
Initially depicted as “something very big” by President Trump via Twitter, you’d have to be living under a rock if you haven’t heard about the death of the Islamic State leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
According to various media sources, al-Baghdadi reportedly committed suicide during a US raid at his compound in Syria. This news story is pretty much what every major (and non-major) publication has been talking about since Sunday, October 27th, when the story broke out in detail.
When glazing over at the numerous headlines and publications that have been conjured from this occurrence, it’s very likely to see a few patterns the media has undergone while reporting on this topic.
Most US media outlets have been reporting on this in a very ‘nationalistic’ way, taking pride in the US role in the demise of al-Baghdadi. This is pretty much expected from these publications, simply because when it comes to terrorism, partisan lines tend to blur. Anti-terrorism itself can be viewed at as a unifier among different groups and sectors within the US. This is among the safer and more popular routes the media has gone while reporting on this topic.
Interestingly enough, this nationalist spirit within the media has caused a few outlets to report on other countries involvement and role within the raid, positing the US against all countries who didn’t assist in an ‘Us vs. Them’ type of way. Furthermore, this nationalist spirit has incited many publications to be very careful with their words while reporting on the topic, making sure not to use any language that may appear sympathetic to al-Baghdadi out of justifiable fear of backlash. It’s clear that no media outlet wants to be known as the ‘terrorist sympathizer’ by politicians or the general public.
Beyond the nationalist scope of this reporting, a few outlets, particularly the conservative-leaning ones, have addressed the story in a way that pretty much serves as PR to Trump, especially amid the impeachment threat that looms over his head. Contrarily, left-leaning publications tend to focus their reporting on the discrepancies and obscurities surrounding the declaration of al-Baghdadi’s death; most outlets refusing to credit Trump and his Administration for the achievement. In retaliation to this, several conservative media outlets have reported on their dislike of the Democrats overall response to al-Baghdadi’s demise.
Responding to this accusation, a few liberal outlets have made sure to highlight the Democrat party members who they felt have “properly praised” the Trump Administration’s involvement in al-Baghdadi’s death; just take a look at this news clip from CNN News:
Overall, it’s quite rare to find media reporting about this story that is completely neutral in terms of execution, nonetheless, they do exist.
A prime example of this is seen with Reuters reporting on this topic. This article masterfully evades from any partisan or nationalist implications. The journalist of the piece, Phil Stewart, is able to pack in many relevant details into his article, which is always preferable in journalism. The best part about Stewart’s article is that it also approaches this topic as realistically as possible, not failing to mention the potential threat of retaliation from ISIS.
What does it say about the current state of journalism when partisan and nationalist bias is able to shape the overarching narrative of media reporting? Based on the trajectory of modern media reporting and current social/political climates, it seems likely that these issues in journalism will only persist with time.
