Media framing shapes not only public perception but legal, political, and social outcomes. For journalists, fair and accurate reporting on Muslim communities is both an urgent priority and a professional responsibility.
Violence by perpetrators perceived to be Muslim receives far more media attention than other types of ideologically motivated violence. Acts of violence by Muslims received 357% more coverage than those carried out by non-Muslims between 2008 and 2015. This occurred despite the fact that the majority of attacks were carried out by non-Muslims. This disparity is further confirmed by ISPU’s analysis of comparable cases of ideologically motivated violence, which found that perpetrators perceived to be Muslim received more than twice the media coverage of non-Muslim perpetrators, and almost eight times more coverage for foiled plots of similar severity.
The disparities noted above occurred despite the fact that the majority of attacks were carried out by non-Muslims. And these disparities are further confirmed by ISPU’s analysis of comparable cases of ideologically motivated violence, which found that perpetrators perceived to be Muslim received more than twice the media coverage of non-Muslim perpetrators, and almost eight times more coverage for foiled plots of similar severity.
This pattern of disproportionate coverage extends beyond particular incidents to the broader framing of Muslim-centered stories. A study by the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy analyzing major newscasts from CBS, Fox, and NBC between 2015 and 2017 found exactly this:
"There was not a single month where positive stories about Muslims outnumbered negative stories. Terrorist activities and conflict were the major focus of news reports about Muslims, accounting for 75 percent of the coverage. ISIS served as protagonist in three-fifths of all Muslim-centered stories, while positive coverage, such as human interest stories or those depicting Muslims as productive members of society, were overlooked"
Terrorist activities and conflict were the major focus of news reports about Muslims. Not a single month had positive stories about Muslims outnumber negative ones, and ISIS served as protagonist in three-fifths of all Muslim-centered stories.
This is further reflected in the specific language journalists use, as an ISPU analysis of print media coverage in The New York Times and The Washington Post found that the terms “terror,” “terrorism,” and “terrorist” appeared in 54% to 68% of articles covering Muslim-perceived perpetrators, compared to roughly one in four articles covering non-Muslim perpetrators for similar acts. Conversely, the term “hate” was used significantly more often to describe non-Muslim perpetrators, in part because their cases were more frequently prosecuted as hate crimes, a legal distinction that carries meaningfully lower maximum sentences than terrorism charges and reflects a broader pattern of unequal legal treatment.
This disparity is not without consequences. Increased exposure to news stories about Muslims has been correlated with higher levels of anti-Muslim prejudice and is associated with both reduced warmth and heightened anger toward Muslims across the political spectrum. Furthermore, news media coverage of Muslims strengthens support for anti-Muslim policies, including supporting military action in Muslim-majority countries and harsher civil restrictions on Americans who are Muslim. ISPU’s research further illustrates how these media patterns intersect with the legal system: Muslim-perceived perpetrators received sentences on average four times longer than non-Muslim perpetrators for comparable plots, a disparity that researchers found was correlated with the volume and framing of media coverage. Together, these findings paint a consistent picture of how media framing shapes not only public perception but legal, political, and social outcomes as well.
Muslim-perceived perpetrators received sentences on average four times longer than non-Muslim perpetrators for comparable plots — a disparity researchers found was correlated with the volume and framing of media coverage.
Research analyzing the scope and impact of biased coverage and portrayals of Muslims reveals patterns across news and entertainment media that systematically underrepresent, stereotype, and associate Muslims with violence and threat. This biased coverage and representation has measurable consequences for Muslim safety, civil liberties, and democratic values. For journalists, addressing these patterns is both an urgent priority and a professional responsibility because of the real-life consequences it has on marginalized populations. Thus, journalists should adhere to ethical standards that include providing balanced and accurate reporting.
Given the significant responsibility journalists hold in delivering accurate, unbiased coverage, the following recommendations offer concrete steps for ensuring fair and informed reporting on Muslim communities. The recommendations below are adapted from the Asian American Journalists Association’s Guidance on Coverage of September 11, 20 Years Later and ISPU’s Covering American Muslims Objectively + Creatively: A Guide for Media Professionals and Countering Anti-Muslim Opposition to Mosque Construction and Expansion.
Muslims come from all walks of life, as well as diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds. They play a variety of roles in their communities. Include Muslim voices in stories about what concerns all Americans, not just in relation to violence or Islamophobia. This includes the voices of Black or African American Muslims, who make up 25–33% of all American Muslims; women; and both native-born and immigrant American Muslims.
Cover stories about American Muslims not framed around national security or criminal violence. Shed light on the diverse roles American Muslims play in their communities, and provide a more accurate, nuanced portrait of who American Muslims really are.
Muslims have been part of the fabric of the U.S. for hundreds of years, as early explorers, enslaved Africans, and immigrants from around the world. Casting Islam and Muslims as foreign, non-American, and “other” is inaccurate. Rather, rightly cast Muslims as a part of the diverse fabric of American society.
Americans who are Muslim are complex human beings, and their motivations are complex. Don’t assume religion is the only driver of negative behavior. Factors like history of abuse, substance abuse, and psychological factors impact Muslims just like any other group.
Newsrooms should discuss when a suspect/offender’s race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin are relevant. Using descriptors of race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin when they’re not relevant or without explaining their relevance can perpetuate harmful stereotypes. Such stereotypes prevent discussions on how systemic problems can lead to violent attacks or plots.
Journalists should examine what they’re covering, what they’re not covering, and ask newsroom decision-makers why. Some basic rules should apply: Does the reporting give background and context? Does it offer diverse voices? Does it follow up on events or situations to gain greater insights as well as measures of change or impact?
Without burdening your Muslim staff and journalists, seek their feedback on stories to avoid stereotyping Muslims or writing reductionist stories on them. Their perspective can help provide a more nuanced understanding.
In breaking news situations, reverify facts and avoid undermining your credibility by reporting early news.
Many experts agree that white supremacists and right-wing extremists pose a more serious threat to Americans than individuals who claim Islam sanctions their crimes. Rather than paint them as “lone wolves,” coverage of these extremists should include the context of this growing national threat. Discuss the wider social norms that have normalized Islamophobia and other forms of bigotry rather than casting the horrors of an attack as coming out of nowhere. According to ISPU and Georgetown’s Bridge Initiative’s Islamophobia Index, endorsing a set of five anti-Muslim tropes is directly linked to support for violence targeting civilians. Bigotry is not only immoral—it can also be lethal.
Journalists covering ideologically motivated violence must question prosecutors and investigators over why they are or are not calling something terrorism, why they’ve chosen to charge a suspect with particular crimes, and what evidence they have for their charges. For example, law enforcement rarely discusses the documented role of informants and agent provocateurs in motivating and operationalizing terror plots that would have never manifested without the law enforcement asset.
Every newsroom needs to have a discussion on whether and when to use the terms “terror,” “terrorism,” and “terrorist.” “Terrorism” is highly politicized and various governmental agencies have their own definitions. We recommend moving away from “terrorism” entirely, instead using “ideologically motivated violence,” which is a more neutral term. Name groups involved in the violent act, rather than characterizing them with a label like “Islamist” or “Jihadist.” These labels shift blame to religion rather than to the responsible entity. The standards should be the same regardless of the suspect’s background or views. Use actual, concrete terms to describe what has happened, not buzzwords that will inflame.
Journalists covering ideologically motivated violence must question prosecutors and investigators over why they are or are not calling something terrorism, why they’ve chosen to charge a suspect with particular crimes, and what evidence they have for their charges.
Journalists are trained to read between the lines, ask questions about language used and facts omitted, and verify details. Those standards take even higher importance in cases of biased legal treatment. For example, ISPU’s report found the Justice Department sent out six times more press releases for offenders perceived as Muslim than offenders who were not, and ideology was highlighted more often in the former than in the latter.
Be cautious not to diminish acts of violence by casually and without evidence using the language of mental illness. This is unfair to people living with mental health issues, who are more likely to be victims of violent crimes than perpetrators of them. Blaming acts of violence on mental illness before facts are known is a way to deflect accountability and dismiss the violence as an aberration rather than the product of systemic societal problems. If mental illness is invoked as a factor in cases involving non-Muslim perpetrators, apply the same consideration to cases involving Muslim perpetrators rather than defaulting to terrorism or extremism narratives.
Provide nuance and specific details when covering stories on surveillance, violence, and discrimination that target Muslims, including their race or ethnicity.
Policies put into place immediately after an act of violence perpetrated by someone who is Muslim have impacts on multiple communities, not just Muslims, both in the U.S. and abroad. Islamophobia also affects those perceived as Muslim, including Sikhs, Arabs, and South Asians.
American Jews and Muslims disproportionately feel the negative effects of the United States’ negative political climate, including increased anxiety and instances of religious- and race-based discrimination. When covering incidents of ideologically motivated violence or discrimination, prioritize the voices and experiences of those directly affected rather than focusing disproportionately on perpetrators or opposition groups.
The quest for notoriety is a well-known motivator in instances of mass violence. Don’t provide it. Instead, feature the stories of those we lost regardless of their background—their hobbies, families, childhood, and passion for service or missions, if relevant. While it is important to understand the motivation of the perpetrator, humanizing childhood profiles are both offensive and risk inspiring copycat attacks. This time and space should instead be devoted to their victims.
The use of culturally specific language to describe human behaviors that are not unique to Muslims makes such behaviors seem pathological to these communities. For example, domestic violence affects Muslim communities no more than other faith (and non-faith) communities. Reference to such incidents should be to domestic, or gender-based, violence, not “honor crimes.”
Avoid inflammatory and dehumanizing language in reference to people so as not to trigger fear, hostility, anger, and retaliation that leads to greater intergroup divisions. Highlight the community’s self-declared positive values and identity rather than counter allegations made by opposition. Minimize negative associations made about the community. Remember that when you repeat/quote content that evokes stereotypes or dehumanization, it creates increased familiarity and associations with them.
Use terms that accurately describe incidents, rather than euphemisms that attempt to downplay the Islamophobia and racism Muslims encounter.
There is no “Muslim World” but rather countries that have Muslim-majority populations. These countries are distinct culturally and should be covered with nuance and complexity.
(See Problematic vs. Preferred Language for more information)
When an event happens involving Muslims, check in on your Muslim staff and those belonging to other marginalized communities who may be impacted by it.
Webinar: Faith by the Numbers — Understanding Religious Communities Research
Islamophobia is a form of discrimination, bias, and racism against Muslims and consequently those who appear to be Muslim that relies on stereotypes of Muslims and Islam that can result in their unequal treatment. Islamophobia is structural and can be seen in American social structures, laws and policies, media narratives, and ideologies. It also exists in interpersonal interactions between individuals that result in the unjust treatment of Muslims and those misidentified as Muslims in society.
