terrorism, terrorist
What to know
There is no single, universal definition of terrorism. Within the US, the FBI defines domestic terrorism as violent, criminal acts motivated by ideology stemming from domestic interests (e.g., political, religious, or social influences). It defines international terrorism as carried out by people connected to or inspired by designated foreign terrorist organizations or countries. However, this definition is not accepted globally or even necessarily by US allies.
For precision and accuracy, many journalism organizations urge reporters to use more specific language than “terrorism” to describe both actions (e.g., attack, bombing) and perpetrators (e.g., gunman, militant).
US federal law allows the executive branch to label overseas groups “foreign terrorist organizations.” This law gives those overseas groups the right to due process, including challenging the designation through hearings. If the designation stands, the US government can freeze that group’s assets and make it a crime for others to provide them with material support.
Acts framed as terrorism are typically marked by a set of features: The violence, or threat of it, is designed to generate widespread fear and motivated by politics or ideology; has far-reaching psychological repercussions; targets civilians or noncombatants; and is perpetrated primarily by non-state actors. This last factor raises questions for journalists about how to characterize acts of terror that are sponsored or carried out by state actors, which is another reason that alternatives to the term are often needed for clarity.
Journalists have to decide what historical and other contextual conditions are relevant to include in their coverage of violent actions. This judgment call has implications not just for understanding the event and people involved, but also as a possible indicator of the reporter’s, or newsroom’s, bias. Careful journalism provides key data to support analysis of the ideology and motivation behind an attack, which is necessary to promote audience understanding and inform effective moves toward solutions.
Racialized terrorism
Media coverage has been shown to reinforce harmful and inaccurate stereotypes linking terrorism to racial, ethnic, and religious groups, in particular Muslims and Islam. A 2019 study found that when attacks are carried out by Muslims, they get about 357% more media coverage than those perpetrated by others. According to a 2017 analysis, conflict and terrorism accounted for 75% of news reporting on Muslims; in stories where Muslims were the focus, only 3% of sources cited were Muslim. Studies have found that when white Christians inflict violence, journalists tend to frame perpetrators as “lone wolves” with mental health issues, while Muslims are framed as “interchangeable” members of a “terrorist conspiracy” motivated by religious ideology. Studies have found such portrayals lead to increased support for civil restrictions against American Muslims and to anti-Muslim bigotry and violence. This form of Islamophobia can extend to others (e.g., South Asian, Middle Eastern, and Arab people) who are perceived to be Muslim even though they practice different religions or none at all. A 2021 Pew survey found that half of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence—a figure that doubled since 2002.
Guidance for usage
If a violent act is carried out by people associated with any religion, steps to ensure accurate reporting include only linking the action to group affiliation if evidence supports that connection, and representing a diversity of perspectives within that community.
Some democracy radicalization experts understand terrorism as an “extreme form of communication,” often designed to manipulate journalists. Providing context, refraining from sensationalizing, involving experts, and respecting the rights and dignity of victims are all key to preventing copycat crimes or the spread of misinformation.
Additional Resources
- Who is a terrorist, actually? (Vox)
- Reuters Handbook of Journalism (Reuters)
- When should journalists use the word ‘terrorism?’ (Poynter)
Summary
There is no single, universal definition of terrorism. Acts framed as terrorism are typically marked by a set of features: The violence, or threat of it, is designed to generate widespread fear and motivated by politics or ideology; has far-reaching psychological repercussions; targets civilians or noncombatants; and is perpetrated primarily by non-state actors. For precision and accuracy, many journalism organizations urge reporters to use more specific language than “terrorism” to describe both actions (e.g., attack, bombing) and perpetrators (e.g., gunman, militant). Providing context, refraining from sensationalizing, involving experts, and respecting the rights and dignity of victims are all key to preventing copycat crimes or the spread of misinformation.