The attack in New Orleans that killed at least 10 New Year’s Eve revelers and injured 35 others was an “act of terrorism,” the FBI said.

A lone driver plowed a pickup truck into a crowd on Bourbon Street. The driver fired gunshots at police and struck two officers with gunfire.

The attacker, 42-year-old Shamsud Din Jabbar, is dead. Police said Jabbar was wearing “military gear.” Investigators found an ISIS flag at the scene of the attack. Authorities indicated that others may have been involved.

Also, on New Year’s morning in Las Vegas, a Tesla Cybertruck exploded in front of the Trump hotel. Authorities said they were investigating it as a possible “terrorist” attack.

The FBI has a specific definition for the word terrorism:

Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

International terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).

The FBI says a “domestic terrorism incident” is “an ideologically-driven criminal act.”

Dive deeper into the federal criminal code for a deeper definition of “terrorism.” 18 U.S.C. 2331(5) states:

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States

Look to the Homeland Security Act for another definition of terrorism:

18) The term “terrorism” means any activity that—

(A) involves an act that—

(i) is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; and

(ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision of the United States;

(B) appears to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

The Associated Press Stylebook provides this guidance on the use of the word “terrorist”:

AP generally avoids labeling someone a “terrorist” on its own, preferring to cite competent law enforcement officials or other credible authorities. Instead, we describe the specific actions we are reporting on and what we know about the perpetrators’ motives.

There is little clear agreement around the world on what qualifies as terrorism, although it normally refers to the intentional use of force or violence primarily to intimidate and demoralize for political gain.

That AP policy has existed for over two decades and has persisted even after internal deliberations over whether to make an exception to that rule. John Daniszewski, the AP’s vice president for standards, said editors reconsidered the definition after the Oct. 20, 2023, attack on civilians in Israel, but the AP stuck to its definition because, as the AP Stylebook says, the words terrorist and terrorism “have become politicized, and often are applied inconsistently.”

Even when news organizations, like the BBC, use guidelines similar to the AP’s standard, they come under attack for not using the word “terrorist” when describing activities like the Hamas attacks in Israel. In reporting about the criticism, the BBC wrote, “Veteran BBC foreign correspondent John Simpson said, ‘calling someone a terrorist means you’re taking sides.”’ The article continued,

A BBC spokesperson said, “We always take our use of language very seriously. Anyone watching or listening to our coverage will hear the word ‘terrorist’ used many times – we attribute it to those who are using it, for example, the UK Government.”

The International Centre for Counter-Terrorism noted, “While ‘terrorism’ is one of the most widely used terms in adversarial political discourse, there is still no international consensus about its exact meaning. “Terrorism remains a contested concept as also exemplified in the well-known saying: ‘One man’s terrorist is the other man’s freedom fighter,’”

The organization’s 2023 report stated, “Others no longer talk about ‘terrorism’ and prefer the term ‘violent extremism’. However, such a shift away from ‘terrorism’ to defining ‘extremism’ does not solve much.”

The report clarified:

Extremism, even ‘violent extremism’, is not the same as terrorism, although there can be some overlap when it comes to some of the ideologies of some terrorists and extremists. While extremists do not define themselves as such, both past and present terrorists (some – not all) have proudly called themselves ‘terrorists.’ Osama Bin Laden had no qualms to admit that Al Qaeda engaged in what he called “good terrorism.” However, suggesting some kind of equivalence between “good terrorism” and “just war”, would be misleading.

Be specific: describe the act

The best way to avoid the debate over whether an action is an act of terrorism is to focus more on the action than on the description of the action.

Oxford professor Stathis N. Kalyvas offered 10 descriptions of political violence that are more specific than generic description of terrorism:

1. interstate war
2. civil war
3. state repression
4. genocide
5. ethnic cleansing
6. intercommunal violence
7. organized crime/cartel violence
8. military coup
9. mass protest/rebellion
10. political assassination

The ITTC said journalists should make considerations to accurately describe, for example, an airplane hijacking that has different underlying motives. If they took over the plane to fly to a location to escape, then the incident, while frightening, “does it not make it an act of true terrorism.” But the ITTC said if the hijackers demanded the government take action, such as to release suspects being held in a federal prison or the hijackers would crash the plane, then that would be truly “terroristic.”

Both hijackings create fear, and both are criminal acts, but the underlying motivation to force government action is key to defining the action, the ITTC said, adding, “The assassination of a blood-thirsty tyrant will not create terror among the public while other assassinations — especially a series of assassinations where the victim serves only an instrument to scare others – is considered terroristic.”

This is not a new debate, starting with the suffix ‘ism’

“Terrorism” implies the person who commits the act of violence is somehow connected with a political philosophy, such as in “fanatic” and “fanaticism.” In the 1700s, the word “terrorism” was most associated with the French Revolution, when it was used to define the illegal use of power. But by the early 1900s, Russian-American anarchist and author Alexander Berkman wrote, “Terrorism was considered a means of avenging a popular wrong, inspiring fear in the enemy, and also calling attention to the evil against which the act of terror was directed.”

There is no internationally accepted description of the word “terrorism” or “terrorist,” despite repeated attempts by various commissions and councils to come to an agreement. In 2021, the Sixth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly could not agree on a definition. The disagreements focused on state actions in China, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and beyond.

A UN publication described the core of the difficulty in coming to a universally accepted description of terrorism and terrorist:

A major hindrance in the way of achieving a widely-accepted definition of political terrorism is the negative emotional connotation of the term,” wrote Ariel Merari, professor at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, Tel Aviv University. “Terrorism has become merely another derogatory word, rather than a descriptor of a specific type of activity. Usually, people use the term as a disapproving label for a whole variety of phenomena which they do not like, without bothering to define precisely what constitutes terroristic behavior.

Don’t give oxygen to terrorists by publicizing grievances

Journalists should be especially careful in how they describe attackers. Avoid phrases that might illicit admiration for the attacker such as “mastermind behind the attack” or calling an attack “sophisticated.”

The repeated use of graphic images and video may unintentionally reward acts of terrorism and inspire copycats. Each time a journalist uses a graphic image of violence, they should ask themselves if it contributes new understanding to the story. They should explain why they use, or do not use, such images or descriptions.

Terrorism is meant to frighten masses of people through usually small-scale targeted attacks. People are far more likely to die from disease than terrorism. Most terrorist attacks target police and the military. The Global Terrorism Database summarized:

In almost every country, concern about terrorist attacks is high. This is even true in countries where they are rare.

The chart shows the share of respondents in representative surveys that worried “very much” or “a great deal” about a terrorist attack.

In most countries, more than half of all people said they are worried about terrorism. In some, it was more than 80%.

When we compare the share of people worried about terrorism to how many people die from it, we see that concerns are also high in countries that rarely experience terrorism.

This means that terrorism’s reach goes much farther than the people who experience attacks themselves or have loved ones get injured or die in them.

The goal of terrorism is often to intimidate people. Surveys show that this is often successful.

Terrorists do not fit movie portrayals

University of Maryland professor Susan Moeller, author of “Packaging Terrorism,” wrote, “When terrorists are talked about as a monolithic enemy rather than as distinctive actors looking to achieve specific political ends, when terrorists are portrayed as brainwashed religious fanatics not as rational political actors, terrorism seems inexplicable.”

Research published by the Royal Society of Medicine pointed out:

Most terrorists are not mentally ill, and most do not have violent or psychopathic personalities (such individuals would find it very difficult to remain covert as part of a ‘sleeping cell’)

Not all terrorists come from impoverished or disadvantaged backgrounds (e.g. Osama bin Laden.) Disadvantaged environments are more likely to produce sympathizers than terrorists

Not all terrorists are religious fanatics, and many belong to secular groups (those who do belong to extremist religious groups may be motivated by the prospects of immortality and the rich rewards following their ascendancy)

Terrorists are not typically ‘brain-washed’ or coerced into terrorist activity, although there is often a charismatic and inspirational leader

Regularly found among terrorists are: poor self-esteem, a sense of hopelessness, shame, a need for revenge, and a sense of vulnerability.

The FBI said terrorism has evolved in recent years:

Lone offenders: Terrorist threats have evolved from large-group conspiracies toward lone-offender attacks. These individuals often radicalize online and mobilize to violence quickly. Without a clear group affiliation or guidance, lone offenders are challenging to identify, investigate, and disrupt. The FBI relies on partnerships and tips from the public to identify and thwart these attacks.

The internet and social media: International and domestic violent extremists have developed an extensive presence on the Internet through messaging platforms and online images, videos, and publications. These facilitate the groups’ ability to radicalize and recruit individuals who are receptive to extremist messaging.

A UN-published handbook that is aimed at guiding journalists covering acts of terrorism says:

The media are no doubt at the heart of this issue, often referred to as the “oxygen of terrorism”, in the famous words of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. “Terrorist attacks,” wrote Brian Jenkins back in 1995, “are often carefully choreographed to attract the attention of the electronic media and the international press. Terrorism is aimed at the people watching, not at the actual victims.”

The friction that journalists navigate in covering acts of terrorism is trying to explain how an attacker became radicalized while not glorifying that person’s actions.

Be transparent

Journalism organizations should not ban the use of the word terrorism or terrorist but should not adopt other people’s language as their own. Politicians, police and military leaders each have motivations for using hyperventilated language to describe attacks. Journalists can ethically quote those officials but closely attribute that language.

When a violent attack is linked to a group like ISIS that claims a religious affiliation to Islam, it is worth remembering that no religion embraces violence against innocent victims.

Here are some guidelines from media organizations:

(BBC)

(Reuters)

(Reuters)

(CBC)

(Mother Jones)