Switch language / ভাষা পরিবর্তন করুন
OpinionsEnglish Edition

American Media: The Double Standards of Terrorism, Psychological Distress, and Racial Bias

Rakibul IslamRakibul Islam
•January 7, 2025•7 min read
American Media: The Double Standards of Terrorism, Psychological Distress, and Racial Bias

In its construction of truth, the American media apparatus employs a selective heuristic—a curated 'filter'—that serves to categorize perpetrators through a bifurcated lens dictated by racial identity.

The American media employs a distinct "filter" when presenting truth. It assigns disparate identities to perpetrators based on racial lines. When an individual from the Middle East commits a crime, the term "terrorist" is appended to their name as if it were an intrinsic identity—a permanent stamp upon their passport. Conversely, when a white perpetrator enters a church and massacres nine innocent people, they are rebranded as a "lone wolf." The framing suggests an individual entirely untethered from the social fabric, acting in a vacuum of isolation.

The Significance of the "Lone Wolf"

The question arises: what does the term "lone wolf" actually signify? It is deployed to imply that the perpetrator descended from the heavens, disconnected from the earth and devoid of any human ties. The individual is portrayed as someone without friends, a Facebook profile, or social cohesion. By framing them as a social outcast, the media subtly suggests that society itself bears a fraction of the blame for their condition. It paints a portrait of a lonely, troubled soul so pitiable that one almost feels compelled to sympathize with their transgression.

Terrorism vs. Mental Instability: Two Nations, Two Systems of Justice

The irony of how American media adjudicates crime based on the racial identity of the perpetrator is profound. If the assailant is from the Middle East, they are labeled a "terrorist." If they are Black, the narrative pivots to the pathology of "gang culture." Yet, for white perpetrators, the default defense is that they were "mentally unstable." It is as if being white serves as a certificate of immunity, a soft cushion of clinical diagnosis that spares them from the harsh moral indictments leveled at others.

The evidence for Iraq's WMDs was false – The Guardian

One must ask: is mental instability a condition exclusive to white offenders? If a man from the Middle East engages in a suicide bombing, can he truly be described as "mentally stable"? Why is one a "terrorist" and the other merely "mentally ill"?

The Manipulation of Language: Creative Racism

American media weaponizes racial identity to calibrate the gravity of an offense. For white perpetrators, the narrative emphasizes their isolation: "He was friendless; he lived in solitude." But when the perpetrator is Middle Eastern, they are reflexively depicted as a member of a coordinated cell, acting with a calculated political objective. This creates a dichotomy where white criminality is treated as a private, personal tragedy, while the criminality of other groups is treated as a collective, existential threat.

The Definition of Terrorism: Distorted Realities

Theoretically, terrorism is an act committed with the deliberate intent to incite fear or hatred—a strategy of utilizing attacks on civilians to transmit a political or religious message. Yet, the American media is adept at molding this definition to suit its narrative.

What is Woke Culture? Why is it so controversial?

When a white individual massacres congregants in a church, is that not terrorism? No, the media insists, "He was mentally unstable." For the white perpetrator, the label of terrorism is deemed irrelevant. This raises a logical impasse: if a mentally unstable person executes such an attack, how does their action differ from terrorism? The primary characteristics of terrorism—the intent to spread fear, create chaos, and deliver a message—are present. Does a mentally stable person ever contemplate blowing themselves up?

The Racial Politics of Media

By framing white crime as a "human failing," American media transmits a specific, calculated message. They suggest, "This individual was lonely; their family did not understand them." Such rhetoric invites empathy. In contrast, there is no discussion of the backstory, psychological state, or socio-political circumstances of Middle Eastern offenders. Their name and faith are presented as self-evident proof of their guilt. [caption id="attachment_7740" align="aligncenter" width="465"]Mujahideen, Afghanistan, support Afghan freedom fighters - USA/Afghanistan, 1980s. Soldier of Fortune. Send your tax-deductible donation for arms and ammunition to: Boulder, Colorado. "Support Afghan freedom fighters - USA/Afghanistan, 1980s. Soldier of Fortune. Send your tax-deductible donation for arms and ammunition to: Boulder, Colorado."[/caption] Consider the disparity: when a white perpetrator attacks, it is characterized as a product of "personal grievance or frustration." When a Middle Eastern individual commits an act of violence, it is categorized as a "religious or political agenda."

What is America’s Blackwater? How does it terrorize the World?

Are we to believe that white perpetrators hold no political or social grievances? Has the media forgotten—or willfully chosen to ignore—that white extremism represents one of the most significant threats within the United States today?

The Historical Roots of Discrimination

The empathy afforded to white criminals is rooted in the deep-seated legacy of American racism. Slavery, segregationist laws, and structural social hierarchies have created a framework where white transgressions are viewed as redeemable, while the humanity of other groups is systematically erased. According to government reports and statistics, white extremism is the primary domestic terrorist threat in America. Yet, the media suppresses this reality, minimizing the crimes of the dominant class while pathologizing other ethnic and racial cohorts.

Who is Responsible?

This hypocrisy is no accident. It is a strategic mechanism employed by major media conglomerates to further their political and corporate agendas. The biased conduct of the media acts like a scripted drama, where the primary objective is the manufacture of social division. By promoting the narrative of "terrorism" exclusively along racial lines, they keep the public in a state of perpetual fear, justifying wartime policies and the arms trade. Labeling Middle Easterners as "terrorists" is merely a vital component of this theater.

Who created ISIS?

> “We had this bright idea that we were going to come to Pakistan and create a force of Mujahideen, give them Stinger missiles and everything else, to go after the Soviets inside Afghanistan. And we were successful. The Soviets left Afghanistan. And then we said, great, goodbye—offloading these trained people who were fanatical in Afghanistan and Pakistan, leaving them well-armed, creating a mess, frankly, that at the time we really didn't recognize. We were so happy to see the collapse of the Soviet Union and we thought, okay, okay, we're good now, everything's going to be so much better. Now you look back; the people we're fighting today we were supporting in the fight against the Soviets.” - Interview with Greta Van Susteren, Fox News, July 18, 2010 The racist temperament of the American media is not merely a failure of journalism; it is a threat to the integrity of the entire society. Through linguistic manipulation and divisive reporting, they minimize the atrocities of white perpetrators while casting a shroud of suspicion over entire ethnic groups. This is not a matter of journalistic incompetence—it is a deliberate orchestration of a political and social agenda.

Share this intellectual discourse

Help expand constructive dialogues on global affairs, law, and politics.

Rakibul Islam

Rakibul Islam

Author & Contributor, MaroonPaper

Contributing insightful research and analytical essays on law, politics, history, and international affairs for MaroonPaper.

Stay Connected with MaroonPaper

Subscribe to receive selected intellectual essays, critical commentaries, and translations directly in your inbox.

No spam, ever. Unsubscribe at any time.