The Politics of Language: How Media Frames Resistance as Terrorism
Words don’t simply depict reality – they create it. In geopolitics, language is not neutral; it is a tool for discrediting opposition and building a consensus for domination. This is most obvious in how mainstream media depicts resistance as terrorism, especially in the Muslim world. The media narrative is forged by selective terminology, which blurs the line between fighting oppression and threatening global security. The effects are not limited to the newspapers; they also affect public opinion on foreign policy and excuse state terrorism in the name of law and order.
A Manufactured Threat: The Power of Labels
The post-9/11 era changed everything. The phrase “War on Terror” evolved from a policy slogan into a framing device, painting every act of resistance in the Muslim world as violent and illegitimate. According to a 2018 study by Media Tenor, over 80% of the news coverage of Islam and Muslims in the U.S. was negative, and the narrative was filled with words like “terrorist,” “radical,” and “extremist.” It isn’t a coincidence—it is a deliberate strategy to criminalise opposition while excusing state violence.
When an Israeli soldier kills a Palestinian teenager, the headline reads, “Clashes Erupt in West Bank” or “Skirmishes Occur Near Border.” Conversely, when a Palestinian throws a stone, it is labelled as “violent unrest.” This disparity in language serves to normalise state violence while demonising resistance. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights reported that more than 80% of Palestinian fatalities in conflict zones were civilians in 2022. Despite these harrowing statistics, Western media continues to portray the conflict as a symmetrical war between two equal forces. This narrative not only misrepresents reality but also perpetuates Israel’s colonial control over Palestine.
Selective Outrage and Hierarchy of Violence
This hierarchy of violence underpins how Western media legitimises or delegitimises acts depending on the perpetrator. When a white supremacist commits a mass shooting, headlines often describe the individual as a “lone wolf” or a “troubled individual.” In contrast, when a Muslim commits a similar act, it is labelled terrorism within minutes, often without any understanding of the motive. The 2019 Christchurch mosque attack is a prime example: media coverage focused heavily on the perpetrator’s background and mental health rather than the act of terrorism itself. This selective outrage reflects a systemic bias that permeates global media narratives, profoundly shaping public perception and policy.
It is not by coincidence; it is a deliberate attempt by Western powers to legitimise their crimes and reflect their geopolitical interests. Western powers’ allies like Israel or Saudi Arabia get favourable coverage, but adversaries like Iran or Palestine are painted as threats. It’s not just bias—it’s business. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reports that, from 2019 to 2023, 38% of US arms exports went to countries in the Middle East. This figure is not only about trade; it is about power dynamics, geopolitical control, and the perpetuation of violence under the guise of security.
Media framing not only influences opinions but also influences policy. In 2003, the illegal attack on Iraq was advertised to the people with fear. Headlines like weapons of mass destruction and regime change overshadowed the doubts about the war. A Pew Research poll conducted in 2003 revealed that 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, a belief that was propelled by the media.
This pattern hasn’t stopped. Since 2015, the U.S.-backed Saudi-led coalition has killed more than 375,000 people in Yemen since 2015, the United Nations says. Amnesty International reports many of those killed were civilians, including children. It is also portrayed as a proxy war or a security operation that downplays the death toll. However, the Houthi resistance is widely referred to as a terrorist group. This narrative allows Western governments to escape responsibility for their actions and extend the cycle of violence in the name of power.
Language is not only a tool of oppression; it can also be a tool of liberation. Activists and independent media continue resisting the Western labels attached to these narratives. Numerous social media campaigns have resulted in a changing narrative among younger generations. Hashtags like #freepalestine and #fromtherivertothesea are commonplace among all social media platforms and easily outweigh the counter-narratives. Social media has allowed independent media to successfully challenge the dominant discourse, humanise those who have been labelled as terrorists, and highlight the media’s blatant double standards.
But reclaiming the narrative is not a one-time battle. It entails evaluating media framing, scrutinising sources, and promoting marginalised discourses. The Algerian War of Independence is a powerful example of this. The FLN employed radio broadcasts and international diplomacy to counter the French colonial narrative. Gamal Abdel Nasser used a similar method years earlier on Radio Cairo. Through Radio Cairo, powerful anti-colonial, pan-Arab, and anti-imperialist messages were carried across the Arab world and into Africa. It was a critical voice for liberation movements, supporting struggles against colonial powers like the British, French, and the United States. We need similar efforts today to tear down the imperial narrative that supports global inequality.
Conclusion: The Cost of Silence
The politics of language isn’t abstract—it has real-world consequences. The media has covered oppressive regimes, shaped public opinion, and justified endless wars by defining resistance as terrorism. This isn’t about semantics; it’s about truth, justice, and the right to resist oppression. In an age of information overload, silence is complicity.
Sayyid Jamal al-Din al-Afghani once said, “It is the duty of every Muslim to rise against tyranny and oppression.” Islam is not just a moral framework; it is a call to stand against oppression. This battle over language is not just about history but about justice. Reclaiming the narrative becomes a moral and ethical obligation when language criminalises that duty.
Qasim Ansari
Senior Project Coordinator
3/27/2025
