SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Police rapid response team members respond to the site of a mass shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in the Squirrel Hill neighborhood on October 27, 2018 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The suspect in the attack was a white nationalist, but President Donald Trump did not identify the incident as a terrorist attack. (Photo: Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)
Just Like Trump, Media Outlets Rarely Label Far-Right Attacks 'Terrorism': Study
A rare exception in the glaring trend came last month when New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was swift to characterize the massacre in Christchurch as the work of a white nationalist terrorist
Apr 10, 2019
A new study shows that media outlets frequently echo the instinct of political leaders like President Donald Trump when they refuse to label the violence of far-right assailants as "terrorism" while showing significantly less reluctance if an attack was carried out by an Islamic extremist.
The British media monitoring firm Signal AI found that most news sources are quick to draw links between incidents identified as "Islamist" attacks and terrorism, but are far less likely to do the same when an attack suspect is linked to far-right ideologies like white nationalism.
"Reporting on Islamic extremist attacks is quantifiably different to reporting on far-right attacks," wrote Ben Moore of Signal AI.
Suspected attackers claiming allegiance to the Muslim faith were three times as likely to be called terrorists, according to Signal AI, with 78 percent of the reports the group studied identifying them as such.
Meanwhile, far-right attackers were only called terrorists 24 percent of the time in the 200,000 broadcast scripts and news articles the group read, all of which had been aired and published in the last two years.
On social media, many critics were unsurprised to read Moore's findings but took the report as a call to action for media organizations.
The study noted that reporting on the mosque attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand last month were a notable exception.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern immediately labeled the attacks as acts of terrorism and disavowed the suspect, who holds white nationalist views. As a result, Signal AI found, news outlets called the suspect a terrorist far more than they generally have when an attacker represents the far right.
"The Christchurch shooting is actually exceptional in how willing the media were to label the shooter a terrorist," reported Moore.
"We can see the impact [of] Ardern's comments in real-time coverage of the shooting," the study added. "The example set by Ardern immediately filtered into the media. Before her comments few publications labeled the attack terrorism; after them, few did not. Ardern's voice was powerful in setting the tone for the response to the attack."
Ardern's decisive action after the attack contrasted sharply with Trump's statement of sympathy for the white supremacists who staged a violent rally where an anti-racist protester was killed in 2017; and his refusal to call a white supremacist who killed 11 people in a Pittsburgh synagogue last year a "terrorist"--while he has immediately done so after attacks perpetrated by people pledging allegiance to ISIS.
"Influential figures may have the ability to shift the narrative around events and topics," reported Moore. "Spokespeople's language filters into the media and, likely, into public dialogue."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A new study shows that media outlets frequently echo the instinct of political leaders like President Donald Trump when they refuse to label the violence of far-right assailants as "terrorism" while showing significantly less reluctance if an attack was carried out by an Islamic extremist.
The British media monitoring firm Signal AI found that most news sources are quick to draw links between incidents identified as "Islamist" attacks and terrorism, but are far less likely to do the same when an attack suspect is linked to far-right ideologies like white nationalism.
"Reporting on Islamic extremist attacks is quantifiably different to reporting on far-right attacks," wrote Ben Moore of Signal AI.
Suspected attackers claiming allegiance to the Muslim faith were three times as likely to be called terrorists, according to Signal AI, with 78 percent of the reports the group studied identifying them as such.
Meanwhile, far-right attackers were only called terrorists 24 percent of the time in the 200,000 broadcast scripts and news articles the group read, all of which had been aired and published in the last two years.
On social media, many critics were unsurprised to read Moore's findings but took the report as a call to action for media organizations.
The study noted that reporting on the mosque attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand last month were a notable exception.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern immediately labeled the attacks as acts of terrorism and disavowed the suspect, who holds white nationalist views. As a result, Signal AI found, news outlets called the suspect a terrorist far more than they generally have when an attacker represents the far right.
"The Christchurch shooting is actually exceptional in how willing the media were to label the shooter a terrorist," reported Moore.
"We can see the impact [of] Ardern's comments in real-time coverage of the shooting," the study added. "The example set by Ardern immediately filtered into the media. Before her comments few publications labeled the attack terrorism; after them, few did not. Ardern's voice was powerful in setting the tone for the response to the attack."
Ardern's decisive action after the attack contrasted sharply with Trump's statement of sympathy for the white supremacists who staged a violent rally where an anti-racist protester was killed in 2017; and his refusal to call a white supremacist who killed 11 people in a Pittsburgh synagogue last year a "terrorist"--while he has immediately done so after attacks perpetrated by people pledging allegiance to ISIS.
"Influential figures may have the ability to shift the narrative around events and topics," reported Moore. "Spokespeople's language filters into the media and, likely, into public dialogue."
A new study shows that media outlets frequently echo the instinct of political leaders like President Donald Trump when they refuse to label the violence of far-right assailants as "terrorism" while showing significantly less reluctance if an attack was carried out by an Islamic extremist.
The British media monitoring firm Signal AI found that most news sources are quick to draw links between incidents identified as "Islamist" attacks and terrorism, but are far less likely to do the same when an attack suspect is linked to far-right ideologies like white nationalism.
"Reporting on Islamic extremist attacks is quantifiably different to reporting on far-right attacks," wrote Ben Moore of Signal AI.
Suspected attackers claiming allegiance to the Muslim faith were three times as likely to be called terrorists, according to Signal AI, with 78 percent of the reports the group studied identifying them as such.
Meanwhile, far-right attackers were only called terrorists 24 percent of the time in the 200,000 broadcast scripts and news articles the group read, all of which had been aired and published in the last two years.
On social media, many critics were unsurprised to read Moore's findings but took the report as a call to action for media organizations.
The study noted that reporting on the mosque attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand last month were a notable exception.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern immediately labeled the attacks as acts of terrorism and disavowed the suspect, who holds white nationalist views. As a result, Signal AI found, news outlets called the suspect a terrorist far more than they generally have when an attacker represents the far right.
"The Christchurch shooting is actually exceptional in how willing the media were to label the shooter a terrorist," reported Moore.
"We can see the impact [of] Ardern's comments in real-time coverage of the shooting," the study added. "The example set by Ardern immediately filtered into the media. Before her comments few publications labeled the attack terrorism; after them, few did not. Ardern's voice was powerful in setting the tone for the response to the attack."
Ardern's decisive action after the attack contrasted sharply with Trump's statement of sympathy for the white supremacists who staged a violent rally where an anti-racist protester was killed in 2017; and his refusal to call a white supremacist who killed 11 people in a Pittsburgh synagogue last year a "terrorist"--while he has immediately done so after attacks perpetrated by people pledging allegiance to ISIS.
"Influential figures may have the ability to shift the narrative around events and topics," reported Moore. "Spokespeople's language filters into the media and, likely, into public dialogue."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.