No, the tabloids don’t treat white terrorists differently

Jihadi John was also described as an ‘angelic’ child by the press.

spiked

Topics Politics UK World

Want unlimited, ad-free access? Become a spiked supporter.

Some of the press coverage of the racist terror attack in New Zealand – and the man, Brenton Tarrant, responsible for it – has raised eyebrows. Over the weekend, British tabloids the Mirror and the Mail asked how an ‘angelic boy’ and an ‘ordinary white man’ (respectively) could become a warped killer. Another Mail article suggested he was picked on as a child because he was ‘chubby’.

Many have taken to social media to argue that this coverage has humanised the racist mass murderer. For many on the left, this points to a double standard – the supposedly Islamophobic, low-rent press is only interested in displaying the human side of the New Zealand killer because he is white, they argue.

But however objectionable this kind of coverage might be, it does not point to any double standard in how the press treats different types of terrorist. For instance, back in 2015, Jihadi John, infamous ISIS executioner, was revealed to be Mohammed Emwazi, a British Muslim from west London. And, as one tweeter pointed out, a headline in the Mail described him as a ‘polite’ and ‘angelic schoolboy’. The Sun published a childhood photo of Emwazi on its front page, and quoted a charity boss describing him as ‘a beautiful man’. A Mirror headline described him as a ‘caring friend who brought Haribo sweets and ice cream to friends in hospital’.

The real double standard in response to terrorism is not to be found in the tabloid press, but more often on the left. Take the response to ISIS bride Shamima Begum, who was complicit in the genocide and mass rape of Yazidis. Many on the left humanised Begum and downplayed her responsibility for her actions, claiming she was groomed and perhaps even a victim of ISIS. Some admitted being nearly moved to tears by the public’s justifiable anger with Begum and her horrific crimes. How’s that for humanising terrorists or their sympathisers?

Picture by: Getty.

Monthly limit reached

You’ve read 3 free articles this month.
Support spiked and get unlimited access.

Support
or
Already a supporter? Log in now:

Help us hit our 1% target

spiked is funded by readers like you. It’s your generosity that keeps us fearless and independent.

Only 0.1% of our regular readers currently support spiked. If just 1% gave, we could grow our team – and step up the fight for free speech and democracy right when it matters most.

Join today from £5/month (£50/year) and get unlimited, ad-free access, bonus content, exclusive events and more – all while helping to keep spiked saying the unsayable.

Monthly support makes the biggest difference. Thank you.

Comments

Want to join the conversation?

Only spiked supporters and patrons, who donate regularly to us, can comment on our articles.

Join today