In the aftermath of a violent attack, questions of definition arise. News framing research has shown that the words chosen to define a given event can affect attitudes and decision-making, even when only a single word is varied. This study analyzes public discourse in the aftermath of the January 6 U.S. Capitol attacks to better understand which labels predominated and how different labels were explained/justified. We pair computer-assisted content analysis with qualitative textual analysis to identify patterns in public commentary during the week following the attacks. Results indicate that initial news coverage favored “protest(s)” as a descriptor, but “riot,” “attack(s),” and “insurrection” gained traction as the week unfolded. Many labels were also definitively applied and deployed to contextualize the attacks, providing a degree of contrast to framing norms. The results are considered in relation to ongoing debates over definitions of domestic terrorism and related crises, as well as normative considerations central to the maintenance of U.S. democracy.

在暴力袭击之后，出现了定义问题。新闻框架研究表明，为定义给定事件而选择的词会影响态度和决策，即使只有一个词是不同的。本研究分析了 1 月 6 日美国国会大厦袭击后的公共话语，以更好地了解哪些标签占主导地位以及如何解释/证明不同的标签。我们将计算机辅助内容分析与定性文本分析相结合，以确定攻击后一周内公众评论的模式。结果表明，最初的新闻报道倾向于用“抗议”作为描述词，但随着一周的展开，“骚乱”、“攻击”和“起义”获得了关注。许多标签也被明确应用和部署以将攻击情境化，与框架规范形成一定程度的对比。研究结果与关于国内恐怖主义和相关危机的定义的持续辩论以及对维护美国民主至关重要的规范性考虑有关。