The media should stop saying that Islamic terrorists “were radicalized”

This Washington Post headline states:

“Suspect in Berlin market attack was radicalized in an Italian jail.”

This USA today article is titled:

“London attack: More arrests as detectives probe how killer was radicalized.”

This Wall St. Journal article is called:

“Minnesota Mall Attacker Likely Was Radicalized, Officials Say.”

This New York Post article has the headline:

“Mosque members warned feds that accused killer was radicalized.”

This article form the Local is called:

“Isis suspect was radicalized in Germany, brother claims.”

This article from the Guardian is named:

“FBI and Obama confirm Omar Mateen was radicalized on the internet.”

This Breitbart headline says:

“Spanish Authorities: Arrested Mexican Jihadi Was Radicalized near Texas Border.”

This CNN article is called:

“Why bin Laden was radicalized.”

Using the words “was radicalized” when referring to Islamic terrorists is inaccurate for two reasons.

First, it falsely implies that they are victims.  It’s as if while they were walking down the street minding their own business, they ended up breathing in a bacteria or virus and getting an infectious illness.

Secondly, it falsely implies that they don’t have free will. It’s as if they have no choice when they murder innocent people.

Words matter.

Those who work in the media should choose more accurate ways of reporting on Islamic terrorists.

 

Advertisements

April 22, 2017. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , . Islamic terrorism, Media bias.

3 Comments

  1. Constitution Believer replied:

    Hey if you cant take the heat than you shouldn’t be in the kitchen.

  2. drketedc replied:

    You seem to be assuming they want to report these events accurately. It looks to me like these writers go out of their way to create a false impression.

  3. BGills replied:

    Your point is well taken, and I agree that the terminology used by the media lessens personal responsibility for one’s actions… The one instance where the media is ethically allowed to put objectiveness aside, is in defense of victims, but it would appear they have intentionally blurred the distinction between victim, and victimizer, with their poorly chosen words.
    That said, terms like ‘radicalized, indoctrinated, or brain-washed,’ do to a certain extent, accurately describes the cult mentality which drives the behavior of sheep masquerading as wolves, and their acceptance of a collective mentality as inescapable, or acceptable.
    The leaders of the collective are never ever wrong, nor should they ever be criticized, especially in a public forum, as they preach self-sacrifice, but rarely do they ever endure such sacrifice, or risk themselves, while promoting violence in defense of the movement is celebrated, and even rewarded. (Hierarchy of a cult)
    Yes, in a perfect world it would be nice if the media weren’t afraid of offending criminals, crazy’s, or cult members, but when’s the last time we saw the media actually do their jobs responsibly? Their goal it would seem, is to embolden the narrative of widespread victim-hood, and what better way of achieving this then to claim their own objectiveness by referring to everyone as merely a helpless victim of society, or the times…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback URI

%d bloggers like this: