UK media revels in hate after Manchester synagogue attack 

A man attacked Jews in a Manchester synagogue on Yom Kippur in a despicable act of terror and hate. Yet within hours, much of the media coverage had shifted from reporting the crime to implicating Islam - and by extension British Muslims.

The Daily Mail arguably led the way, with its front page screaming: “He was an Islamic terrorist” - a predictable but telling framing. Other tabloids also branded the attack as terrorism, but none with the Mail’s intensity. 

This followed a day of framing that transformed the action of a single individual into a reflection of a faith followed by more than two billion people globally.

Some would insist that the attacker, who was killed by police, was just as the Mail described him. But describing the perpetrator as “Islamic” is itself misleading. Extrajudicial killings and targeting of innocents are explicitly forbidden in Islamic teaching. Any journalist or headline writer should know this. 

Yet there is now an increasing chasm between what is obvious or intelligible, and what is actually being delivered by Britain’s right-wing media outlets. It no longer matters whether the term “Islamic terrorist” is a misnomer; it functions as a licence for Islamophobia, conflating a criminal act with an entire religion.

This is not new. After the Hamas-led attacks against Israel on 7 October 2023, editors of prominent UK Jewish newspapers blamed “historic Islamic bloodlust” and claimed that Muslim culture was “in the grip of a death cult”. 

Before the Manchester attacker was even identified, a pro-Israel commentator called Islam a “desert-dwelling seventh-century ideology” on GB News. Such statements, aired without challenge, reveal an obsession with Muslims licensed by regulatory indifference; Ofcom has allowed broadcasters to platform explicit Islamophobic abuse with impunity.

Collective culpability

Right-wing and pro-Israel commentators often use whataboutery to shift focus from individual crimes to collective Muslim culpability. For example, the Daily Express ran the headline: “If you wanted to globalise the intifada, you just got your wish in Manchester”. 

This language positions an attack against worshippers at a synagogue in the UK as a consequence of international politics - implying some form of collective responsibility, while diverting attention from the perpetrator. It reflects a broader pattern in which any violent act attributed to a Muslim often triggers calls for curtailed civil liberties, mass suspicion and collective blame.

Contrast this with coverage of the Christchurch mosque attack in 2019, where white supremacist Brenton Tarrant killed 51 Muslim worshippers. The Daily Mirror’s front page featured a childhood image of Tarrant next to a headline referencing him as a once “angelic boy” who grew into a killer; the interior spread framed his actions as being “for Rotherham”, referencing his twisted justification, linked to grooming-gang scandals. This editorial choice arguably legitimised Tarrant’s ideology, while shielding readers from confronting his white supremacist motives.

The trial by media continues as outlets such as GB News have become emboldened to demand that Muslims prove their worthiness

The double standards are glaring. Tarrant’s manifesto cited the same type of rhetoric used by many commentators who today posture as arbiters of morality, and in turn demonise Muslim communities. 

The Centre for Media Monitoring’s report “How the British Media Reports Terrorism” found that in a survey of mainstream outlets between 2015 and 2019, more than half of all references to terrorism came in the context of Muslims or Islam, while far-right ideology was referenced in just six percent of coverage. This imbalance shows how Muslim violence indicts an entire community, while far-right terrorism is minimised or treated as isolated.

The trial by media continues as outlets such as GB News have become emboldened to demand that Muslims prove their worthiness. After the latest Manchester attack, one presenter suggested that Muslims must prove they deserve public funds, while another highlighted the £117m ($158m) allocated to protect Muslim schools, community centres and mosques from hate attacks, versus a “mere” £70m for Jewish spaces. 

The implication: Muslims are pampered and privileged, another trope regularly deployed to whip up feelings of disenfranchisement among fed-up Brits. Again, reality shows a different picture entirely, given that the country’s Muslim population is almost 15 times larger than the Jewish population, and is served by around 1,800 mosques compared with around 500 synagogues. This would suggest that proportionally, Muslims are under-protected, not over-protected. 

Amplifying falsehoods

GB News routinely amplifies falsehoods, while allowing anti-Muslim guests to speak unchallenged. 

One panellist claimed that no mosques had been targeted during Ramadan, despite numerous incidents in recent years, including the 2017 Finsbury Park attack, where a grandfather was deliberately run over; a 2019 incident in a Southall mosque, where worshippers had to detain a man who attacked them with a hammer; and a 2022 attack on a Sri Lankan Islamic Centre in London. This year, Ramadan saw a teenager charged with a hate crime after a mosque was attacked with paint and rocks. These incidents never received comparable coverage, moralising headlines, or front-page outrage.

Throw into the mix the oft-repeated false claims about the prevalence of “sharia law” in Britain - repeated, no less, by US President Donald Trump at the UN - and you’ll see just how far the reach of Britain’s right-wing media fantasies extends. In reality, UK Islamic councils provide mediation and guidance, and cannot override English law. Fact-checks aside, these myths continue to circulate, with real-world consequences for Muslims.

Far-right riots: UK media gives racial hatred the veneer of patriotism

Read More »

Selective blindness extends even to commendable journalism, as seen in the recent BBC Panorama programme exposing London police engaging in anti-Muslim abuse on camera. Puzzlingly, there was no mention of Islamophobia. This leaves one feeling that when Muslims are victims, euphemism prevails; when accused, the vilest labels are instantly deployed.

Following the latest Manchester attack, it is becoming clear to both close and casual viewers that Britain’s media factories of hate are endangering both Jews and Muslims - and many others - by demonising entire communities, defending xenophobic commentators and indulging Islamophobia. 

These outlets create a permissive environment in which all forms of hatred thrive. These are the same outlets that defend a woman who called for the burning of migrants in hotels, while downplaying mobs who terrorised neighbourhoods and worshippers inside mosques.

Condemnation of the Manchester attack is necessary. British Jews deserve solidarity at such a time. But conditional solidarity from media institutions that thrive on division offers little comfort. Using the tragedy to place Muslims on trial fails both Muslim and Jewish communities - and a media that thrives on hate leaves everyone more vulnerable.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.