Constructing the Islamic state: analysing the interplay between media and policy frames in the aftermath of the November 13^th 2015 Paris attacks

Abstract

This article analyses the imagined threat posed by the Islamic State in the aftermath of the November 13 th Paris attacks and during the build-up to the December 2 nd 2015 House of Commons vote to extend U.K. airstrikes to Syria. Drawing together Political Communications and International Relations approaches to framing analysis, and focusing on Britain's three main television news providers (BBC, ITV and Channel 4), it questions (1) how is the Islamic State is framed for U.K audiences, (2) who shapes those frames, and ( 3) what consequences arise from adopting certain frames over others? The analysis identifies three competing representational frames (labelled here as the "(Para)Military", the "Elusive" and the "Extremist" frames), and their main advocates, and shows how, ultimately, U.K. news media tend to support an "elite"centred framing of the threat, via its foregrounding of the "(Para)Military" and "Extremist" frames, thus legitimising calls for extending airstrikes into Syria. In so doing, the article provides two contributions to knowledge: first, empirical, by generating substantive new insight into the way the Islamic State was portrayed in the days and weeks following the Paris attacks, and in particular who shapes such frames; and, second, conceptual, via its blending of Political Communications and International Relations approaches to framing and their consequences.

What is terrorism (according to the news)? How the German press selectively labels political violence as “terrorism”

“…For instance, journalists downplay violence by the in-group, for example, domestic citizens, and exaggerate threats by the out-group, for example, foreigners (Fishman and Marvin, 2003). As journalists rely on governmental information during crises, politicians can more easily access the news flow and further reinforce in- and out-group bias through calls for unification by the nation or condemnation of out-groups (Ahmad, 2020). In conclusion, journalistic use of the term terrorism may be an indicator of in- and out-group bias: Journalists suggest for acts of violence and their perpetrators to be illegitimate, often due to an increased salience of journalists’ national identities during attacks.…”

“…When using the term terrorism, journalists often adapt the language of politicians (Abubakar, 2020). Thus, journalists may allow for governments to pursue political agendas through the news, for example to legitimize war (Ahmad, 2020). Hence, journalists should carefully reflect when to portray acts as terrorism and when to prefer more neutral descriptions to serve as a source of information rather than as a tool of politicians.…”

“…In crises, journalists rely on governmental sources. Politicians can capitalize on this and convey their interpretation of violence through the news, for example to legitimize war against actors they call terrorists (Ahmad, 2020).…”

Credibility contests: The contributions of experiential knowledge to radicalisation expertise

“…Since the early 2000s, the causes of terrorism in turn have been understood in terms of radicalisation and the focus of expert theory, policy and practice in this area has largely been on individual risk indicators and pathways (Silva, 2018; Younis, 2021). Research has shown that media reportage on terrorism tends to reflect dominant perspectives (Miller and Mills, 2009; Silva, 2018, 45–6), which constrains expert narratives and the sources that are able to speak on the topic (Ahmad, 2020). More generally, terrorism research has tended to work largely within the interests of the policy community (Mills et al, 2020).…”