic” etc.)–even though the bombers, let alone the bombers’ motivations, would not be known until days later.

When nine people were killed at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on April 17, 2015, there were 367 stories in the next day’s papers that mentioned “Charleston” and “church,” according to Nexis–a big story, though not given the blockbuster treatment of the Boston Marathon bombing. Of these 367 stories, 24 mentioned “terrorism” or “terrorist”–just 7 percent, even though a suspect, Dylann Roof, was named on the first day, with evidence presented that he was motivated by a white supremacist ideology and a desire “to start a civil war” (Columbia, S.C. State, 6/18/15).

Dylann Roof, suspect in the Charleston church massacre, wears white
supremacist emblems and allegedly told friends he was hoping “to
start a civil war”–yet he was rarely called a “terrorist” in media
Some suggest that the word “terrorism” has been so politically manipulated and selectively applied that we would do well to drop the whole concept. But politically motivated violence that targets civilians–which is the core of the various definitions of “terrorism”–is an actual phenomenon that is hard to talk about without a label.

If media are going to use the word, though, they need to have a single standard for its application. By applying the word to a bombing with initially unknown perpetrators, and largely declining to use it in connection with a massacre allegedly perpetrated by a white supremacist hoping to spark a race war, media failed that test.

Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org.

Research assistance: Michael Tkaczevski.

Reprinted with permission from Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

No comments:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...