Fighting IS in Raqqa: When media includes the bigger picture

AP Images

The media coverage we analyzed on the Raqqa operation starts off similarly — using spin to suggest that it’s a major success in the fight against Islamic State. For instance, The Wall Street Journal’s lead sentence says the operation was “driving the extremists from a Syrian city,” and Fox News says IS “was dealt a massive blow.” If people stop reading after the first few paragraphs, they may have the impression that this was a clear victory in the effort to stop the violent organization, which may be an oversimplification of a complex issue.

The reporting goes on to discuss some of the complexities and potential drawbacks of using violence against a violent group like IS. For example, the outlets say:

• As IS loses territory in Syria, it may respond by either increasing the number of “terrorist” attacks in Europe, or expand into neighboring regions. (The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal)

Violence may lead to more violence.

• Driving IS out of Raqqa and Syria could leave a power vacuum and fighting between other groups. (AP, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal)

Getting rid of a violent group doesn’t in itself create stability and peace.

• U.S.-led airstrikes in Raqqa have resulted in more than 1,000 civilian casualties, according to monitors. (AP, The New York Times)

Fighting violence with violence has a price.

And perhaps the most telling of all:

• The Wall Street Journal writes: “The U.S. and its allies, as well as other countries that have fought Islamic State and other militant groups in recent decades, have been unable to kill off the extremist ideology that feeds the groups.”

Killing members of militant groups will not address the root causes of why the groups exist, nor prevent new recruits from joining or new groups from forming.

News outlets could explore these complexities even further. For example, they could ask:

• What are Islamic State’s ideological aims, and why did it form in the first place? (See Context section) This could speak to some of the root problems that we might need to address in order to prevent another violent group from forming in place of IS.
• How might the U.S. and other countries have contributed to current conditions in Syria and other areas where IS exists?
• What factors might drive people to join a violent organization like IS? How could violence be addressed on an individual, human level?
• Could using violence to fight violence normalize and perpetuate it?

Resolving issues of violence is not a simple task, and there probably isn’t a single short-term solution. If history is any indicator, killing all the members of a violent group without addressing other factors doesn’t tend to stop violence. The more media consumers are aware of the complexities involved in such efforts, the more capacity we may have to address the root causes.



Written by Analea Holland and Julia Berry López

Edited by Julia Berry López and Jens Erik Gould

Visit the original story on Knife Media’s website

Follow us on Twitter @theknifemedia

Follow us on LinkedIn