(Contribution made at the 22nd All Nigeria Editors Conference As a Panelist)
1. Introduction
Terrorists’ attack may be directed at a person, institution or community, but the psychological target is the larger public.
Terrorist organisations seek publicity because publicity extends the reach of an attack far beyond its immediate victims. Through news reports, photographs, videos, manifestos, threats and statements, they create fear, project strength, recruit sympathisers, intimidate governments, influence public debate and shape perceptions of events.
This creates a difficult responsibility for journalists: How can the media inform the public about terrorism without becoming an unwitting distribution channel for terrorist propaganda?
The answer is not to suppress legitimate news. Rather, journalism must distinguish between reporting what the public needs to know and transmitting what terrorists want the public to hear.
The central principle is therefore:
Report the act, its consequences and its public significance and not the terrorist’s propaganda as propaganda.
2. Three Major Ethical Problems
Problem 1: Terrorists deliberately exploit the news cycle
Terrorist groups understand the logic of modern media: speed, drama, novelty, conflict and emotional impact attract attention.
They may therefore:
* release statements immediately after an attack; (Remember the notorious Mr Jomo Gbomo of MEND).
* provide videos or photographs designed for maximum emotional impact;
* issue threats or claims of responsibility;
* manipulate journalists through exclusive access;
* deliberately stage incidents to generate dramatic images;
* use social media to bypass traditional editorial gatekeepers.
The danger is that the newsroom may inadvertently allow the terrorist organisation to determine what the public sees, when it sees it and how it interprets it.
Key concern: The terrorist becomes the news editor.
Problem 2: The line between information and amplification is easily crossed
The public has a legitimate interest in knowing:
* what happened;
* where and when it happened;
* who was affected;
* what authorities are doing;
* whether there is an ongoing threat;
* what citizens need to know to remain safe.
However, reporting may cross into amplification when journalists reproduce:
* lengthy terrorist statements;
* slogans and ideological messaging;
* graphic propaganda videos;
* recruitment appeals;
* threats without appropriate context;
* propaganda imagery;
* claims designed primarily to intimidate or provoke.
The problem becomes particularly acute online, where a headline, video clip or social-media post can travel much further than the original news report.
Problem 3: The public interest can conflict with the duty to minimise harm
Journalists have a responsibility to inform the public, but they also have an ethical responsibility to minimise unnecessary harm.
Publishing a terrorist video may, for example, help the public understand an emerging threat. But the same publication may:
* traumatise victims and families;
* expose graphic material to children and vulnerable audiences;
* spread terrorist propaganda;
* encourage copycat behaviour;
* reveal operational information;
* compromise security operations;
* give perpetrators the publicity they sought.
The challenge is therefore not simply: “Is this information true?”The more important editorial questions are: “Is this information necessary?” and “Does publishing it serve the public interest sufficiently to justify the potential harm?”
WHAT THEN SHOULD BE REPORTED?
Newsrooms should prioritise verified, relevant and actionable information. They should report:
* What happened: Date, location and nature of the incident.
* Verified consequences: Confirmed deaths, injuries, displacement or damage.
* Information necessary for public safety: Security alerts. Road closures. Evacuation information. Emergency contacts. Official safety instructions.
* Official response: Statements and actions by security agencies, government and emergency services.
* Independent verification: Where possible, corroboration from multiple credible sources.
* The broader context: Relevant history of the group or conflict.
* Previous incidents: Verified patterns of violence.
* Information that helps citizens understand, not merely fear, the event.
4. What Should Be Excluded or Contextualised?
Newsrooms should exercise particular caution with:
* terrorist propaganda videos;
* recruitment material;
* ideological manifestos;
* graphic images;
* slogans and chants;
* threats reproduced without context;
* instructions for violence;
* material that identifies vulnerable victims unnecessarily;
* unverified casualty figures;
* unverified claims of responsibility;
* material that could compromise security operations;
* sensational descriptions designed primarily to provoke fear.
The rule should be:
If the information advances the terrorist’s communication objective more than it advances the public’s understanding, reconsider publication.
5. How Should Terrorist Statements Be Handled?
A terrorist statement is not automatically news simply because a terrorist organisation issued it.
The statement should be treated as a claim requiring verification and editorial judgment.
Recommended approach
Instead of:
“Terrorist Group X says it has defeated security forces…”
You may consider:
“Group X has claimed responsibility for the attack, although authorities have not independently confirmed the claim.”
Where relevant, add:
* what is independently verified;
* what remains disputed;
* the organisation’s known objectives;
* whether previous claims by the group have proved accurate;
* the response of authorities or other credible sources.
Avoid:
* reproducing entire statements;
* publishing propaganda slogans as headlines;
* presenting terrorist claims as established facts;
* using promotional imagery supplied by the organisation without editorial justification.
6. How Should Terrorist Videos Be Handled?
Simple: “verify, evaluate, contextualise, minimise.”
Before publishing a terrorist video, the newsroom should ask:
* Is it authentic?
* Who produced it?
* When and where was it recorded?
* Has its content been independently verified?
* Does the public genuinely need to see this video?
* Does it provide information that cannot be communicated more safely through text?
* Does it contain graphic violence?
* Does it identify victims?
* Does it reveal sensitive security information?
* Could publication traumatise victims or families?
* Does the video primarily seek to recruit, intimidate, glorify violence or promote ideology?
7. When Does Reporting Become Inadvertent Publicity?
Reporting becomes inadvertent publicity when the coverage begins to serve the communication objectives of the terrorist organisation more than the legitimate information needs of the audience.
Warning signs include:
* sensational headlines;
* excessive repetition of the group’s name;
* prominent display of terrorist imagery;
* broadcasting entire propaganda statements;
* repeatedly showing graphic footage;
* allowing threats to dominate coverage;
* giving disproportionate attention to perpetrators rather than victims and public consequences;
* publishing propaganda material without context;
* using language that glorifies the group’s capability or mystique.
A useful editorial test:
“If the terrorist organisation could choose the headline, photograph and first 30 seconds of our report, would they choose what we are about to publish?”
If the answer is yes, the newsroom should reconsider its treatment.
8. FIVE PRACTICAL NEWSROOM PRINCIPLES
Principle 1:
Inform, Don’t Amplify.
Report what the public needs to know, but do not unnecessarily reproduce terrorist messaging.
Practical rule: Summarise rather than reproduce propaganda.
Principle 2:
Verify Before You Amplify.
A terrorist claim is a claim—not a fact.
Practical rule: Attribute claims clearly and independently verify them wherever possible.
Principle 3:
Contextualise Every Claim.
Do not allow terrorists to define the meaning of an event through their own narrative.
Practical rule: Where a terrorist statement is newsworthy, provide relevant context, competing verified information and the status of the claim.
Principle 4:
Minimise Harm
The right to know does not automatically mean the right to see everything.
Practical rule: Avoid unnecessary graphic material, victim identification and content that could endanger people or compromise operations.
Principle 5:
Put the Public Interest Before the News Cycle
Speed is important, but accuracy, safety and proportionality are more important.
Practical rule: Before publishing terrorist material, ask: What does the public gain from seeing this, and what additional harm could publication cause?
THE 7-QUESTION TERRORISM REPORTING TEST
Before publishing a terrorist claim, statement, photograph or video, ask:
1. IS IT VERIFIED?
What do we independently know to be true?
2. IS IT NEWSWORTHY?
Does the public genuinely need this information?
3. IS IT NECESSARY?
Do we need to publish the entire statement, image or video—or only relevant information from it?
4. ARE WE AMPLIFYING?
Could our headline, image, video or wording advance the terrorist’s propaganda objective?
5. HAVE WE CONTEXTUALISED?
Have we distinguished verified facts from the terrorist group’s claims?
6. COULD PUBLICATION CAUSE HARM?
Could it endanger victims, expose sensitive information, traumatise people or compromise security operations?
7. IS THERE A SAFER WAY TO TELL THE STORY?
Can we serve the public interest without reproducing the propaganda?
Recommended Editorial Language
Instead of:
“Terrorists announce…”
Use:
“The group claims…”
Instead of:
“Terrorists have defeated…”
Use:
“The group claims to have…”
Instead of reproducing a lengthy manifesto:
“In a statement circulated online, the group claimed responsibility for the attack and threatened further action. The claim has not been independently verified.”
Instead of repeatedly showing terrorist imagery:
* Use neutral images of:
* the affected location;
* emergency responders;
* official briefings;
* affected communities;
* recovery efforts.
This shifts the focus from the perpetrators’ spectacle to the public consequences of terrorism.
Closing Statement
The media cannot prevent terrorists from speaking. But journalism can decide whether their message becomes information or amplification.
Our responsibility is neither to silence the news nor to become the terrorist’s megaphone. It is to tell the public what it needs to know, verify what can be verified, contextualise what is contested, minimise unnecessary harm and deny propaganda the editorial platform it seeks.
In the battle for public attention, the newsroom must remain a gatekeeper, not a loudspeaker.
*Onyima, a PhD holder is a fellow of the Nigerian Guild of Editors.
