The Terrorism Double Standard
Since the attacks on 9/11, the government’s handling of terrorism has changed drastically. Terrorism, once noted as a minor concern, was transformed into a “War on Terror” as President George W. Bush juxtaposed Iraq and 9/11 in his rhetoric (Gershkoff & Kushner, 2005). As the press internalized this government focus, the media also began to frame Islam as an enemy of the United States. As a result, this generalization of the people of Islam has led the West to fear these Middle Eastern countries without knowing anything about the people who live there. Essentially, the relationship between terrorism and the media has created an Islamophobic America. Islamophobia is defined as the dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force (Oxford Dictionaries). With the invasion of Iraq came the contemporary beginning of an Us versus Them, or the United States versus Islam status (Powell & Abadi, 2003). This was one of many things that created and sustained a fear of terrorism that, with media influence, has in turn led to a fear of Muslims (Powell, 2011). However, studies have revealed a pattern of media coverage of terrorism between October 2001 and January 2010 in which fear of international terrorism is dominant over domestic terrorism. Muslims/Arabs/Islam are viewed as working together against a “Christian America,” while domestic acts of terrorism are more often than not cast as a minor threat that occurs in isolated incidents by troubled individuals (Powell, 2011). The question that remains is this: Why do domestic terrorists, people who commit crimes within the homeland and draw inspiration from U.S.-based extremist ideologies and movements, not receive as much attention from media outlets as their foreign counterparts?
In order to begin to understand why it is that Islamophobia exists we must first explore Islamophobic media coverage. Terrorism and the way countries like Iran and Iraq are perceived to threaten us and our way of life, and speculation about possible future attacks are a key focus of media attention in the United States (Said, 1981). Naturally news sources and other media outlets report on stories that suggest aspects of terror, and since many people agree that terrorism is a shocking and disruptive act it inevitably draws media attention. Islamophobia in media coverage follows a predictable cycle, so when someone commits an act of random violence and information is scarce, warrantless speculation follows. Media coverage on these attacks gives people at home access to view the dangerous world we live in, and by framing particular groups as “the others,” is in turn influencing people to fear the unknown. Terrorism relies heavily on making a psychological impact by typically targeting high profile cities, while also remaining random in the attacks so to illicit a shock factor. With randomness comes uncertainty and with uncertainty comes fear. There is usually always a political aim at the core of the attack and as a result national symbols often become targets against major government institutions. In today’s digital era, it is easier for terrorists groups to make their attacks known thanks to increasing media coverage. On September 11, 2001, 53% of the U.S. population reportedly changed their plans, including not going to work that day. In the days following the attacks, 9 in 10 U.S. citizens worried about being a victim of future attacks (Nacos, 2007). Americans daily routines were clearly affected and the fear of the unknown became the driving force for media coverage.
Anytime there is an Us versus Them mindset and the Them has been painted as ‘bad,’ we are setting ourselves up for an inevitable lose-lose situation. Biases come in all different forms but when they start to effect how we view and treat others, they can become amplified and possibly dangerous. In order to fully understand Islamophobia and the hate crimes that can transpire from this feeling, we must first understand how the mind psychologically develops the kind of bias that leads to Islamophobia and the effect it has on our society. Dr. Ali Mattu claims that within all of us humans is this basic thing called the in-group out-group bias (Mattu, 2016). Essentially, it says that we tend to enjoy only the groups that we feel we belong to, whether it is in regards to race or our favorite movie. It’s this type of bias combined with a lack of understanding that can cause something like Islamophobia. He also notes that the tendency to group people into this category of being “the others” can lead us to dismiss this bias as justifiable. In social psychology, group polarization refers to the tendency for a group to make decisions that are more extreme when the members involved share the same mindset and views. In fact, this is how terrorism is born. Mattu notes that when you are surrounded by even just a small group of people who are only interacting with each other, their views can easily become warped and more polarized and extreme. It is this type of bias that drives Islamophobia, racism, and terrorism (Mattu, 2016). We need to reject the myth that all terrorists are Muslim and understand that Muslims are the largest victims of terrorism in general, not the other way around. Since the perpetrators of the attacks on 9/11 were Arab terrorists, Muslim brown “others” became the symbol of Islam to the agenda setters in media, thus becoming representative of Islam (Powell 2011). Over the past decade, this type of reporting has inevitably led to hate crimes and hostility towards Muslim-Americans. The world’s 1.6 billion Muslims should not be held responsible for the actions of a few extremists, and dominant cultures need to finally recognize the long-standing history of Muslim communities in the United States.
In terms of lives lost, scope, and impact, no other terrorist attack has come close to that of 9/11. However, in the post 9/11 era it seems as though Americans have forgotten that domestic terrorism is all too alive and well. Domestic terrorist threats can range from eco-terrorists and animal rights extremists to anti-government extremism and white supremacy extremism. A particular concern in domestic terrorism arises from that of the lone offender. A single individual is often driven to attack based on a particular set of beliefs without support from a larger terrorist group. There are instances in which these lone offenders feel as though the group they are currently involved with is not extreme enough or they may have even been kicked out of their previous group for being too radical (FBI, 2009). No matter the case, it is believed that these hateful attacks are a way for the offender to fulfill their own personal and twisted agenda. Since the attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States’ counterterrorism policy has been focused on jihadist terrorism. In the last decade however, domestic terrorists have killed American citizens and damaged property across the country and yet these criminals have yet to be prosecuted under terrorism statutes (Bjelopera, 2013). By no means should these domestic terrorists be taken any less seriously than international terrorists. There is a fine line between constitutionally protected legitimate protest and domestic terrorist activity by groups who commit crimes in the name of animal rights, black separatism, and anti-abortion beliefs, just to name a few. In regards to anti-government extremist activity, domestic terrorists have been responsible for orchestrating as many as two-dozen incidents since 9/11 (Bjelopera, 2013). As a result of the fact that domestic terrorists tend to use nontraditional tactics such as engaging in activities like vandalism, trespassing, and tax fraud, these individuals or groups may not always be taken as seriously as they should be. One type of movement that has become much too common in our country is both attempted and successful mass shootings, specifically in schools.
Following mass school shootings, such as the ones that occurred at Columbine, Sandy Hook Elementary, and Northern Illinois University, it is true that the media paid considerable attention to these ghastly attacks. It was fairly clear that all three of these attacks had one thing in common, the attackers were young, white males eventually deemed as good kids who had for whatever reason “snapped” and gone on a killing spree. In these cases the media preferred to discuss the mental-health history of the shooters and the environment they grew up in rather than discuss the big issue at hand, the fact that they were intentionally threatening the safety of our country. Zopf and Mingus 2010 claim that although race is seldom highlighted as a significant consideration in mass shootings, the race of the perpetrator influences the response of the media and the public to these tragedies. The authors also make note of the distinction given to the race of the attacker when the shooter is any race but white. The deliberate omission of race in discussions of white shooters by officials and members of the media supports the presence of both white privilege and an “opposing ‘forever foreigner’ status for non-whites” (Mingus & Zopf, 2010). When an ideologically driven foreigner does something violent they are dubbed a terrorist but when an ideologically driven white person does the same crime the term rarely comes up (Salon, 2015). So why aren’t people calling these white criminals terrorists? The problem lies in our fixation on the terrorists of Islamist inspiration as a result of 9/11. In a mass shooting men are labeled gunmen while Muslim men are labeled terrorists. It all comes back to the Us versus Them status and the idea that, yes, those white men may be bad, but the Muslim guys are much worse This sort of racial grammar is also a direct effect of the coverage displayed by news networks such as CNN and FOX News. These sources place blame on other countries while simultaneously adding fuel to the fire of Islamophobia. The double standards between men of color and White Christian men are becoming increasingly clear. The media use words like “terrorist” and “terrorism” when referring to Muslims, and as a result this has created a sort of propaganda to manufacture anti-Muslim sentiment, which in turn justifies the United States’ worldwide military adventures to dominate other countries (Considine, 2015). By painting all Muslims as scary and violent people we are creating hysteria and fear that Americans use to justify going to war.
Over the past decade since the 9/11 attacks, Islamophobia has grown drastically and thanks to common misconceptions and poor media reporting being a Muslim has seemed to be a prerequisite for being a terrorist. As human beings we fear the unknown and as a result we tend to block ourselves off both physically and mentally to ideas that are foreign to us, for example Muslims and Islam. The thing we need to remember as American citizens is that all around the world people believe that they are in fact the good guys. Men foreign to our country believe that they are fighting for the betterment of their country and they believe that their actions, no matter how extreme, are justified. If you were to ask anyone in Iraq or Syria why it is the Americans are dropping bombs you would hear them respond that the Americans are waging war on Islam. The same thing goes for Americans who feel as though we were attacked on 9/11 because the attackers hated our freedom. Again it is this Us versus Them war that has convinced us to keep killing each other in war. American foreign policy and counterterrorism measures need to focus on the big picture. In order to truly disarm our enemy we need to listen to our enemies and really hear their story because what we don’t realize is that in every aspect of American life, whether it be in the media or in film, we often portray the other countries as the invaders and terrorists. However, it is just as valid for those countries to feel the same way about us. We must hear them out on their policy concerns and see our enemies as human beings and not emotionless killing machines. To put it in the simplest terms, we need to be willing to open our eyes and minds to that which we don’t understand. We can’t allow the terrorist acts of a few individuals shape our view of an entire group of people. The terrorism double standard has become a deep concern troubling our nation and by labeling people of color as terrorists, while in the same situation labeling white men as confused, deranged individuals, we are justifying violence and racism. We should all be held to the same moral and ethical standards no matter the color of our skin or our religious views. In a world full of uncertainty we must be fully aware of one thing; at the end of the day we are all human and far less different from one another than we think.
References
Arana, G. (2015, November 18). Islamophobic Media Coverage Is Out Of Control. It Needs To Stop. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/islamophobia-mainstream-media-paris-terrorist-attacks_us_564cb277e4b08c74b7339984
Bjelopera, Jerome P. “The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress.” ProQuest. Congressional Research Service, 17 Jan. 2013. Web.
Considine, Craig. “Why White Men Are “Gunmen” and Muslim Men Are “Terrorists”” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 3 Dec. 2015. Web.
‘Dangerous Logic’: The Psychology behind Bias and Islamophobia in America. Dir. Quincy Ledbetter. Mashable. N.p., 10 Feb. 2016. Web
“Domestic Terrorism in Post 9/11 Era.” The Federal Bureau of Investigation. N.p., 07 Sept. 2009. Web.
Gershkoff, A., & Kushner, S. (2005). Shaping public opinion: The 9/11-Iraq connection in the Bush administration’s rhetoric.” Perspectives on Politics, 3, 525–537
Ilich, Bobby. “The United States After 9/11: How Many Major Terrorist Attacks Have There Been In America Since 2001?” International Business Times. N.p., 09 Sept. 2016. Web.
Mingus, William, and Bradley Zopf. (2010) “White Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry: The Racial Project in Explaining Mass Shootings.” Social Thought and Research 31: 57–77. JSTOR. Web.
Nacos, B. L. (2007). Mass-mediated terrorism: The central role of the media in terrorism and counterterrorism. New York, NY: Rowman and Littlefield.
Powell, K.A., & Abadi, H. (2003). Us-versus-them: Framing of Islam and Muslims after 9/11 Iowa Journal of Communication, 35(1), 49–66.
Powell, K. A. (2011, January 31). Framing Islam: An Analysis of U.S. Media Coverage of Terrorism Since 9/11. EBSCOhost. Communication Studies: Discourse of the Middle East: Communication, Culture, Media. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10510974.2011.533599?scroll=top&need
Reese , S. D. , & Lewis , S. C. ( 2009 ). Framing the war on terror: The internalization of policy in the US Press . Journalism , 10 , 777–797 .
Said, E. W. (1981). Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Salon. “Why White Terrorists Aren’t Called.” MintPress News. N.p., 25 Nov. 2015. Web.
Vogel, Steve, Sari Horwitz, and David Fahrenthold. “Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting Leaves 28 Dead, Law Enforcement Sources Say.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.
Yuen, Nancy Wang, and Cassidy J. Ray. “Post 9/11, but Not Post-racial.” Contexts. Vol. 8, No. (2009): 68–70. JSTOR. Web.
