“Rioters”, “Protestors” or “Terrorists”? What’s in a Name?

 

How should journalists be describing the events which took place in Washington DC on Wednesday 6^th January, and why does it matter?

A short blog post.

How you label someone often ascribe motive to their actions, whether we mean to or not.

It is for this reason that President-elect Joe Biden has hit out against calling the people who stormed the US Capitol on Wednesday 6^th  January “protestors” and instead they should be labelled “domestic terrorists”.

To call them “protestors”, intentionally or not, immediately assigns a motive to their actions - they were there to “protest” a basic right protected by law. What Biden is saying, in objecting to the term, is they were not there to protest but to intentionally break the law and undermine democracy. They were trying to achieve political aims through violence – one of the definitions of terrorism.

After originally calling them protestors most news media outlets have stopped calling them “protestors” although they have stopped short of adopting Biden’s terminology of calling them “domestic terrorists”. Instead they have fallen for the, what they perceive to be the more neutral term “rioters” and describing the events of last week as a “riot”.

In many ways this is equally problematic.

There is considerable evidence that the violence was not a random spontaneous act of violence – which the term “riot” implies – but an attempted coup d’etat. And some political commentators have described it as such.

The term “riot” undermines the political narrative that there was a concerted plan of action, for example one theory is people forced their way into the Capitol not simply to “disrupt” proceedings, but to destroy the boxes containing the physical electoral votes. The destruction of the boxes may have cast permanent doubt over the result of the Presidential election, and paved the way for continued justification to paint the incoming administration as illegitimate.

On top of this if the term “riot” takes hold in the public consciousness it may be harder for Democrats to successfully charge President Trump with inciting "violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts" as riots are often viewed as being more random and spontaneous.

So, what should journalists do if they want to report on the events and still maintain some level of impartiality and objectivity?

There is no doubt that describing people as “domestic terrorists” would appear to be siding with Biden. But as I have sought to argue describing them as “rioters” could undermine Biden’s charge and in so doing help Trump.

After, more than 25 years in journalism when faced with these dilemmas I normally find that "boring old accuracy" is the best course of action.

The fact that these people were Pro-Trump supporters is not in question.

The fact they stormed the Capitol is equally agreed upon.

Therefore let’s start calling them what they are, “Pro-Trump supporters” who “stormed the Capitol”. And hopefully history will decide the rest.