In certain stories, journalists’ biggest concern is that you don’t get the ‘wrong idea.’
In certain stories, journalists’ biggest concern is that you don’t get the ‘wrong idea.’
T here is nothing so unhelpful as journalists who believe it is their job to protect readers from getting the “wrong” idea.
It’s antithetical to the principle of keeping society well informed.
Take, for example, the coverage of the recent stabbing attack in Dublin and its aftermath. If you followed the headlines coming out of Ireland over the past couple of weeks only casually, you likely don’t know how to answer the very basic question, “What were they rioting about?”
Let’s review the basics: On November 23, a man stabbed a school employee and three children outside an Irish-language primary school in Dublin, critically injuring a five-year-old girl. A 49-year-old Algerian-born man was arrested in connection with the attack. The suspect’s Algerian background was reported on the day of the assault by the Irish news site Gript.
Riots in Dublin erupted soon thereafter, as enraged locals protested what they say are unreasonable and irresponsibly lax immigration policies.
On November 25, after the riots, the Irish Mirror confirmed that the suspect in custody is a “naturalized Irish citizen who was born and bred in Algeria, came to Ireland around 20 years ago, has no criminal convictions — but had faced prosecution in May.” The Irish Times, the Irish Independent, and the Irish Daily Mail have corroborated that the suspect is not just Algerian-born but that he also immigrated to Ireland around 2003 and became an Irish citizen about ten years ago.
Now, as it turns out, gathering the most basic details regarding the Dublin riots and putting them together for the above timeline has been like pulling teeth.
The breaking news reports and headlines out of Dublin have obscured or sidestepped entirely the suspect’s immigration history and its connection to the grievances underlying the riots in favor of narratives about “far-right” opposition to immigration and the pervasiveness of online disinformation. It’s as if the journalists covering Dublin are more preoccupied with addressing anti-immigration rhetoric and “online rumors” than with providing readers with the fundamental who, what, where, when, and why of November 23.
But understanding the context and scope of the riots requires some knowledge of the suspect’s background, age, year of emigration, and citizenship status. Understanding the connection between these things and the objections of the Dublin rioters, regardless of whether those objections are justified, are essential to unraveling the events of November 23. It was so difficult to glean these details from certain news outlets that one has to wonder whether it is by design.
Consider the following Washington Post news blurb, which was published after the attacker’s alleged Algerian descent was first reported: “Online rumors claimed the perpetrator of a stabbing attack was an immigrant. The BBC found that the man was an Irish citizen who had lived in the country for 20 years. Police blamed a ‘lunatic faction driven by a far-right ideology’ for the riot in Dublin.”
The accompanying report, which was published on November 24 and has undergone several revisions, does not include the word “Algerian,” even though the suspect’s descent has been confirmed and corroborated several times over. As of today, the Washington Post has not updated the story to include information regarding the suspect’s country of origin. It also has not published any follow-up report acknowledging the Algerian angle.
The New York Times published a November 24 report originally titled, “Riots in Dublin Bring ‘Shame’ on Ireland, Prime Minister Says.” The current subhead reads, “The violence in Ireland’s capital on Thursday night was fueled by far-right agitators who spread rumors online about an attack on three children earlier that day.”
The first version of the article omitted any mention of the word “Algerian.” After multiple revisions, however, the article now includes the following passages: “But unconfirmed reports that he was an Algerian migrant quickly began circulating in anti-immigration and far-right groups, according to researchers specializing in extremist movements online,” and “Gript, a right-wing news platform in Ireland, was one of the first to suggest publicly that the perpetrator was Algerian.”
As of this writing, the New York Times has not published any additional information regarding the Dublin suspect’s background. These few lines, casting doubt on breaking news reports that ultimately proved true, exemplify the troubling trend of journalists prioritizing narrative over fact.
Meanwhile, at the Associated Press, a November 24 headline reads, “Violent clashes break out in Dublin after knife attack that injured 3 children, one seriously.” The article mentions the stabbing attack, the detention of a male suspect, and online “misinformation.” It also describes “violent clashes” between police and Dubliners.
“Irish police said the girl was receiving emergency medical treatment in a Dublin hospital following the attack outside a school,” the report states. “Soon after that announcement, at least 100 people took to the streets, some armed with metal bars and covering their faces.”
Notably, the article omits any mention of migrants or Algeria.
Absent this detail, the reader has no idea why people took to the streets in Dublin. The reader learns there was a stabbing and that Dubliners clashed with police, but that is all. The reader is kept in the dark as to the suspect’s background and immigration history — key factors underpinning the November 23 riots.
Whom does this type of journalism serve? To report on the riots without also mentioning the why of the riots is a disservice to the public. It gives only a fractured and unintelligible picture of current events. It’d be like reporting on the anti-police riots of 2020 and obscuring the fact that George Floyd was black and that the police officer who knelt on his neck is white. But of course, the omission of details from one story but not another is no accident of sloppy reporting.
This brings us to the BBC, which was the first to report that the Dublin suspect had been in Ireland since at least 2003. That outlet’s breaking news story, which has likewise undergone multiple revisions, quoted Ireland’s top police official referring to “hateful assumptions” about the attacker. The story says: “It is understood that included false claims that the attacker was a foreign national. Sources have indicated to the BBC that the man suspected of carrying out the attack is an Irish citizen in his late 40s who has lived in the country for 20 years.”
Curiously, despite providing this remarkably specific background, and although the article has been updated multiple times, the report mentions nothing about Algeria or the fact that the suspect is a 49-year-old male. The BBC did not get around to reporting on the suspect’s Algerian background until November 28 in a separate article, four days after Gript landed the scoop and three days after the Irish Mirror corroborated it.
From a casual glance at the news out of Dublin, you would undoubtedly conclude that the “far right” is dangerous and that online “rumors” are a menace. You would also learn that Dubliners are enraged, though you’d hardly know why.
It’s as if certain journalists and their editors genuinely believe it is their solemn duty to protect readers from getting the wrong impression. It’s one of the few reasonable explanations for why the Algerian-immigrant connection has been obscured in much of the news coverage. To highlight this detail would be to invite criticism of Ireland’s immigration policies.
And we can’t have that, can we?