Soon after midnight last Monday a van hit pedestrians outside Muslim Welfare House in Finsbury Park, London, near a mosque from which worshippers were dispersing. Among the queries I received about the Guardian’s coverage was one that recurs often, defies definitive answer, but merits attention: what acts should be called “terrorism”, what actors “terrorists”? It matters because prominence, focus and anxiety accompany those labels, and one of terrorism’s aims is to create fear.
Re-reading, days later, the Guardian’s Finsbury Park live blog, which began at 1.50am London time and closed 22 hours later, I concluded that “terrorist attack” was not prematurely or irresponsibly used to describe what was alleged.
In newsrooms, events require fast responses, and experience and simplified (but not simplistic) checklists are generally more useful than manuals, although such sources are helpful when checklists are made.
Hallmarks of terrorist attacks are a natural reference point for editorial decision-makers. As the first reports of a multiple-casualties event arrive, any similarities of method are noted. Editors can also ask themselves whether the incident involves:
• serious harm to random innocents.
• a location and/or victims with symbolic resonance.
• apparent intent to generate widespread fear.
• a political purpose.
Here, “political purpose” is shorthand for what the law tends to itemise: surface aims such as pressuring governments or intimidating sections of the public, and deeper motivations like nationalism and religious or racist fanaticism.
If evidence of networking is apparent from the scene itself, that too can be an indicator of terrorism. But typically that takes time to emerge. In the first stages of reporting these events it will rarely be known whether a lone person (Nice, Berlin, Manchester) or small group (London Bridge, San Bernardino) is part of a wider network – logistical, instructional or both. The scale of the 9/11 World Trade Center attack made networking obvious as soon as the second tower was hit. In Madrid in 2004, on 7 July 2005 in London, and in Paris in November 2015, the scale, methods and coordination immediately showed the perpetrators had organisation.
Journalists can reasonably make these kinds of judgments without awaiting an official declaration. Governments may have their own reasons for whether and when they call an event a terrorist attack. But journalists need to take care.
The Guardian style guide entry for “terrorism, terrorists” begins with the familiar: “A terrorist act is directed against victims chosen either randomly or as symbols of what is being opposed (eg workers in the World Trade Center, tourists in Bali, Spanish commuters). It is designed to create a state of terror in the minds of a particular group of people or the public as a whole for political or social ends.” Deputy editor Paul Johnson told me he finds the definition in the Terrorism Act 2000 credible.
At 2.01am the Guardian live blog said the Finsbury Park incident “comes after two attacks in London since March which saw pedestrians struck by vehicles [Westminster Bridge, 22 March, and London bridge, 3 June]. Both were terrorist attacks.”
Indicators emerged after first-responders and reporters converged on the area, as social media pooled what witnesses and their smartphones saw and heard, and as journalists called their contacts among authorities and communities. For the first five hours journalists and editors made judgments without an official declaration to report.
By 3.07am the Guardian’s experienced crime correspondent, Vikram Dodd, was on the scene, and by 3.54am he could report that “counter-terrorism officers have joined regular police looking at the incident which is in its early stages”.
Then came Theresa May’s first statement about a “terrible incident”, but not terrorism (3.57am).
At 4.36am, in a what-we-know-so-far summary, the blog reported: “Police have not said whether this was a deliberate attack or a terrorist attack but counter-terrorism police are at the scene and witnesses have described a van swerving towards a group of people.”
The blog post at 4.45am had the Muslim Council of Britain’s statement that the incident was “widely being described as a terror attack”. The same post also said: “Police are yet to say whether the event in Finsbury Park constitutes a terrorist attack.”
By 4.54am police had confirmed one death, eight injuries and the involvement of counter-terrorism police, and at 5.15am Theresa May said police were treating the incident as “a potential terrorist attack”.
Around 5.30am, on Facebook, the London mayor Sadiq Khan said it was terrorism. As the blog showed, other politicians – including the prime minister – and the Metropolitan police soon followed.
Readers reasonably expect journalists to think and to try to verify before they make declarations with serious implications. Doing so is one of the ways professional journalists can maintain trust and differentiate themselves and the service they provide.
