Thread by @miqdaad

Interesting analysis by @cfmmuk of articles about the sentencing of the Christchurch terrorist:

1. Only 9% had "terrorist" in the headline
2. Most did use "terrorist" in the article itself, but mainly when quoting someone else
3. 1 in 5 articles didn't use "terrorist" at all

Not one of the main broadcasters used "terrorist" in the headline, and in the main article, some used "terrorism" or "terrorist" when referring to the specific charge, or quoting the judge for example.

None used it as a descriptor.

The Mirror, Metro and Independent used terror / terrorist in the main headline; and the Guardian used terrorist in the sub-headline.

Important to see

The Mail Online used "terrorist" in the headline, but The Sun and Times did not (although used in the main copy).

Interestingly - unless I missed it - The Telegraph did *not* even cover the story?

Many might say: "but this is the same as how we treat other terrorist attacks too"

That's wrong. 43% of headlines of so-called "Islamist" attacks include the term "terror"!

See the @cfmmuk analysis over the past 5 years. The difference is huge.

Things are getting better: there is a willingness to use the term "terrorist" in the article itself (albeit normally in quotes from the Prime Minister, the key judge, or in reference to the specific charge / plea rather than as a normal descriptor)

But there is a long way to go

One final point: as mentioned here, the way the wires have propagated the sentencing output, plays an important role. And they have different policies on using the term "terrorist" which drives how they have reported.

https://twitter.com/cfmmuk/status/1299010540224868355

But we have to be careful and hold these claims to account - whilst @Reuters claim their editorial policy doesn't allow them to use terrorist in a descriptive way, they can (and historically have) used terrorist when citing others - see examples below:

Apologies - the Telegraph did cover it. See here

Please take the time to read the @cfmmuk report, which analyses how the British media reports terrorism in detail, proving all the points unequivocally with a powerful & strong evidence base.

The hope is that this will help elicit change for the better

cfmm.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

Sorry - one final point about @ajplus, which often reports brilliantly but seems to have fallen into the same trap as other broadcasters.

In the past, it can (and has) used the term "terrorist" or "terrorism" in the appropriate way.

But it chose not to here - and that's surprising and worthy of reflection.

I don't want to knock the quality of reporting - just on this specific point

Another note - solely looking at twitter handles of CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, it seems only CNN has covered the sentencing, and they use the term "far-right terrorist" - impressive to see.

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1298880449142493184

Looking at the Twitter handles of the top US newspapers, the @WSJ doesn't seem to have covered the sentencing, but all the others have, but *none* used the term "terrorist" in the tweet.

(Note LA Times had same tweet as NY Post so I didn't repeat)