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.

 

April 22, 2017. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , . Islamic terrorism, Media bias. 3 comments.