Whilst I was studying sociology, I recall an interesting study I came across. Stuart Hall, Policing the Crisis. Hall noted in his research findings that many crimes such a “mugging” and knife crime was specifically being linked to ethnic minorities, particularly young African and Afro-Caribbean males. Hall, also understood that there was a huge moral panic in the 90’s, the media had released numerous reports linking violent crime to Black youths. In that time Hall stated, that the media and police did not plan to create a moral panic. The panic came from changing circumstances. Nonetheless, moral panic was caused which negatively effected many ethnic minorities. Furthermore, the police was also given the power to ‘stop and search’ Black youths unannounced who they thought were suspicious. This caused a feeling of resentment and often provoke a violent and negative reaction in self defense from Black youths. Unfortunately hall’s study is still very relevant even today as not much as changed.
The media in specific has not changed at all, its fair to argue that the police have mildly been trying to remain educated about ethnic minorities and culture. However, the media has stayed strong to it’s ignorant and trouble making ways. For those who are unaware about how the news organisations works, you be interested to know that news values and news agendas ultimately decide what is to be broadcasted and also in what order. If a story is deemed significant enough, it can be broadcasted. This is also known as one of the news value “Thresholds”. The story, needs to then meet further thresholds, such as staying relevant and “alive”. The media therefore, creates moral panics. Moral panics are indeed hitting every threshold there is directly, meeting all targets. The media, has been accused of sensationalising crimes revolving around ethnic minorities. Attaching a level of drama and panic, making it newsworthy.
Moreover, the media tends to highlight ones race and religion only when the subject is from an ethnic minority. The image below, shows us the difference in words when addressing criminals from a ethnic background:
Similarly, when its a Black individual who has been charged of a crime, the media always highlights the race more than what the actual crime committed.
linking something negative such as a crime to ones race or religion, will then form a subconscious bond in our minds. we will begin to link a crime to a certain race and only see that one attribute. we will not see, what the crime actually is, what caused it, its implications. We will only see the criminals race first. The media, is indeed hugely to blame for this as putting the race of the individual in the first sentence and the crime in the second sentence almost implies its the race that’s the offence not the crime.
Most of the huge media co-operations are owned and managed by White members of the bourgeoisie. Therefore, whenever a White individual is involved in a crime, the only attribute that is mentioned is the gender.
This is evident from the images below showing news articles from different co-operations exposing White criminals.
Note: The victims race and religion is revealed but not the White offenders.
All in all, staying aware and conscious of what the media broadcasts is highly important. The media has the ability to infect our minds with poison faster than bacteria spreading. The implications, for becoming indoctrinated by the media are brutal. This is evident through the public’s violent reaction towards ethnic minorities after watching the Oscar-nominated movie American Sniper. Remember, the media only broadcasts what it is deemed as “newsworthy” and what meets the agenda. The media doesn’t release stories for the public evidently, but to make profit of the moral panics it has caused.
seraphictruth 
Lots to think about here.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I tend to like with what you post on your blog but this time I have some reservations. I understand and agree what you’re saying about the difference in words when addressing criminals and how the media addresses the race when its a black person. However, I didn’t understand why you pointed out the wording terrorists. I could have understood if instead of terrorists the wording was Muslims. That would have been very offensive and incorrect. But the fact is that these were terrorists regardless of their race.
I otherwise, applaud you for your blog and (as a white Christian) find it informative and meaningful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank your for your honest criticism, I appreciate it. Well you see this is the issue. The reason why they used the word “terrorist” is only because those involved in the attack claimed to be Muslims. I think it’s fair to say, only Muslims are labelled as terrorists. The dictionary definition of terrorists is “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce”. However, most of the criminals shown in my post who are White, indeed caused terror. Terror means to frighten, but for some reason no other race or religion is given this label. That’s what the message I was trying to convey. The media has never labeled any criminal from any other ethnicity and religion as a “terrorist” or “extremist”. Only when it comes to a Muslim, these words are thrown. Also, the recent incident Chapel Hill shooting, the media has not labeled Hicks as a “radicalised atheist” even-though his Facebook featured radical anti-theists posts. Nor has the media labeled Hicks as a terrorist even though he did cause terror. Also, there are indeed many White Christians who have committed crimes in the name of Christianity. The famous case of Scott Philip Roeder. But the media didn’t brand him as a radicalised Christian or terrorist. Therefore, we must question the medias motives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I think it is fair to say that only Muslims are labelled terrorists. You have surely heard this: Not all Muslims are terrorists but it seems that most terrorists are Muslim.
Somehow the media and consequently people in general have come to associate terrorist as a synonym of Muslim. You make a very valid point and have brought to me further understanding of how labels can not only be offensive and discriminatory but also dangerous. As the dictionary definition you pointed out, terrorism is not race specific. I will be more careful to broaden my usage of the term terrorism to include all all acts of “violence and threats to intimidate and coerce.”
Dialogue is the safest weapon.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, this is indeed true. Labelization of a community’s religious identity is dangerous and biased and is also the root cause of much mayhem in this global war against ISLAM, where billions are lumped together with ISIS, Taliban, Al Qaeda etc etc that also are projected with the word “terrorism.”
In my country there is a huge gypsy style population involved into all sorts of crimes ranging from petty to hard core crimes.. stealing electricity, water, using utilities without paying bills, street crimes like stealing food, mobiles phone etc and this community is Christian but the western media portrays them as victims of Pakistani Muslims, which in other words translates as Muslim terrorist nation a tag we have earned thanks to war on terror. The double standards are appalling in this little example because the offenders are NOT muslim, so you see how dangerous it is really? When these gypsies end into street fights, or police encounters the western media reports like ” Vulnerable Christians persecuted in Islamic state of Pakistan.”
Now I am not saying that all Christians or minorities in Pakistan are the same and there is indeed growing persecution of non Muslims, but my point is relevant to your reflection on labeling and the bottom line is terrorists have no religion, no conscience and no humanity.
LikeLiked by 2 people