Within the Louisiana metropolis of New Orleans, the brand new yr started with a horrible tragedy after a person ploughed his truck right into a crowd of revellers within the early hours of January 1, killing at the very least 15 individuals and wounding dozens of others.
The attacker was quickly formally recognized as Shamsud-Din Jabbar, a 42-year-old United States citizen from the neighbouring state of Texas. Because the story unfolded, information shops zeroed in on two key particulars talked about within the FBI’s preliminary assertion on the incident: an ISIL (ISIS) flag was present in Jabbar’s car, and his social media accounts contained posts that recommend he could have been “impressed” by the group. For a lot of, this was sufficient to border Jabbar, who was killed on the scene by police gunfire, as a terrorist “linked” to ISIL.
Whereas the FBI says it’s investigating the assault as an act of “terrorism”, on the time of this writing, there’s no evidence to suggest Jabbar was ordered by ISIL to hold out an assault on US soil. The FBI has not specified what proof it has used to make that authorized willpower, or launched detailed data on a doable motive.
What we do know is that Jabbar was a US Military veteran who served within the US army for 13 years, together with a deployment to Afghanistan. He was reportedly going by way of a divorce and had expressed a need to kill his complete household. All this complicates the narrative considerably and calls into query the assumptions being made about what drove him to kill so many individuals.
Difficult official statements
The declare by FBI officers and even US President Joe Biden that the attacker was “impressed” by ISIL raises necessary questions on journalistic accountability. How will we, as journalists, extrapolate our reporting from official statements versus the broader context of information?
Context is vital. Our reporting on what authorities officers say ought to instantly be adopted with the opposite information we all know in regards to the attacker’s background, statements and private life. That is very true when protecting creating tales like this one, the place authorities launch conflicting data within the warmth of the second, solely to quietly stroll it again later.
Jabbar was not an impressionable youth however a middle-aged army veteran with important life expertise and plenty of baggage. For all we all know he could have been “radicalised” by what he skilled throughout his time within the US army. What in regards to the trauma of his divorce and the anger he reportedly had for his circle of relatives?
The purpose is, we simply don’t know sufficient but. What we do know is that we ought to be asking extra questions.
To this point, the Western media appears to be selecting the straightforward path, and following a well-tested method when protecting this tragic story: “Dangerous Brown Muslim dedicated terrorism within the title of ISIL.” This narrative conveniently ignores the complexity of Jabbar’s circumstances and sidesteps deeper questions on his psychological state, his time serving in Afghanistan and the private crises he confronted.
Distinction this with how tales involving white male shooters are sometimes handled. Reporters pedal arduous to humanise the perpetrators and illuminate their psychological well being points, remoted lives and private struggles.
This double customary not solely prevents the general public from studying the entire reality about an incident that impacts their lives in a well timed method, but in addition reinforces dangerous stereotypes and additional alienates marginalised communities. The Muslim communities in New Orleans, and the attacker’s hometown of Houston, a lot of whom probably by no means knew Jabbar, for instance, might now face collective blame for his actions because of the irresponsible actions of media organisations.
A headline’s life cycle
As journalists, we all know that the method of reporting creating tales is a journey. First, we break the story with the few information we all know, typically counting on official strains as a result of that’s all now we have on the time. That is an comprehensible and vital first step. However as extra data involves gentle, it’s our accountability to keep away from oversimplifying what is commonly a posh and multilayered story.
There have been different circumstances the place assaults had been credited to ISIL however later revealed to be the acts of only one particular person. In 2016, preliminary stories about Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen emphasised his declared allegiance to ISIL, however additional investigation revealed a deeply disturbed particular person with no operational ties to the group.
This issues due to the results such narratives have on actual lives. When media protection fixates on tenuous connections to ISIL, it fuels anti-Muslim sentiment and coverage. After the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, misinformation linking the attackers to a broader ISIL community contributed to public help for then-candidate Donald Trump’s proposed “Muslim ban”. Following 9/11, imprecise and unsubstantiated claims about Saddam Hussein’s ties to al-Qaeda had been instrumental in justifying the invasion of Iraq, which led to the deaths of a whole lot of 1000’s of Iraqi civilians and the political instability that birthed ISIL.
We additionally owe it to the households of the victims to uncover and report the entire reality of what occurred that day. They should know the actual motives of the attacker and whether or not something might have been achieved to forestall the tragedy.
None of that is to say we must always ignore potential proof of one thing larger at play right here. However discernment is vital. As we proceed to report on this tragedy, allow us to centre the information, and the context vital to color probably the most correct and accountable image.