OPINION: The media's pen is mightier than the sword

Aren't we living in strange and unsettling times? Every morning this week when I’ve checked my phone first thing in the morning (yes, I know I need to stop that), there is a media notification filling me in on Trump’s latest dictatorial crusade. Every day, the boundaries of madness are expanding as the notions of truth, justice and human rights fade. As far-right rhetoric sweeps the globe, polarisation spreads. Propaganda is the new news.
Critical thinking, ever more necessary, appears on the decline, and the strength and credibility of the media, once perceived as a rock-solid, indisputable source, is ebbing.
Language is one of humanity’s most potent tools. It connects us, informs us and, perhaps most crucially, influences how we see the world. Nowhere is this more evident than in the headlines in newspapers, on the news and on social media, where the combination of a few words can frame entire narratives, define public discourse and shape societal attitudes.
When it comes to the battle for hearts and minds in an era of conflict and violence, the sharpest weapon is often a carefully chosen word. Every headline is a miniature battlefield, where truth, bias and perception collide. Equally, the absence of words can shape understanding and opinion by their omission. As truth declines in importance, and fact-checking is relegated with contempt to a bygone era of conscience, words matter more than ever.
As global citizens, we must be more vigilant about how we consume words, because the way language is used – or misused – can also perpetuate biases, obscure truths and subtly but powerfully reinforce systemic inequalities. Frighteningly, unless we know what to watch out for, it can happen without us ever even realising it.
Consider the framing of conflicts. Since 2023, global headlines – including Ireland’s – have consistently revealed stark disparities in how acts of violence in Palestine have been reported, depending on the perpetrator, and the use of the passive voice has been deployed to subtly detract from Israel’s atrocities. NBC, for example, in January 2024, used the headline ‘A group of Palestinian men waving a white flag is shot at’ – as though the bullets come from an invisible force. Palestinians, are ‘shot dead’. Palestinians ‘starve’. Palestinian children are ‘found dead’.
In contrast, with the exception of outlets like Al Jazeera, highly emotive terms for the killing of civilians, such as ‘slaughter’ and ‘massacre’, are mostly reserved for Israelis killed by ‘Hamas-backed’ Palestinians.
This isn’t new. In 1948, 750,000 Palestinians ‘were displaced’. By whom? In the Western media, there is a tendency to treat the two sides as if they are equal participants in the violence by using terms like ‘the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’, ‘intense fighting’ and ‘targeting of Hamas strongholds’, despite Palestine having no land army, navy or air force. And this is before we even consider the fact that no western media are even permitted to report on the conflict from Gaza, only from Israel.
It is important too, to consider what is not said. The words ‘genocide’ and ‘ethnic cleansing’ are rarely used in Western media, unless to deny. Contrast this with the rhetoric extended to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022, where such terms were deployed almost instantly. The differences could not be starker, and we see this reflected in the political response.

READ: Mayo pub fire a reminder to everyone to check their fire alarm

These reporting disparities serve not only to skew perceptions of culpability but also to dehumanise one side while sanitising the actions of the other. They foster implicit biases that then shape public opinion, policymaking, and even international relations. Words matter, and their selective deployment can serve as a subtle yet powerful weapon.
Words are also influential when it comes to minorities, and Ireland, we should pay close attention to the language used around immigration, both in the media and on social media. Those seeking International Protection are often described with terms like a ‘flood’, ‘surge’ or ‘influx’, evoking images of uncontrollable forces rather than individuals fleeing hardship. These choices create fear and hostility, framing vulnerable people as a threat rather than fellow humans in need of compassion and support.
Note too, how passive language is deployed when it comes to violence against women. In Ireland, watch as headlines frequently shift focus away from the perpetrator and onto the victim, using phrases like ‘Woman Attacked in Dublin’ rather than ‘Man Assaults Woman in Dublin’. In Australia last year, the headline ‘Five shocking twists and turns in wheelie bin death’ in the Herald Sun referred, not to the unfortunate demise of a rubbish receptacle, but to the violent murder of a woman, Chaithanya ‘Swetha’ Madhagani, by her own husband.
These linguistic choices are degrading to victims. They also diminish agency of perpetrators, letting them off the hook by subtly implying that the incident is something that simply ‘happened’, rather than a deliberate and often premeditated act committed by someone.
Journalists and editors wield immense power in shaping public understanding through their choice of language. Ethical reporting requires a conscious effort to avoid biases, call out injustices and ensure accuracy. RTÉ, as our national public-service broadcaster, has more of a duty than ever to exercise responsibility in this space, but it is also important at a local level.
The public also has an obligation to critically assess the language used in media, questioning what is said, by whom, and equally importantly what is left unsaid. In the media, language should serve as a bridge to understanding rather than a barrier to it, and help us those who hold power to account.