Do media frame attacks with Muslim perpetrators as “terrorism” and attacks with White perpetrators as the result of “mental illness”? Despite public speculation and limited academic work with relatively small subsets of cases, there have been no systematic analyses of potential biases in how media frame terrorism. We addressed this gap by examining the text of print news coverage of all terrorist attacks in the United States between 2006 and 2015. Controlling for fatalities, affiliation with a group, and existing mental illness, the odds that an article references terrorism are approximately five times greater for a Muslim versus a non-Muslim perpetrator. In contrast, the odds that an article references mental illness do not significantly differ between White and non-White perpetrators. Results partially confirm public speculation and are robust against numerous alternative explanations. Differences in media framing can influence public (mis)perceptions of violence and threats, and ultimately harm counterterrorism policy.

媒体是否将对穆斯林肇事者的袭击称为“恐怖主义”，并将对白人肇事者的袭击归因于“精神疾病”？尽管公众spec测，并且在案件数量相对较小的情况下学术工作有限，但还没有对媒体如何构成恐怖主义的潜在偏见进行系统分析。我们通过研究2006年至2015年美国所有恐怖袭击的印刷新闻报道文本来解决这一差距。为控制死亡人数，与某个团体有联系以及现有的精神疾病，文章提及恐怖主义的几率约为五倍穆斯林与非穆斯林犯罪者相比更大。相比之下，白人和非白人犯罪者在一篇文章中提到精神疾病的几率没有显着差异。结果部分证实了公众的猜测，并且对众多其他解释都持肯定态度。媒体框架的差异会影响公众对暴力和威胁的误解，最终损害反恐政策。