– The “Synagogue Killer” and the “lone white supremacist ”

(1)

The “Synagogue Killer” and the “lone white supremacist

”

–

A critical discourse analysis of Breitbart’s, New York Times’s, and USA

Today’s news coverage of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting and the

Christchurch mosque shooting

By Juliane Glahn S2712687

M.A. Journalism Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Rik Smit Second Reader: Dr. Ansgard Heinrich

30,110 words March 3, 2020

(2)

Introduction

The footage shows someone holding up a rifle covered in white scribbles. The shooter moves forward. Approaches a mosque. Soon after, shots ring out and they do not stop. As the shooter continues his attack, people around the world can follow it live. Recording with a camera attached to himself, the attacker streams his attack on the social media platform Facebook. Those who do not watch the stream live can access it later, on one of the many platforms the video has spread to. Months before, in a city thousands of kilometers away, another shooter posts hateful, anti-Semitic comments on a platform called Gab. One day, the last sentence of a post reads “Screw your optics, I’m going in”. Minutes later, he storms into a synagogue and begins shooting attendees.

The Pittsburgh synagogue shooting and the Christchurch mosque shooting are two of the most prominent mass shootings recently motivated by alt-right ideology. While literature in the past has focused on news media’s coverage of mass shootings in countries such as the U.S., there is still little to no attention given to how news outlets cover alt-right terrorism, even though attacks of this kind are increasing (Ng and Stamper 2018). Instead, most literature focuses on how school shootings are reported on. Furthermore, previous research does not appear to contrast the way coverage of domestic and foreign shootings differ – or if there is a difference at all.

The alt-right movement is constituted by extreme conservatism and white nationalism (May and Feldman 2018), fearing Caucasians ‘dying out’ because of non-whites (Hutchinson 2019). In some cases, these convictions can lead to members taking violent action to prevent this. Because the crimes committed by the two attackers in Pittsburgh and Christchurch were motivated by anti-immigrant/non-white beliefs, the shootings can be considered to be examples of alt-right terrorism. This thesis will analyze news coverage of these two mass shootings in U.S. news media. A critical discourse analysis of articles on these events published by three different outlets aims at uncovering how American news media address the subject of alt-right mass shootings, which is important since – even though the extremist nature of the attacks makes them interesting to news media (Silva and Capellan 2018; 2019) – these types of attacks are currently under-researched. It can reveal which elements news organizations choose to emphasize as well as demonstrate how the dominant political orientation of an outlet impacts news coverage. The research question aimed at guiding this thesis is thus:

RQ: How do the American outlets New York Times, USA Today, and Breitbart

discursively position themselves in their online written news coverage about alt-right mass shootings?

(4)

Since this thesis takes a comparative approach, two sub-questions will help guide the research. Firstly, are the foreign and domestic shootings represented differently, and if so, how? Secondly, what differences can be found between the selected news outlets? This thesis aims to find the main differences and similarities in covering a domestic compared to a foreign shooting of similar nature, which part/s of an event are emphasized as well as differences and similarities between the selected outlets. These outlets were chosen because they all deliver primarily written news and reach an audience nation-wide. Furthermore, they represent coverage geared towards audiences with different political orientations, which will be elaborated on in the methodology section.

The two selected cases took place within half a year. For the shooting in a foreign country, this thesis will analyze the coverage of the Christchurch mosque shooting, which happened on March 15, 2019 in New Zealand. 50 people were killed. 50 more were injured. The domestic shooting of which the news coverage will be analyzed is the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting which happened October 27, 2018 in the United States. Here, eleven people were killed and seven injured. News coverage related to these events sometimes lasted weeks after they originally occurred. The analysis in this thesis will look at all three outlets’ coverage within one month after the initial attacks in order to reveal how they represent the events and how or if their discursive strategies change.

Despite some important differences, these two events and their news coverage can be compared. Of course, these differences need to be acknowledged. While both events count as mass shootings, the mosque shooting in New Zealand resulted in almost five times as many victims as the shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in the United States (50 vs. 11) and more than seven times more people were injured (7 vs. 50). Furthermore, one was an attack on two mosques and thus the Muslim community, while the other one was of anti-Semitic nature. However, there are still similarities that can be drawn between the two that justify comparing the coverage of these two events. Firstly, the attackers – an Australian and an American man – were described as being a white supremacist (for example in an article by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) and as part of the alt-right. Additionally, the attackers targeted a specific religious group, the Muslim and the Jewish community. While these groups obviously experience discrimination in different ways and have vastly different histories, this leads to a resemblance in the shooters’ intentions. Moreover, the internet played a significant role in both attacks. Made possible through widespread use of the internet and digital technology, the shooters used the internet to publicize a particular message. Before the shooting in the synagogue, this attacker had been using his social media to post increasingly conservative and eventually white

(5)

supremacist content, including anti-Semitic posts; he even hinted at planning an attack on a website (Lorenz 2018). In the case of the Christchurch mosques shooting, the shooter also used social media to publicize his beliefs and acts. Here, he shared posts that spoke out in favor of “ethnic cleansing” of Muslims in Balkan countries (Schindler 2019). For him, social media and the internet played an even bigger role during the mosque shooting itself. During the shooting, the Australian used the broadcast function of the platform Facebook in order to stream his attack live to an audience.

While gun violence related incidents with single victims occur more, they are covered less by media since they do not have the same large-scale impact that mass shootings do. Mass shootings on the other hand draw loads of (news) media attention. As McGinty et al. point out, “[a]lthough mass shootings are rare compared with other forms of gun violence … extensive news media coverage of mass shootings draws public attention to the problem in a way that ‘everyday’ gun violence does not” (2014, 406). This is of special interest to the alt-right extremists and terrorists, who seek attention and fame for their ideology. According to Silva and Capellan, “[t]he news media widens the breadth of the audience and even augments the goals of certain types of perpetrators” (2019, 79). As they point out, some shooters either want media attention due to a desire to be known or because they need media to spread word about a particular ideology (ibid.). This part is especially interesting in the two cases chosen for this thesis. Both attackers wanted to draw attention to their ideologies. Yet, they were not as fully dependent on news media reports for that as shooters in the past may have been. Both found a platform for their views online – by finding likeminded people and being provided with a tool to publicize their beliefs and, in the case of the Christchurch shooter, even the attack itself.

The internet is crucial to the attackers’ deeds. It offers a place to publicize beliefs and to connect with likeminded people. According to Moley and Yakeley, extremists seek out others sharing their views and “this group identity may be found and fostered in a virtual community on the Internet” (2014, 350). This gives the extremist a sense of belonging, a feeling of being understood and could possibly make the extremist believe his actions are justified or at least supported by an online community. Individuals “are exposed to the influential hero via the virtual community and radical online propaganda,” state Post, McGinnis, and Moody (2014, 323). While this article’s focus is on Islamic terrorism, it shows how individuals can self-radicalize as well as be self-radicalized by groups via internet. Ultimately, as shown in Fielitz and Thurston (2018), the online space has helped right-wing individuals transfer ideology online into action offline.

(6)

Although school shootings are very different from the kind of shooting that will be analyzed in this paper, some of the analysis around media coverage surrounding those can apply to other shootings as well. For example, Lindgren (2011) takes a closer look at school shooting clips posted onto the platform YouTube. He notes that mass shootings are already interesting for media coverage because of their violent nature, but also that “when these events are mediated by a new technology such as YouTube, media interest is even more intensified” (Lindgren 2011, 124). Since the internet and social media are so vital to the selected cases, it is interesting to examine which role the outlets assign to the internet or if they mention it at all.

While this thesis will look at American media only, the way international media choose to frame certain shootings can also be insightful. In her article, Jorndrup (2016) points out that Danish media during the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris constantly drew a connection between France and Denmark, thus presenting the international event through a domestic lens. This shows how an event happening abroad can be tied to the reporting nation and become part of a narrative there. Furthermore, the article shows how and why journalists might sometimes abandon objective reporting during terrorist attacks in favor of an emotional angle. Based on previous work by Schudson, Jorndrup names three incidences during which this might occur: “(1) moments of tragedy, (2) situations of public danger and (3) threats to national security” (2016, 88). This hints at the possibility of reports of mass shootings being framed in a less neutral and more emotional manner. While studying international media outlets could also be insightful, this thesis focuses on American outlets because of the important role gun violence, mass shootings, and discussions around gun control play in the nation culturally and politically. Furthermore, the outlets cater to different political backgrounds and may consequently frame the events differently – for example in how they condemn the attacks. The New York Times is regarded as a liberal news outlet, whereas USA Today is more in the center, and Breitbart on the right side of the political spectrum.

The theoretical framework will discuss mass shootings and gun culture as well as the media’s coverage of them. This will help understand the significance of the events in both the U.S. and New Zealand and aid in understanding how media might report on them. Secondly, the relationship between extremism, terrorism, and the media will be examined. Doing so will provide useful insights into how the two sides interact and the role media play in covering extremist attacks. Lastly, alt-right terrorism and its relationship with social media will be explained, which, since the internet played an important role in the shooters’ attacks, is another important factor. Overall, this will provide a general framework for understanding the role shootings play in the U.S., how they might be covered in the news and why they are covered

(7)

this way. The theoretical framework is followed by the methodology section, laying out the selected method and providing background on the news outlets which can help in understanding why an outlet might frame an event a certain way. The method used to analyze the corpus is Critical Discourse Analysis, or CDA. This interpretative approach functions as a lens through which the gathered material will be analyzed, inspired by the understanding gained from the theoretical framework. This section is followed by the analysis and discussion of findings.

(8)

Theoretical Framework

Mass shootings, gun culture, and the media

Comprehending gun culture and mass shootings as well as how news media treat the two in their coverage is an important step before conducting CDA since this provides the foundation for understanding cultural references in texts. Mass shootings seem to occur with shocking frequency, especially in the U.S. but also in other parts of the world. Shootings – mass shootings as well as individual shootings – have occurred in both the United States and in New Zealand, gaining high media interest. However, firearms do not hold the same meaning in both countries. Because of the meaning the U.S. assigns guns, it is also possible that American news media have a way of reporting on mass shootings that aligns with this particular U.S. cultural context. Not every shooting makes it into the news, but there are some that attract a great deal of media attention. While nothing may end up on the news when one person falls victim to gun violence, things change in the event of a mass shooting. While everyday gun violence results in more deaths statistically, media pay more attention to mass shootings (McGinty et al. 2018). As Silva and Capellan observe, partially due to media coverage, “mass public shootings have become engrained in America’s collective psyche” (2019, 79). The Columbine High School massacre in 1999 “was one [of] the most highly covered events” at the time (Lankford and Madfis 2018, 153). In some cases, mass shootings were covered more than any other topic, including celebrities and sports events (ibid.). In TV broadcasts, school shootings occasionally take up more than half of airtime (Maguire, Weatherby, and Mathers 2002). In written news, mass shootings may result in multiple articles in one day (Silva and Capellan 2019).

News media never report on all types of crimes committed – besides there not being enough time or space, not all would fit news selection criteria. Scholars underline that different types of crimes are reported on more often than others, all depending on how exciting or unusual they are (Silva and Capellan 2019; Maguire, Weatherby, and Mathers 2002). This results in, for example, murder being covered more frequently than property crime, although the latter occurs way more (Silva and Capellan 2019). Mass shootings are – despite the horrible nature of both – more unusual than a shooting of an individual, thus making them more interesting for news media to cover. In general, an “average mass public shooting results in 3.3 fatalities and 4.2 injured victims” (Silva and Capellan 2019, 86). Scholars found that the more victims there are, the more media coverage is likely to follow (Lankford and Madfis 2018; Silva and Capellan 2018). More precisely, “[t]he odds of a mass public shooting being covered by the news increases by 144% for every additional fatality” (Silva and Capellan 2019, 90). The more victims there are, dead or wounded, the more shocking and out of the ordinary a news report

(9)

on the event becomes, increasing its importance to news outlets. This is of special interest to terrorists, since as Nacos states, “[r]egardless of their grievances, goals, size, and secular or religious convictions, all terrorist groups strive to maximize their media impact” (2019, 334).

But even among mass shootings, news media are very selective. For example, Holody and Daniel (2017) found that school shootings tend to receive more media attention. Silva and Capellan (2018) name lone-wolf shootings, shooters working alone and without any direct connection to their victims, as another type of mass shooting focused on by news media. Though in the case of alt-right extremism, lone-wolf shooters may not actually be alone after all but rather part of a community. How this community forms will be elaborated on in greater detail in the section “Alt right terrorism and social media”. The motivation of lone-wolfs to commit such shootings is ideological (Silva and Capellan 2018). Lone-wolf shootings count as “the most lethal type of mass public shooters” and “are more likely to target strangers” (ibid., 1323). Only around 30 percent of all mass shootings are committed by school shooters and lone-wolf shooters, but they make up a majority of mass shootings covered by news media (ibid.). While some mass shootings, for example in the work environment, never receive any coverage, 90 percent of all shootings by lone-wolf terrorists and 80 percent of school shootings make it into the news (ibid.). This makes lone-wolf terrorist shootings the most popular type of shooting for news outlets to report on.

This knowledge explains the selected outlets’ extensive coverage of the two events. Both shootings were executed by two people who can be – at least at first glance – classified as lone wolves. While both shooters had similar ideological convictions, they were not part of an organized group and acted of their own volition. The shootings led to many victims and targeted two specific religious groups. Because of their shocking nature, reporting on these two mass shootings was of interest to news media, thus serving as further examples of news media’s focus on and fascination with lone-wolf shootings.

Understanding which shootings are reported but also how media report on them is important, also because of news media’s relationship with the public. Media are a major provider of information (Hawdon, Oksanen, and Räsänen 2012). When reporting on shootings, outlets can adopt specific angles, decide which information will be published, as well as what will not be spoken about at all (Hawdon, Oksanen, and Räsänen 2012). There is a “connection between how mass shootings are presented via news coverage and how they are understood by the public” (Holody and Daniel 2017, 81). Thus, “[b]y selecting and changing frames of coverage among and within news events, mass media producers influence the nature of reality presented to the public” (Muschert and Carr 2006, 748). Consequently, scholars have

(10)

researched what news outlets focus on when covering mass shootings. Though most of this research focuses on coverage of school shootings by American media, it can still reveal which elements of a mass shooting news outlets would highlight the most in other types of shootings as well. If news media wanted to evoke public sympathy, for example, the focus would be on victims rather than societal effects and experts speaking on the subject (Hawdon, Oksanen, Räsänen 2012). These scholars found that, in the U.S., outlets are more likely to write about victims and use locals (i.e. people who knew the victims or lived nearby the scene of the shooting) in their coverage (ibid.). Media discussed the victims’ character and private lives and “even a newspaper as formal as the New York Times devoted space to connect the victims’ faces to the tragedy, thereby highlighting the tragedy’s consequences and expressing solidarity with its victims” (ibid., 857).

Coverage can evoke sympathy when focusing on victims, but it can also present a wider picture instead of just concentrating on personal or local aspects. While research by Muschert and Carr (2006) also shows that coverage focused on community, so a local angle, and the individual aspect – reporting on both the victims and the shooter – these were not the most dominant elements in news according to them. Instead, they found that the focus was predominantly on societal frames, meaning the impact and discussion surrounding the event nation-wide (ibid.). However, Muschert and Carr also point out that this develops over time and that, in the coverage of shootings, “earlier discussions tended to focus on the present effect of the incidents on the communities in which they occurred, while over time this discussion gave way to the impact and meaning of the shootings on a societal level (2006, 758). After covering the event itself, many started focusing on how the event impacted society in general (Muschert 2009). News mostly focus on the event itself and immediate developments, and only present a brief outlook on the future, so what the event could change eventually (Muschert and Carr 2006). Since this thesis focuses on reports 30 days after the shootings, this is important for the study, because coverage is likely to change and reflect the shift from a local perspective to one focusing more on society in general.

Occasionally, news goes beyond a national level and instead view an event through a different lens. Jorndrup (2016) recounts a mass shooting in Copenhagen that occurred shortly after the attacks on French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo. In covering the French case in Denmark, Danish reporters constantly emphasized a national angle and highlighted connections between the two countries, predominately by comparing Charlie Hebdo to a similar Danish publication (ibid.). In the case of the shooting in Denmark, national media did not present the event as an isolated shooting, but a terror attack (ibid.). As such, it was placed in context of “a

(11)

broader conflict between radicalized Islamic forces and the freedom and virtues of the Western world” (ibid., 86). This shows that, in instances relating to a specific pattern or broader phenomenon of terrorism, news media can connect individual events. If this has happened for Islamic terrorism, there is a possibility this can also be the case for other types of terrorism, such as alt-right terrorism and thus the coverage of the two selected events.

News media reports can also include political perspectives on mass shootings, specifically gun policies. Recently, mass shootings “have received extensive news media coverage and prompted a national dialogue about the causes of and appropriate policy responses to gun violence” (McGinty et al. 2018, 406). McGinty et al. state that “[t]he discussion of mass shootings in the news media has addressed a wide array of issues that may contribute to gun violence, including widespread availability of guns in the United States,” amongst other reasons (2018, 406). In researching the most frequently used frames in news reports about mass shootings, specifically the Columbine High School shooting, Holody and Daniel (2017) found that gun control was a recurring frame. The authors discovered that

“Related to this frame is the common tendency in coverage to assign blame, either to individuals or to societal problems overall, for why a mass shooting occurs; among the most common societal-level targets of blame in the United States is the need to create, alter, or enforce gun control legislation…” (ibid., 83).

However, if gun control comes up in news reports, “a larger percentage of the national articles framed the shootings as an issue of gun control, and most of these positively supported the argument that better gun control could have prevented these shootings or can prevent shootings in the future” (ibid., 93). Though most articles by national newspapers present increased regulations as positive (51 percent), it is also important to mention that 42 percent were neutral on the subject (ibid.). Gun regulation, perhaps especially when related to mass shootings, tends to heighten partisan attachments as previously discussed. So while news media can create a feeling of community and sympathy by focusing on victims, “if the media coverage of a tragedy frames the event in a divisive manner, it can highlight pre-existing social divides within the community and produce conflict” (Hawdon, Oksanen, and Räsänen 2012, 851), like spark a controversial debate on stricter gun laws. It will thus be interesting if and how the New York Times, Breitbart, and USA Today discuss gun control in relation to the shootings and if they adopt a positive, neutral, or negative stance towards it.

(12)

In order to understand why the discussion around gun control can produce conflict, it is crucial to understand the value (some) Americans attach to firearms. Guns play a special role in the history of the United States of America as well as today. In the words of Taxman, “[f]irearms have been part of the United State’s culture since America’s birth” (2016, 113). From the Revolutionary War to prohibiting slaves from owning arms to various (attempted) assassinations of presidents to mass shootings, guns are ever-present in the country’s history (Briggs 2017). Despite this, certain ideas that exist around guns in the past are just myths. During Western expansion, for example, gun use was not as heavy as depicted in movies (Gabor 2016). In reality, according to Gabor (2016), guns on the frontier and during the Revolutionary Era were restricted: firearms could often be confiscated, and early versions of gun registration existed in some areas. Thus, historically, guns may have always been part of the United States, but ownership and use thereof were not as common as one might think. This builds a stark contrast to the situation now.

Today, guns are almost a part of everyday life. This comes with widespread gun ownership, but also with a high number of acts of gun violence. “Whether or not you own a gun, you likely live within range of someone’s gun,” Briggs (2017, 3) states. According to the author, 42 percent of American adults own a gun (ibid.). Furthermore, the “total number of guns in America continues to rise and stands somewhere between 270 and 310 million – approaching one gun per person” (ibid., 5). To put this into global perspective, Gabor points out that, in 2007, “Americans owned … 31 % of the world’s estimated 875 million privately owned guns, while accounting for less than 5 % of the world’s population” (2016, 6). But it is not just gun ownership that plays a big role. Guns impact the nation in another way too. In the United States, gun violence occurs significantly more than in other developed countries (Gabor 2016). There are hundreds of thousands of victims of gun violence every year (Briggs 2017). Per day, nearly 100 people lose their lives because of gun-related incidents such as murder, suicide, or even accidents (Gabor 2016). With (statistically) just about every American owning a gun and the amount of gun-related deaths, firearms are obviously an integral part of American life.

The many private gun owners in the U.S. as well as the National Rifle Association (NRA) place high value on gun ownership. The NRA has more than 4 million members and is thus a powerful force in gun discussions (Smith-Walter et al. 2016). To the association, the possibility of owning a gun is part of the American ideal of liberty. Private individuals, mostly conservatives to whom individualistic values are particularly important, are part of America’s gun culture (Joslyn and Haider-Markel 2017). The authors say that “gun ownership offers social identity; a longstanding ethos immersed in conservative ideology … represented by the

(13)

powerful National Rifle Association” (ibid., 433). Owning a gun becomes a part of some people’s identity, strengthening the importance of guns in their lives.

When trying to understand why firearms hold such importance in American society and politics today, discussing the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is inevitable. As perhaps the United States’ most significant document, the Constitution dominates talks considering gun laws. The Second Amendment reads “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. However, the actual meaning behind this amendment is often debated. Briggs (2017) underlines that there are multiple factors that are considered when interpreting this part of the Constitution. For example, even the placement of commas and how this could affect the intention behind the Second Amendment is a topic of discussion, as well as the historical context in which it was written (Briggs 2017). This leads to some interpretations opposing each other. As Briggs puts it, “[s]ince the day the ink dried on the Bill of Rights in 1791, scholars and jurists have debated legal questions associated with guns” (2017, 7). With multiple possibilities to interpret the Second Amendment and no references other than this one sentence, agreeing on a single, uniform understanding of the amendment seems nearly impossible.

Whenever the topic of guns in the United States comes up, the conversation often quickly moves to gun control and political policies. After a mass shooting took place at an elementary school in 2012, then-President Obama “announced gun control as the central issue of his second term” (Joslyn and Haider-Markel 2017, 429). But “[e]ven on the heels of such a horrific incident, Congress failed to pass a law that would have expanded background checks to all guns sales” (Gabor 2016, 3). This was almost seven years ago. Every time a mass shooting happens, there are calls for political action. However, Gabor (2016) found that not only have stricter gun laws not been put into place, but gun rights have actually expanded regarding where firearms can be carried or used. Despite “shocking mass killings during the last twenty years – events that might have caused a public rethinking of gun ownership – support for stricter gun laws has not increased in the past decade” (Briggs 2017, 4).

The reason behind this are partisan attachments and ongoing disagreements between Republicans and Democrats on who or what is to blame for shootings. As Joslyn and Haider-Markel summarize, “Democrats implicated institutional shortcomings regarding gun laws and the healthcare of the mentally ill, while Republicans placed blame on individual assailants” (2017, 432). Put differently: Democrats believe shootings happen because of a lack of governmental action while Republicans believe that no one but the actual shooter is to blame for a shooting. Research has found that group attachments strengthen after mass shootings

(14)

(Joslyn and Haider-Markel 2017). The authors attribute gun culture mostly to conservative values and thus Republicans, saying that “gun owners are anchored by their commitment to guns and buoyed by a larger gun culture that views such troubling events as beyond the reach of government regulation” (ibid., 433). While people without guns are more likely to be in support of stricter gun policies and believe that these could prevent or at least decrease the amount of mass shootings, gun owners do not believe that there is any correlation between gun availability and mass shootings (ibid.). With the two major political sides in the U.S. having opposing views, there is no political change.

But defenders of guns do not just deny any connection between mass shootings and gun laws. Rather, they present gun ownership as a solution and preventative method (Briggs 2017). While different political groups think of mass shootings as tragedies, they reach different conclusions on how such events could have been prevented (Smith-Walter et al. 2016). To one part of the population, decreasing gun availability and ownership in general would be an efficient strategy to eliminate mass shootings. To the other part of the population, guns are an effective method of defense. This group believes that gun owners can protect themselves, meaning that if a shooter attacks them, they have equal means for defense.

With such strong convictions attached to it, whether a news outlet shows gun control as inefficient or useful can lead to heated discussions. If choosing to present gun control either positively or negatively, a news outlet aligns itself with liberal or conservative standpoints. This can also occur in the coverage of the three selected outlets of the events.

Shootings occur in a range of countries, but the responses to shootings differ greatly. In New Zealand, guns do not hold the same meaning as in America. As Besley and Peters put it, “[f]or New Zealand, gun ownership is a privilege, for the US, the 2nd amendment provides a right to bear arms” (2019, 4). After a shooting targeting Muslims in Christchurch in March 2019, which will be discussed more later, the government of New Zealand took action almost immediately: “gun law changes have been rushed through New Zealand – and the government has also indicated it could introduce new hate speech laws too” (Peacock 2019, 22). The government banned assault rifles as well as parts that make it possible to convert regular guns into military-grade weapons (Besley and Peters 2019). The fact that guns are not nearly as important and do not have the same impact in New Zealand as they do in America also becomes apparent when searching for literature on the topic. There is little available on gun research in the country. And, in contrast to literature focusing on the U.S., there is no mention of gun culture. This becomes relevant when analyzing reports on the Christchurch shooting, since the

(15)

three news outlets might have to convey this different national perspective to an American audience.

In summary, lone-wolf shootings, such as the Pittsburgh synagogue and Christchurch shooting, are compelling for news media to report on because of their shocking nature. In covering mass shootings, previous research showed that news media tend to report on local perspectives (e.g. an event’s effect of the community) first before focusing on the more general, societal impact (Muschert 2009; Muschert and Carr 2006), which might also be the case for the coverage analyzed in this thesis. Gun culture is very prevalent in the U.S. and many attach value to gun ownership. While conservatives tend to view guns as a defense method and not as cause of mass shootings, liberals connect gun availability and mass shootings, which leads to two completely opposing viewpoints in the discussion surrounding gun control (Joslyn and Haider-Markel 2017; Briggs 2017). In covering mass shootings, news media frequently include the subject of gun control and can support or oppose one or the other standpoint, potentially causing conflict. Knowing this, the analysis in this thesis can reveal which position the news outlets take.

The relationship between extremism, terrorism, and the media

Because this thesis analyzes coverage of events tied to the alt-right, it is also necessary to understand the ideology and motivation of this group, also to better grasp how the news outlets choose to present it. Historically speaking, the ideological right wing is not a new political movement that has emerged in the last few years. Right-wingers and fascists have been around for centuries and rose to power in large numbers before and during the Second World War (May and Feldman 2018). The alt-right movement that is around currently is simply a new wave of extreme conservatism and white nationalism, consisting largely of white men (ibid.). The movement fears something referred to as the Great Replacement, explained by several authors as a phenomenon where Caucasians are dying out because of non-whites or -Europeans (Hutchinson 2019; Besley and Peters 2019). According to Hutchinson, “[f]ar-right extremist ideology, like other types of extremism, offers themes and narratives of hope [and] victimhood” (2019, 23). In this case, these extremists view non-whites as a threat to their entire life and being. In order to ‘defend’ themselves against this, members of the alt-right can take drastic measures.

What everyone seems to agree on is that the extreme right has intensified over the last several years. During the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal, the American right viewed his policies as a threat to individual and states’ rights (Mulloy 2018). Some groups opposing the president formed, and while they did not have many members, “they were noisy,

(16)

and they were highly visible, and they were certainly troublesome” (ibid., 13). This was decades ago, but the right wing never disappeared, it only ebbed away and returned at various times throughout history. When Obama was president, the right opposed his ‘socialist’ ideas such as his attempt at universal healthcare and the regulation of Wall Street (ibid.). While some of those might have been members of the alt-right movement, opposing Obama’s ideas was not unique to the extreme right, but also applied to conservatives.

In the last few years, however, the rhetoric has intensified, and the alt-right has become way more visible, perhaps because its members think that their ideology is even present among the political powerful to some degree. During Trump’s campaign for President, he repeatedly attacked minorities (Ng and Stamper 2018). Furthermore, President Trump supported the Second Amendment during his campaign (Mulloy 2018). After he won, hate crimes noticeably increased (Ng and Stamper 2018). President Trump wanted to and partially succeeded in limiting immigration, specifically of Mexicans and Muslims (ibid.). Based on this behavior, which is partially reflective of some extreme right-wing ideas such as aversion to certain religious groups and cultures, Ng and Stamper state that

“Trump’s election to the White House also seems to have energized the ‘alt-right’ movement, which frequently uses unverified and completely fake news and ‘post-truths’ in social media outlets, sometimes highlighting racial, gender, religious progressives and cultural differences in negative ways.” (2018, 2).

In terms of terrorism, the U.S. has been the target of several attacks, and the main focus is on attacks executed by terrorist groups such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Elaborating on these would distract too much from this thesis, as they have little to do with attacks by the alt-right. What is relevant however, is that President Trump signed an Executive Order, designed to prevent citizens from certain Muslim countries from entering the U.S. with the goal of preventing terrorists from arriving in the country (Ng and Stamper 2018). However, “no terrorist accused of crimes against the USA has come from any of these countries” (ibid., 6). Here, it becomes clear that President Trump displayed Islamophobic ideas, also prevalent amongst the alt-right, by equating Muslims with terrorists, without caring about where terrorists really came from. President Trump also avoided placing blame on extremists after a far-right rally turned violent in Charlottesville (Mulloy 2018). While President Trump cannot be equated with the alt-right, some of his actions and opinions that that community agrees with may have made members feel more comfortable and supported in their beliefs, even if this was unintentional.

(17)

But in general, inclusivity is not only an issue in the U.S., but rather a global problem Ng and Stamper (2018) and Besley and Peters see terrorism becoming a part of everyday life at times of “the global growth of white supremacist extremism” (2019, 4). New Zealand is not excluded from this phenomenon. Very recently, a violent terrorist attack related to the alt-right movement took place in the country. An Australian extremist attacked and shot Muslims at two mosques in Christchurch. Since New Zealand is a place in which fairly few violent events have taken place, “[a]mid the shock and disbelief that happened in otherwise peaceful Christchurch, a common theme has been that New Zealand has lost its innocence” (Besley and Peters 2019, 3). Though attacks motivated by alt-right beliefs are increasing, there is basically no research on how they are covered by news media which would show, for example, if outlets opt to present such a shooting as an isolated incident or as part of a spreading ideology. This thesis aims to shed some light on this.

Extremist incidents, because of their violent nature, are compelling for news media to report on. Covering and consequently publicizing extremists’ convictions and deeds places extremists in an interesting relationship with (news) media. In contemporary times, digital technology indisputably provides extremists with their own way of reaching an audience, yet the role of traditional media such as TV, radio, and newspapers should not be ignored. Traditional news outlets make use of some material provided or produced by terrorists (such as recordings of an attack) in their coverage (Nacos 2019). Fascinatingly, for violent events, the media might treat the internet differently, depending on the nature of the attack. Nacos (2019) mentions that traditional media might use source material by terrorists and that outlets report the release of certain videos but does not discuss what role – if any – the media assign the internet. Meanwhile, in his article, Lindgren (2011) discusses a warning about a school shooting published on YouTube. Here, traditional media were highly skeptical of the online platform and assigned it blame for the shooting (Lindgren 2011). Even while “the Internet allows contemporary terrorists to circumvent the gatekeepers of the mainstream media and communicate their propaganda directly to their various audiences” (Nacos 2019, 339), terrorists and media continue to be “in a symbiotic relationship in that they feed off each other” (ibid., 347). Because of their shocking nature, violent attacks such as (extremist) mass shootings are frequently reported; covering the event provides media with out-of-the-ordinary content and shooters receive the publicity they desired – to make their views heard for example. For this reason, several scholars as well as forces such as the FBI have asked for the media to no longer publish names and photos of murderers such as mass shooters, since this would provide them with the fame they sought out (Lankford and Madfis 2018). There is research which shows

(18)

“that media coverage provides free publicity that can have similar effects as paid advertising” (ibid., 154). Firstly, the extensive coverage brings the risk of copycats since the material might appeal to a fraction of traditional media’s audiences (ibid.). Secondly, regarding the general public, events such as mass shootings are way more prevalent in people’s minds if they are reported on frequently (ibid.). While social media or other online platforms might enable extremists to publicize their ideas and actions, traditional media can bring them to the attention of audiences otherwise not reached. It is obvious that the two selected shootings generated high media interest. Whether or to which degree the three outlets publicize the shooters’ names and photos, however, will be researched further in this study.

To summarize, though not a new movement, the alt-right appears to have gained strength in the last several years. Resultantly, alt-right attacks have also increased. Extremist attacks are of special interest to news outlets because they are so out of the ordinary. Terrorists thrive on and require media attention to publicize ideas and spread them to the widest audience possible, creating an interesting dynamic of media and extremists. By publishing attackers’ names and/or faces, media coverage can also lead to copycats and turn shooters into famous figures, which leads to the question of how much this occurs in the material subject to analysis.

Alt-right terrorism and social media

When members of the extreme right take real-life action, they do not always do so as part of an organized group. Instead, individuals can act of their own volition. As mentioned before, a person like this is referred to as a lone-wolf terrorist, or, in the words of Meloy and Yakeley a “violent true believer” (2014, 347). This individual commits violent acts such as murder in order to advance political convictions (ibid.). Lone-wolves attack people of a group opposing their views, and “violence toward others and the self is considered the only and most reasonable, if not praiseworthy, course of action” (ibid., 348). Furthermore, while they might have ideological beliefs that others share, they are not part of an organized terrorist group, but are only part of a larger group based on shared convictions, such as right-wing extremism (ibid.). Resultantly, there is no group leader giving orders, but only an individual deciding when or how to act (ibid.). According to the authors, there are less than two percent of this type of terrorist worldwide, but that does not make them harmless – after all, these terrorists do not aim to convince others of their ideology, but rather force it onto others (ibid.). Even if right-wing extremists do not have one big organization planning specific attacks, believers in this ideology are capable to act in order to impose it.

But despite not being an organized group, it would be wrong to say that alt-right extremists are never in touch with each other. Here, the internet plays a crucial role. Online,

(19)

alt-righters can find people who think like them. In Hungary, for example, the extreme right used the internet for networking and sharing their message (Karl 2018). Furthermore, right-wing extremists can share their ideology across borders and find likeminded people in places that are geographically far away from them (ibid.). The “bridge between the localized commission of far-right terrorism offline and the international community of far-right extremists is virtually joined through the use of the Internet and social media” (Hutchinson 2019, 19). Online, right-wing extremists use similar techniques as Islamic terrorists such as publishing messages and creating a specific narrative (Besley and Peters 2019). In this case, “[s]ocial media remains a huge concern in how it enables racist hate to perpetuate, to recruit and propagandise extremism and glorify violence” (ibid., 4). Moreover, the internet provides so-called echo chambers – spaces where opinions similar to one’s own circulate and exposition to another standpoint can be avoided – where messages intensify (Post, McGinnis, and Moody 2014). Because of this, the authors suspect a new wave of terrorism has emerged, the “social media revolution” (ibid., 314). The online space “has been a power that has been exploited to create a virtual community of hatred” (ibid., 315).

Some might think that, in order to come in touch with such extremists’ views, one would have to search the dark corners of the internet. But “the boundaries between mainstream social media and the ‘dark web’ is illusory” (Hutchinson 2019, 26). Internet features like algorithms create content circulation between the two (ibid.), and everyone has the potential to come across extremists’ content without too much effort. For extremists, who intentionally seek out such material, finding people similar to them is an easy task. Online points of contact enable individuals (i.e. future lone-wolf terrorists) to find a community and establish a sense of belonging. Though communication happens through a screen, personal attachment formed online is no different from the one formed in real life. In fact, “[o]nline feelings have been found to be as strong as, if not stronger than, offline feelings” (Meloy and Yakeley 2014, 353). Right-wing extremists can thus find a community supporting their opinions and form a strong bond with each other online. Because of this, it is interesting to pay attention to what degree the three news outlets present the shooters as individual attackers or as part of a larger group in this research.

The online world is not just an important space for connecting with people sharing similar views, but also when it comes to transforming online communication into real-life action. Firstly, the internet can provide a guidebook on how mass killings can be committed, and even provide information on how to construct explosives (Hutchinson 2019). Furthermore, online groups can motivate members to take action to further their cause (ibid.) Even though

(20)

lone-wolf terrorists usually work alone, “they see themselves as belonging to a virtual community” (Post, McGinnis, and Moody 2014, 321). By executing an attack, even though planned in isolation, the terrorist fights for a shared goal shared by a large group of people.

In case messages online turn into real life action, the internet is frequently used to share this with people in the online space as well. For mass shootings, it is common to post warnings online beforehand announcing the planned attack (Lindgren 2011; Hawdon, Oksanen, and Räsänen 2012). This practice is common not just for lone wolf terrorists, but other types of terrorists as well. Furthermore, any real-life action taken will likely be publicized by whoever is responsible for it. For example, ISIS uploaded a video of the execution of an American journalist, and in the past, there have been other incidents during which film material was recorded and released wherever possible (Nacos 2019). For this, some terrorists use their own websites or forums on which they publish their material (ibid.). Through the use of social media and other forms of online community, everyone, including terrorist groups, can send out their own messages, record their actions, and reach an audience with the material produced (ibid.). This way, the internet not only helps people such as alt-right extremists to connect, but also gives terrorists the opportunity to foster publicity for their message.

As previously discussed, traditional media continue to be important in providing audiences with information, but those outlets might no longer be as powerful as they once were. Terrorists have their own way of getting content out into the world, and while “most people learn of new releases from reports in the traditional media” (Nacos 2019, 336), even Nacos (2019) recognizes that – despite traditional media being an influential player – the internet offers extremists vast opportunities that other media might not. Especially with the barrier between the dark web and ‘regular’ online spaces fading (Hutchinson 2019), extremist groups can easily circulate their material to various publics without external help. These opportunities have developed over the past few years and only continue to expand.

For alt-right extremists, the online space is of huge importance. This was also the case for the shooter in New Zealand. Before the shooting, the attacker participated in the alt-right movement the way many others do: online. Hutchinson says that “the assailant’s relationship with the far-right virtual community and attitude towards venerating the online sub-culture, along with his proficiency with Internet technology and mass-violence weaponry, is significant for far-right terrorist behaviour” (2019, 19). The attacker wrote his own manifesto detailing his ideology and published it online; it moved from smaller sites to big online platforms (ibid.), thus increasing a potential audience. Much like other terrorists have done in the past, he announced the livestream of his attacks prior to carrying them out (ibid.). As such, he followed

(21)

behavior that is demonstrated by terrorists – both organized as well as lone-wolf terrorists. The news of the event reached many not via traditional outlets, but rather social media (Besley and Peters 2019).

Both during and after this shooting, the online space remained important. The attack happened in real life, but also online: The attacker broadcasted the event on the internet. Hutchinson says that “livestreaming the event was significant because it also created a direct connection to the online audience and provided personal content for online viewers” (2019, 21). Shortly after, the video and his manifesto were banned in the country, but copies are available around the world (Besley and Peters 2019). Additionally, platforms to which the video was uploaded (e.g. YouTube) aimed to censor the recording, but because of how often it was uploaded, and a computer software used to check uploads did not function properly, censoring failed in many instances (ibid.).

The attacker in New Zealand exemplifies how extreme ideologies can spread online and go beyond national borders. The extremist’s attack is reflective of lone-wolf terrorism behavior, but because of the virtual community, Besley and Peters doubt he was truly alone saying that “[a]lthough he may have acted alone in the massacre, contrary to reports of being a ‘lone wolf’, the Australian gunman was not alone, but was clearly connected with alt-right and white supremacist groups … and most likely was groomed by their networks” (2019, 5). In the past, the attacker had travelled through the Balkans and other parts of Europe and connected with some alt-right extremists there (ibid.). Even after his return to Australia, he was still able to exchange ideas with extremists from those places (ibid.), and all over the world if he wanted. Such interactions between alt-right extremists underlines “just how global the internet [is] and social media enables such group to exist and to share ideas that most of us find unacceptable” (ibid., 6). Without the internet, perhaps, the gunman would not have had this community. Though it is impossible to say if he would have still acted without it, it is possible to assume the group’s shared ideology might have made him feel justified and supported in his actions.

The case in New Zealand also showed traditional media’s lack of certainty when it comes to handling online material. The recorded footage spread through social media and some traditional outlets opted to air parts of it – some even showed bits in which bodies were apparently visible, even though they were blurred out (Peacock 2019). Other outlets were more hesitant to air any footage (ibid.). There seemed to be a dilemma between moral guidelines (i.e. showing such violent footage) and using the material as a form of eyewitness account for journalistic purposes. But even social media platforms struggled to keep up with deleting the video (ibid.), showing that even the internet itself was not sure of how to properly deal with

(22)

such footage. Going into this study, it will be interesting to see how the outlets treat the shooters’ publicized material, from posts to the livestream and manifesto. This content theoretically provides news media with first-hand material, so it will be interesting to study to what extent the three outlets interact with and integrate it in practice.

(23)

Methodology

Critical Discourse Analysis

Language plays an important role in everyday life, and how language is used and constructs meaning is a crucial element in journalism (Carvalho 2008). Critical discourse analysis is a useful method to discover and understand how meaning is constructed and consequently a useful tool in discovering how the outlets in this analysis cover selected events. Critical discourse analysis or CDA is a way of analyzing text. A text, according to Fairclough (1995), can be written or spoken and that, while a written text’s linguistic parts are important, there are also texts containing multiple elements such as visuals. In the case of a newspaper, for example, photographs used within an article are also part of the text. Fairclough, known as one of the founders of CDA, developed “an analytical framework for studying connections between language, power and ideology” (1995, 23). With CDA, “questioning the role of discourse in the production and transformation of social representations of reality, as well as social relations” is possible (Carvalho 2008, 161).

Fairclough states that “[t]exts are social spaces in which two fundamental social processes simultaneously occur: cognition and representation of the world, and social interaction” (1995, 6). Language in texts can represent an event and can be used for “tying texts to situation contexts” (Fairclough 1995, 6). Analyzing texts with CDA can reveal present ideologies, also in news texts. As Fairclough (1995) points out, when using quotes, the ideology and/or intention behind a quote can be changed depending on how it is represented by media. Depending on where an outlet decides to place a quote and how the quote is introduced or later discussed, how a quote is understood can differ. Therefore, Carvalho says that “CDA often involves a search for aspects or dimension of reality that are obscured by an apparently natural and transparent use of language” (2008, 162). While western journalism might traditionally focus on objectivity and presenting reality, as Fairclough (1995) underlines, there is never one clear reality without interpretation. Ultimately, how journalists represent reality is influenced by who they speak to, what is included in a text and what is left out, as well as the journalist’s own preferences (Carvalho 2008). Using CDA, these elements can be made apparent.

When it comes to the analysis in this thesis, CDA is an effective method because it can reveal the outlets’ stances, such as ideological standpoints, by focusing on a wide array of textual elements. Using CDA can reveal which political side an outlet supports or opposes. In the case of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, for example, CDA can highlight which politicians an outlet presents as believable, and whose responses an outlet is critical of. As has been demonstrated in the theoretical framework, gun control frequently comes up in discussions

(24)

after mass shootings. Rather than just discovering if this topic comes up in coverage, CDA also allows for in-depth analysis of how different outlets discuss this exactly.

Applying CDA

In order to analyze the corpus, a toolkit based largely on Carvalho’s framework in her article “Media(ted) Discourse and Society” from 2008 was used, since this framework is a step-by-step guide that focuses on detecting and uncovering cultural influences and leanings in a news report’s text. Slight alterations were made to better fit the research and scope of this thesis.

On the first level, textual analysis, (1) layout and structural organization, (2) objects, (3) actors, (4) social media, (5) language, grammar, and rhetoric, (6) discursive strategies, and (7) ideological standpoints were analyzed.

For layout and structural organization, the focus is on which section an article was published in. Carvalho (2008) also suggests taking an article’s size into consideration, but since this analysis will look at online articles where it cannot be determined how much space an article takes up in comparison to those next to it, this will not be done here. Furthermore, the analysis of visuals such as photographs and graphs are part of this. Since this thesis focuses on online versions of articles which allows for types of visuals that could not be included in printed form, the analysis of videos was also included. Here, the focus was on whether or not there is a video in the article, where it is positioned, and what function it serves. For objects, the analysis focuses on topics and themes as well as the broader issues to which the covered events are connected in articles. On the level of actors, the analysis focuses on who is mentioned and how and which perspective is most prominently featured. Furthermore, it matters whether someone is directly spoken to or talked about as well as how actors are presented (e.g. as believable or not). The next part of textual analysis, social media, is not at all mentioned in Carvalho’s framework from 2008. Much like video, because the articles are published online, social media can be used within them. For this analysis, it is thus also important to consider if and how social media are used in articles (e.g. linked or embedded) and which purpose they serve. Whether an article makes use of (in)formal and/or technical writing style is analyzed in the component language, grammar and rhetoric.

With the 6th component discursive strategies are closely examined. This includes something Carvalho refers to as “discursive manipulation” (2008, 169), which does not consist of false information but rather intentionally drawing attention to a specific element. Discursive strategies include the angle/viewpoint in a story, which facts are included, and which may be left out. For example, as previously mentioned, news outlets could evoke public sympathy by focusing on victims of the shootings rather than zooming out and focusing on societal effects

(25)

of the events or highlight ideological divides by taking a positive or negative view of gun control and the role of guns in the two shootings generally (Hawdon, Oksanen, Räsänen 2012). Moreover, positioning (putting actors into a relationship with others), legitimation (justifying an action/power), and politicization (assigning political nature) are all part of discursive strategies. Finally, within textual analysis, ideological standpoints are important to consider. These standpoints are not separate, but part of all components previously listed. Since, as Carvalho (2008) points out, including ideology goes against the journalistic ideal of being objective, it is more hidden. Carvalho (2008) suggests looking at how other media report on the same topic to make ideology more apparent. Since this analysis focuses on three different outlets, what is or is not reported by one outlet and which ideological standpoints the outlets adapt becomes more obvious.

On a contextual level, this thesis will return to the historical-diachronic analysis of Carvalho’s 2008 framework in the results section. This analysis looks at how an issue or similar events were previously discussed. This is why the background on mass shootings, gun culture in the U.S. as well as news media’s relationship with shootings and extremism provided in the theoretical framework before is especially important. Previous discourse on mass shootings and media representation thereof, and the ideology of the alt-right movement has been discussed in great detail. As part of the analysis, the thesis will connect previous research to the findings of this analysis.

News outlets

Media bias

While different media outlets might report on the same events, outlets might still show variations in how they report on them. Despite the ideal of objectivity often being associated with journalism, news outlets display at least a degree of left- or right-wing bias. That is also visible in the political orientation of their audiences. As stated in a publication of a study conducted by the Pew Research Center, “[w]hen it comes to getting news about politics and government, liberals and conservatives inhabit different worlds” (Mitchell et al. 2014). The study researched audiences with varying political orientations and how and what media they consume. It reveals that those with consistently conservative views gather news from just one outlet more often than those with liberal views who gather news from multiple outlets (Mitchell et al. 2014). The authors also point out that the views of those with such strong political leanings tend to be most present in political discussions as opposed to the ones closer to the middle (ibid.). Audiences with different political leanings also predominately gather (and trust information) from specific outlets that they might find is closer to their ideology.

(26)

This thesis focuses on the coverage of mass shootings for which alt-right extremists are responsible. Because of both gun laws and the alt-right being elements of the events chosen, it could be that outlets with audiences from the left, right, or middle of the spectrum cover the events differently. In order to see and compare how different American news media report on such events, stories by a range of outlets with audiences across the political spectrum are subject of analysis. The outlets selected for this thesis’s research are the New York Times (NYT), USA Today, and Breitbart. While USA Today and especially NYT have been around for decades, Breitbart is much younger and is unique in the sense that the outlet’s written news have only ever been available online, whereas the other two can be regarded more as belonging to traditional media since both started out with print editions. While Burack and Snyder-Hall (2013) claim that NYT and USA Today cover topics in an objective manner and report news without ideological bias, the 2014 study by the Pew Research Center – based on audience preferences – shows that this might not be true.

Breitbart

The outlet was established in 2007 by two Jewish Americans, Andrew Breitbart and Larry Solov, “with the idea that truthful reporting and the free and open exchange of ideas is essential to maintain a robust democracy” (Breitbart n.d.). Breitbart (n.d.) states its website has 20 million individual visitors per month. Furthermore, the outlet claims that it is supportive of women and diversity and highlights that it has a Spanish page in which it covers the situation at the Mexican border (ibid.). Breitbart points out famous personalities interviewed, and while the list contains many prominent Republicans, there are also Democrats represented (ibid.). Breitbart seems to present itself as an outlet with mostly balanced reporting and topics that might appeal to liberals/left-wingers as well. In contrast, Müller and Schulz (2019) state that Breitbart published more right-wing content or displays such leaning in its reporting. This is in line with research by Mitchell et al. (2014), which reveals that Breitbart has a very conservative audience quite far on the right of the political spectrum. However, on the “About Breitbart” page of its website, the outlet seems to want to distance itself from this specifically. In the section “What others are saying about Breitbart,” a Harvard Professor, Yochai Benkler, is quoted saying “Breitbart is not the alt-right” (Breitbart n.d.), demonstrating the outlet’s desire not to be associated with the (extreme) right.

In summary, these three outlets were chosen because they address and appeal to audiences across a large part of the political spectrum. This was done to have the opportunity to achieve diverse findings when researching how (some) American news outlets represent the two shootings in their online written news coverage.

(27)

USA Today

According to the ‘About USA Today’ page, the outlet was established in 1982 “as a forum for better understanding and unity to help make the USA truly one nation” (USA Today, n.d.). In contrast to the NYT’s international description of itself, USA Today indicates that its reporting primarily focuses on delivering news to an American audience (ibid.). USA Today claims it has almost 2.6 million readers per day and that, earlier in 2019, 97.4 million individuals visited their website (ibid.). While an international print edition has been available in Europe, Canada, and the Asian Pacific region since the mid-80s, this only results in a few thousand readers more (ibid.). As the study shows, its audience has some political left leanings, but significantly less than the NYT’s audience (Mitchell et al. 2014). It is one of the news outlets that gets closest to the center (ibid.).

New York Times

The outlet was founded in 1851 (The New York Times Company n.d. b), and, according to the NYT’s Diversity and Inclusion report of 2018 “reaches 150 million readers each month, in every country on earth, and covers countless topics across politics, society, business and more” (The New York Times Company n.d. a). Because of its wide reach with an audience with diverse national backgrounds, it could be that its reporting aims at reporting on an event from a range of viewpoints. As stated on the Mission and Values page, the outlet is “seeking out different perspectives” while helping “a global audience understand a vast and diverse world”. While the New York Times claims its reporting is without bias (The New York Times Company n.d. c), its audience is not, according to the Pew Research Center’s study by Mitchell et al. (2014). People who get their news from NYT are quite far on the left of the political spectrum, more or less in the same area as audiences of the political satire show The Colbert Report (Mitchell et al. 2014).

Corpus

For this analysis, articles from the three news outlets Breitbart, USA Today, and the New York Times were collected. These articles were published within 30 days of the events occurring. For the shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, articles published on October 27, 2018 – the day of the event – until November 25, 2018 were gathered. In case of the mosque shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, the time frame was expanded by one day and spans from March 14, 2019, to April 13, 2019. The reason for this is the time difference between the United States and New Zealand. While the event officially took place on March 15, there is a 17-hour time difference between Christchurch and the East Coast of the U.S. Since the shooting happened midday in New Zealand, it was nighttime on the East Coast. Consequently, some of

– The “Synagogue Killer” and the “lone white supremacist ”