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.
\u201cThis shouldn't surprise anyone with two functioning eyeballs but..\n\nMuslims are 300% more likely than far-right attackers to be described as terrorists in the media, according to a new study.\n\n https://t.co/jskrRN8mS6\u201d— CJ Werleman (@CJ Werleman) 1554891337
\u201cFrom 200,000 articles and broadcasts around the world, researchers found: \n\nIslamist attacks labelled terrorism in 78% of reporting\nFar right attacks labelled terrorism in 24% of reporting\n\nJournalists have work to do...\n\nhttps://t.co/Y5Q9TfOnpx\u201d— James Longman (@James Longman) 1554886820
\u201cA study that confirms what we already knew; Media are reluctant to label far-right attackers as terrorists.\n\nGlobal research finds violent Islamists are three times more likely to be called terrorists. \n\n https://t.co/oG1RgFRCVO\u201d— Darshna Soni (@Darshna Soni) 1554889782
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."
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
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.
\u201cThis shouldn't surprise anyone with two functioning eyeballs but..\n\nMuslims are 300% more likely than far-right attackers to be described as terrorists in the media, according to a new study.\n\n https://t.co/jskrRN8mS6\u201d— CJ Werleman (@CJ Werleman) 1554891337
\u201cFrom 200,000 articles and broadcasts around the world, researchers found: \n\nIslamist attacks labelled terrorism in 78% of reporting\nFar right attacks labelled terrorism in 24% of reporting\n\nJournalists have work to do...\n\nhttps://t.co/Y5Q9TfOnpx\u201d— James Longman (@James Longman) 1554886820
\u201cA study that confirms what we already knew; Media are reluctant to label far-right attackers as terrorists.\n\nGlobal research finds violent Islamists are three times more likely to be called terrorists. \n\n https://t.co/oG1RgFRCVO\u201d— Darshna Soni (@Darshna Soni) 1554889782
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.
\u201cThis shouldn't surprise anyone with two functioning eyeballs but..\n\nMuslims are 300% more likely than far-right attackers to be described as terrorists in the media, according to a new study.\n\n https://t.co/jskrRN8mS6\u201d— CJ Werleman (@CJ Werleman) 1554891337
\u201cFrom 200,000 articles and broadcasts around the world, researchers found: \n\nIslamist attacks labelled terrorism in 78% of reporting\nFar right attacks labelled terrorism in 24% of reporting\n\nJournalists have work to do...\n\nhttps://t.co/Y5Q9TfOnpx\u201d— James Longman (@James Longman) 1554886820
\u201cA study that confirms what we already knew; Media are reluctant to label far-right attackers as terrorists.\n\nGlobal research finds violent Islamists are three times more likely to be called terrorists. \n\n https://t.co/oG1RgFRCVO\u201d— Darshna Soni (@Darshna Soni) 1554889782
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.