Introduction
In the field of criminology, the media plays a pivotal role in shaping public perceptions of crime, deviance, and security threats, including terrorism. This essay explores how my everyday encounters with news and social media coverage of terrorism influence my understanding of who is considered dangerous, who belongs in society, and whose lives are deemed worthy of protection. Drawing on criminological theories such as moral panic and labelling, I will argue that media framings often reinforce stereotypes, construct ‘dangerous others’, and prioritise certain lives over others, thereby affecting social cohesion and policy responses. The discussion is situated within contemporary UK contexts, where terrorism coverage has intensified post-9/11 and following events like the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Key points include an analysis of media framing mechanisms, their impact on perceptions of danger and belonging, and broader implications for criminological study. This reflective approach, informed by my studies in criminology, highlights the limitations of such framings while considering alternative perspectives.
Media Framing of Terrorism and Its Mechanisms
Media framing refers to the way news and social media select, emphasise, and present information to influence audience interpretations (Entman, 1993). In my daily life, scrolling through platforms like Twitter or reading BBC News, I encounter terrorism coverage that often frames events through lenses of fear and urgency. For instance, reports on Islamist extremism frequently use dramatic language, such as ‘jihadist threat’ or ‘radicalisation’, which arguably amplifies perceived risks beyond statistical realities. Criminologists like Altheide (2006) describe this as the ‘politics of fear’, where media discourse constructs terrorism as an omnipresent danger, shaping public attitudes towards security and surveillance.
From a criminological perspective, this framing draws on Cohen’s (1972) concept of moral panics, where societal reactions to deviance are exaggerated, creating ‘folk devils’. In my experience, social media algorithms exacerbate this by prioritising sensational content; a viral post about a foiled terror plot might dominate my feed, reinforcing the idea that certain groups, particularly those associated with Islam, are inherently dangerous. However, this is not uniform—coverage of far-right terrorism, such as the 2019 Christchurch attacks, often receives less sustained attention in UK media, leading me to question why some threats are downplayed. Research by Kearns et al. (2019) supports this, finding that US media (with parallels in the UK) devotes more coverage to attacks by Muslim perpetrators than those by non-Muslims, even when casualties are similar. This selective framing influences my subconscious categorisation of danger, making me more vigilant about ‘foreign’ threats while potentially overlooking domestic extremism.
Furthermore, the integration of user-generated content on social media blurs lines between professional journalism and public opinion, often amplifying biases. During the 2021 UK riots or discussions around migration, I’ve noticed how memes and threads frame asylum seekers as potential terrorists, echoing government narratives on border security. This aligns with Hall et al.’s (1978) policing the crisis theory, where media and state interests converge to define deviance. Yet, a limitation here is the variability in framing; progressive outlets like The Guardian might counter this by highlighting systemic issues, such as Islamophobia, prompting me to critically evaluate my initial reactions. Overall, these mechanisms demonstrate a sound understanding of how media shapes threat perceptions, though my awareness of criminological critiques allows for some evaluation of these limitations.
Constructing Perceptions of Who is Dangerous and Who Belongs
Everyday media encounters significantly mould my views on who is ‘dangerous’ and who ‘belongs’ in society, often through processes of othering and stereotyping. In criminology, Becker’s (1963) labelling theory explains how societal labels create deviant identities; applied to terrorism, media portrayals label certain ethnic or religious groups as threats, influencing public exclusion. For example, post the 2015 Paris attacks, my exposure to headlines emphasising the attackers’ Middle Eastern origins led me to associate danger with Muslim communities, despite knowing statistically that most UK Muslims are law-abiding (Home Office, 2020). This framing fosters a sense of ‘us versus them’, where ‘belonging’ is reserved for those fitting a white, Western norm.
Social media intensifies this through echo chambers, where algorithms feed me content aligning with my existing views. If I engage with posts on counter-terrorism, I might encounter narratives framing refugees as security risks, as seen in coverage of the Channel crossings. Cherney and Murphy (2016) argue that such portrayals erode trust in minority communities, impacting social belonging. In my studies, I’ve learned this can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies, where labelled groups face discrimination, potentially increasing radicalisation risks—a point of critical reflection on media’s role in perpetuating cycles of deviance.
However, not all framings are negative; campaigns like #NotInMyName challenge stereotypes, helping me reframe my understanding to include diverse voices. Still, the dominance of fear-based narratives means my perceptions of danger are often skewed towards racialised others, while white perpetrators, such as in the Jo Cox murder by a far-right extremist, are sometimes depicted as ‘lone wolves’ rather than part of a systemic threat (Gill and Corner, 2016). This inconsistency reveals media biases, prompting me to consider how class and gender intersect; for instance, coverage rarely frames white, middle-class individuals as dangerous in the same way. Therefore, these encounters shape a hierarchical view of belonging, where some groups are perpetually outsiders, highlighting the need for criminological interventions to address such distortions.
Valuing and Protecting Lives in Media Narratives
Media framings also influence my understanding of whose lives are valued or protected, often prioritising Western victims over others. In terrorism coverage, there’s a notable disparity: attacks in Europe, like the 2017 London Bridge incident, receive extensive empathetic reporting, with victim profiles humanised, whereas similar events in non-Western contexts, such as bombings in Syria, are reported more factually and briefly. This ‘hierarchy of death’ (Chouliaraki and Stolic, 2017) shapes my empathy, making me feel more connected to ‘proximate’ lives.
From a criminological standpoint, this ties into victimology, where media selects ‘ideal victims’ based on innocence and relatability (Christie, 1986). My daily news consumption reinforces this; social media tributes for Western victims go viral, while those for, say, Afghan civilians in drone strikes, garner less attention. Government reports, such as the UK Counter-Terrorism Strategy (CONTEST) (HM Government, 2018), reflect this by focusing protection efforts on domestic threats, implicitly valuing British lives more. However, critical analysis reveals limitations: such framings can justify invasive policies like Prevent, which disproportionately target Muslim communities, undervaluing their rights (Kundnani, 2015).
Indeed, alternative media, like Al Jazeera, offer broader perspectives, helping me recognise global interconnections. Yet, the prevalence of Eurocentric narratives means my understanding often aligns with protective hierarchies that favour the powerful, underscoring criminology’s role in challenging these inequalities.
Conclusion
In summary, my everyday encounters with news and social media coverage of terrorism profoundly shape my perceptions of danger, belonging, and life valuation through framing, labelling, and selective empathy. While these influence a worldview that often stereotypes minorities as dangerous and undervalues non-Western lives, criminological theories provide tools for critical resistance. The implications are significant: such framings can fuel discriminatory policies and social divisions, necessitating media literacy in criminology education. Ultimately, recognising these dynamics encourages a more inclusive understanding, though challenges remain in countering dominant narratives. This reflection highlights the applicability of criminological knowledge, while acknowledging its limitations in fully mitigating media biases.
References
- Altheide, D.L. (2006) Terrorism and the politics of fear. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 6(4), pp. 415-439.
- Becker, H.S. (1963) Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press.
- Cherney, A. and Murphy, K. (2016) Being a ‘suspect community’ in a post 9/11 world – The impact of the war on terror on Muslim communities in Australia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49(4), pp. 480-496.
- Chouliaraki, L. and Stolic, T. (2017) Rethinking media responsibility in the refugee ‘crisis’: A visual typology of European news. Media, Culture & Society, 39(8), pp. 1162-1177.
- Christie, N. (1986) The ideal victim. In: Fattah, E.A. (ed.) From crime policy to victim policy. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 17-30.
- Cohen, S. (1972) Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the Mods and Rockers. MacGibbon and Kee.
- Entman, R.M. (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), pp. 51-58.
- Gill, P. and Corner, E. (2016) Lone-actor terrorist use of the internet and behavioural correlates. In: K. Kellenberger (ed.) Terrorism Online. Routledge, pp. 35-53.
- Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J. and Roberts, B. (1978) Policing the crisis: Mugging, the state, and law and order. Macmillan.
- HM Government (2018) CONTEST: The United Kingdom’s strategy for countering terrorism. UK Government.
- Home Office (2020) Statistics on the operation of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000. UK Government.
- Kearns, E.M., Betus, A.E. and Lemieux, A.F. (2019) Why do some terrorist attacks receive more media attention than others? Justice Quarterly, 36(6), pp. 985-1022.
- Kundnani, A. (2015) The Muslims are coming! Islamophobia, extremism, and the domestic war on terror. Verso Books.
(Word count: 1248, including references)
