Matribhumi Samachar English
In 2025, the world witnessed two horrific acts of Islamist terrorist violence separated by geography but united by ideology and brutality. On April 22, 2025, Islamist terrorists opened fire on civilian tourists in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, killing at least 26 people, all Hindus and domestic tourists visiting the region. On December 14, 2025, Islamist terrorists carried out a mass shooting at Bondi Beach in Sydney, deliberately targeting a Jewish Hanukkah gathering, killing between 15 and 16 people, including a child.
Both attacks were acts of terrorism, not random violence. In both cases, Islamist extremists used firearms, selected unarmed civilians as targets, acted with ideological motivation, and caused mass casualties intended to instil fear beyond the immediate victims. The attackers in Pahalgam and Bondi Beach differed in location but not in method, intent, or doctrine.
Yet, the global media response, particularly from leading Western and Australian outlets, diverged sharply.
This report examines coverage by ten major international media organisations, ABC News (Australia), BBC, SBS, The Washington Post, Reuters, CNN, Deutsche Welle (DW), The Guardian, Al Jazeera, and The New York Times and documents how language choices, recognition of victim identity, and willingness to name Islamist terrorism varied dramatically depending on who was killed and where.
The pattern that emerges is neither incidental nor subtle. It reflects a form of selective moral clarity, in which Islamist terrorism is named directly and unambiguously when Jewish or Western civilians are targeted, but softened, contextualised, or linguistically diluted when the victims are Hindu or Indian, particularly in Kashmir. What changes in these narratives is not the nature of the crime, but the identity of those who suffered it.
ABC News (Australia)
ABC News’ coverage of the April 22, 2025, Pahalgam massacre illustrates the first clear example of narrative dilution. Its headline, “At least 26 people dead after militants attack group in India-controlled Kashmir,” immediately situates the event within a geopolitical frame rather than naming it as an act of Islamist terrorism. While the report acknowledges that local police described the incident as a “terror attack,” ABC itself avoids using the word “terrorist” to describe the perpetrators.
The coverage repeatedly refers to the attackers as “gunmen” and “militants,” noting that they emerged from forests near Baisaran meadow and fired indiscriminately at tourists. Witness testimony is included, but the ideological nature of the attack is left unexplored. Most notably, while police confirmed that the victims were Indian tourists, primarily Hindu pilgrims, the religious identity of those killed is absent. Terms such as “Hindu,” “Islamist,” “jihadi,” or “terrorist” are conspicuously avoided.
This restraint collapses entirely in ABC’s Bondi Beach coverage. Following the December 14, 2025, attack, ABC ran headlines explicitly naming “Bondi terrorists” and describing the incident as a “terrorist attack on a Jewish community event.” The victims’ Jewish identity is foregrounded, and the attackers, Naveed and Sajid Akram, are described as Islamist terrorists who travelled to the Philippines for “military-style training.” ABC provides extensive background on jihadist networks in Mindanao and details investigators’ focus on international Islamist linkages.
Where Pahalgam saw caution, Bondi saw clarity. Where Hindu victims were anonymised, Jewish victims were identified. Where Islamist ideology was avoided, it was fully explored.
BBC
In its reporting on the Pahalgam massacre, the BBC consistently employed language that diluted the nature of the violence and obscured both the ideological motivation of the attackers and the religious identity of the victims. Across multiple headlines and follow-up reports, the broadcaster described the incident as one in which “gunmen” opened fire on tourists in “Indian-administered Kashmir,” repeatedly situating the killings within a security and diplomatic framework rather than naming them as terrorism and calling the Indian state “Indian-administered”.
The coverage focused heavily on India’s response, house demolitions, detentions, and accusations against Pakistan, while stressing that no group had been officially named, thereby reinforcing ambiguity around responsibility. Terms such as “militants” and “gunmen” were used throughout, while the words “terrorist,” “Islamist,” or “jihadi” were entirely absent, and the fact that most victims were Hindu tourists was never foregrounded. By framing the massacre as part of a long-running Kashmir conflict and emphasising geopolitical tensions, the BBC effectively reduced a targeted mass killing of civilians to a routine episode of regional unrest.
This restraint vanished in the BBC’s Bondi Beach coverage, where the broadcaster adopted unmistakable moral and linguistic clarity. The attack was explicitly described as terrorism, with repeated references to Islamist ideology, links to Islamic State networks, and the antisemitic motive behind the violence. The Jewish identity of the victims was central to the narrative, reinforced by direct quotations from Australia’s prime minister calling the shooting “an act of evil antisemitism” and “terrorism that has struck the heart of our nation.”
Unlike the Pahalgam reporting, there was no hesitation in naming ideology, no reluctance to label perpetrators as terrorists, and no effort to soften responsibility through passive language or geopolitical caveats. The stark contrast reveals a clear editorial double standard: when Jewish victims were targeted in the West, the BBC named terrorism directly and unequivocally; when Hindu civilians were massacred in Kashmir, the same outlet retreated into neutralised terms and contextual deflection, avoiding explicit recognition of Islamist terror altogether.
SBS (Australia)
In its coverage of the Pahalgam massacre, SBS Australia followed a familiar pattern of linguistic softening and contextual deflection that stripped the attack of its ideological clarity. While acknowledging the scale of the violence by calling it “Kashmir’s deadliest attack on civilians in years” and even comparing it to the 2008 Mumbai shootings, SBS consistently framed the perpetrators as a “little-known militant group” rather than terrorists. The reporting embedded the killings within a long historical narrative of insurgency in Kashmir dating back to 1989, emphasising the region’s disputed status and cycles of “militant violence” instead of clearly identifying the act as Islamist terrorism targeting civilians.
Despite noting that at least 26 tourists were killed in cold blood, the coverage avoided naming the victims’ Hindu identity altogether and refrained from using terms such as “terrorist,” “jihadi,” or “Islamist,” thereby reducing a targeted massacre to yet another episode in a protracted conflict zone. The emphasis on political context and regional instability functioned to normalise the violence rather than confront it directly as terror.
By contrast, SBS’s reporting on the Bondi Beach massacre demonstrated unequivocal moral and editorial certainty. From the first breaking updates, the broadcaster explicitly labelled the incident a “terrorist attack” and an “act of evil antisemitism,” foregrounding both the ideological motive and the Jewish identity of the victims. The language was authoritative and decisive, with senior police officials quoted confirming terrorism based on the timing of the attack during Hanukkah, the nature of the weapons used, and the discovery of explosive devices.
SBS devoted attention to counter-terrorism operations, international investigative links, and the broader threat of Islamist extremism, leaving no ambiguity about the nature of the crime. The contrast is stark: when Jewish civilians were attacked on Australian soil, SBS named terrorism without hesitation; when Hindu tourists were massacred in Kashmir, the same outlet retreated into neutral terminology and historical framing, exposing a clear and consistent double standard in how violence is defined, labelled, and morally interpreted.
Washington Post
In its coverage of the Pahalgam terror attack, The Washington Post adopted a language framework that deliberately softened both the nature of the crime and the identity of its victims. The newspaper reported that tourists were killed or wounded after “suspected militants” opened fire in a popular mountain town in “Indian-administered Kashmir,” repeatedly situating the massacre within a political narrative of separatism and India-Pakistan tensions rather than naming it as an act of Islamist terrorism.
The report emphasised New Delhi’s efforts to project stability in Kashmir and its crackdown on dissent in the Muslim-majority region, effectively shifting attention from the ideological targeting of civilians to governance and conflict management. By using terms such as “militant group” and “separatist violence,” and by entirely avoiding the words “terrorist” and “Hindu,” the Post blurred both the intent of the attackers and the religious identity of the victims, reducing a mass killing of Hindu tourists to yet another episode in a long-running territorial dispute.
The contrast with The Washington Post’s Bondi Beach attack coverage was immediate and unambiguous. In Sydney, the same newspaper clearly identified the attackers as Islamist terrorists, explicitly linking them to Islamic State ideology and detailing the group’s designation as a terrorist organisation by Australian authorities. The report named antisemitism as the motive, foregrounded the Jewish identity of the victims, and used terrorism language without attribution or hesitation.
The Post described charges including murder and “committing a terrorist act,” examined the attackers’ ideological training, and contextualised the violence within global jihadist networks. Where the Pahalgam massacre was framed as “separatist violence” in a contested region, the Bondi Beach shooting was treated as what it was, an act of Islamist terrorism targeting Jews, exposing a clear double standard in how the newspaper applies moral clarity, terminology, and victim recognition depending on geography and identity.
Reuters
In its reporting on the Pahalgam attack, Reuters adopted a cautious and depoliticised tone that consistently avoided directly labelling the incident as terrorism. The news agency described the assailants as a “little-known militant group” called ‘Kashmir Resistance’ and reported that they expressed discontent at “outsiders” settling in the region, citing demographic changes as a motive. The coverage highlighted the number of casualties, 26 dead and 17 injured, and framed the event largely within the context of India’s tourism ambitions under Prime Minister Modi, noting how the attack “shatters Modi’s tourism success in the troubled region.”
By emphasising the historical and political context of Kashmir, and using terms like “militants” instead of “terrorists,” Reuters effectively softened the ideological dimensions of the attack. Moreover, the Hindu identity of the victims was entirely omitted, minimising the targeted nature of the massacre and presenting it as another incident in a longstanding insurgency rather than an act of ideologically driven mass violence.
In stark contrast, Reuters’ coverage of the Bondi Beach attack was unambiguous and direct in naming both the perpetrators’ ideological motive and the identity of the victims. The report identified the attackers as gunmen inspired by the Islamic State, who had travelled to the Philippines for training, and emphasised the event as a targeted antisemitic attack against Australia’s Jewish community.
The coverage included specific casualty numbers,11 killed initially, with later reports confirming 15 deaths, and highlighted the small but well-established Jewish diaspora in Australia, situating the attack as both a terror incident and a direct threat to a religious community. The language was assertive and morally explicit, consistently using terms such as “Jewish” and “Islamic State”, leaving no ambiguity about the nature of the attack or the ideological motivations behind it.
This stark contrast in terminology and framing between the Pahalgam and Bondi Beach incidents illustrates Reuters’ selective moral lens, underlining how Western media can present ideologically similar mass killings in drastically different ways depending on the location and the community affected.
CNN
In its coverage of the Pahalgam attack, CNN described the incident in measured, neutral terms, referring to the perpetrators as “gunmen” and a “little-known militant group” called The Resistance Front. The report noted that the attackers opened fire on tourists at a scenic Himalayan resort near Pahalgam, killing more than two dozen people, predominantly Indian nationals. CNN highlighted the geopolitical ramifications of the attack, mentioning rising tensions between India and Pakistan, while including statements from India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri about alleged “cross-border linkages” of the act.
The coverage also reported that the militant group cited grievances regarding “outsiders” settling in the region and causing a “demographic change,” but CNN emphasised that the claim could not be independently verified. Notably, the reporting avoided references to the victims’ Hindu identity, and refrained from explicitly labeling the attack as terrorism, framing it instead within the broader context of regional insurgency and violence.
Conversely, CNN’s reporting on the Bondi Beach attack was explicit, direct, and ideologically framed. The coverage identified the attackers as a father-and-son duo motivated by Islamic State ideology, who had traveled to the Philippines, a known hub of extremist activity, for training. The report described the massacre as a terror attack explicitly targeting Australia’s Jewish community during a Hanukkah celebration, with at least 11 people killed.
CNN highlighted the communal impact, documenting how Sydney residents laid flowers and lit candles to mourn the victims. The language used, terms like “terror”, “Jewish”, and “Islamic state” underscored the ideological and religious dimensions of the attack, contrasting sharply with the more neutral, depoliticized framing of the Pahalgam incident. This juxtaposition demonstrates a clear differential in CNN’s narrative, showing how the same form of mass violence is framed differently based on location, victims’ identity, and ideological associations.
DW (Deutsche Welle)
DW (Deutsche Welle) reported the Pahalgam attack in “Indian-administered” Kashmir by emphasising the scale of the violence while maintaining neutral terminology. According to DW, at least 26 people, mostly Indian tourists along with some foreign visitors, were killed when gunmen opened fire near a popular tourist resort. The coverage focused on the aftermath, noting that armed police and soldiers conducted searches of homes and forests for militants in the region. DW described the attackers as a militant group, deliberately avoiding terms like “terrorist” or identifying the victims by religion, framing the incident as part of the ongoing security challenges in Kashmir rather than an ideologically motivated attack. The report also highlighted the rising tensions between India and Pakistan following the killings, situating the event within a broader geopolitical context.
In contrast, DW’s coverage of the Bondi Beach attack in Australia was more explicit in framing the incident as a targeted ideological act. Authorities treated the attack as terrorism, with gunmen opening fire on a Jewish community gathering during the first night of Hanukkah near Sydney’s iconic beach. The report noted 16 fatalities and multiple serious injuries, highlighting that one suspect was dead and another in critical condition. DW used terms like “terror”, “Jewish”, and “Islamic terrorism” to highlight both the ideological motive and the religious identity of the victims. This framing marked a clear difference from the Pahalgam coverage: while similar mass-casualty attacks, DW’s language for Bondi Beach emphasized religious targeting and terrorism, contrasting with the neutral, security-focused depiction of violence in Kashmir.
The Guardian
The Guardian coverage of the Kashmir attack focused on the human and geopolitical impact of the violence while maintaining a neutral descriptive tone. The report stated that at least 26 tourists were killed and ten injured when suspected militants opened fire at a popular tourist destination in Kashmir during a scheduled visit by US Vice-President JD Vance. The coverage highlighted how the attack shattered the region’s relative calm, transforming a scenic tourist spot into a scene of horror and raising fears of renewed tensions between nuclear-armed neighbors, India and Pakistan. The report used terms like militant group to describe the perpetrators and avoided labeling the attack as “terrorist” or specifying the victims’ religion, emphasising the security threat and the broader political implications rather than ideological motivations.
In contrast, The Guardian’s reporting on the Bondi Beach attack in Australia was framed explicitly as a targeted terrorist and antisemitic act. The coverage detailed the shooting at a Jewish community gathering celebrating Hanukkah, noting 15 people killed, including a child, and describing the alleged father-and-son gunmen. Terms such as terror, Jewish, and Islamic terrorism were used, underscoring both the religious identity of the victims and the ideological motivations of the attackers.
The reporting highlighted the horror of the massacre and the subsequent calls by Australian leaders to reform gun laws, portraying the attack as a deliberate ideological assault, which contrasts with the Guardian’s more neutral, security-focused framing of the Kashmir incident.
Al Jazeera
Al Jazeera’s coverage of the Pahalgam attack in Kashmir focused on the scale of the violence and its impact on regional stability. The report stated that at least 26 tourists were killed when armed men opened fire at a resort in Pahalgam, marking one of the deadliest attacks in the area in the last 25 years. The coverage highlighted the attack as a major setback to the Indian government’s narrative of peace and growing tourism in Kashmir, referencing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2024 remarks promising a “terror-free” and tourist-friendly region.
The report used neutral terms like armed men and suspected rebels, deliberately avoiding politically or religiously charged terms such as “terrorist” or “Hindu,” thereby focusing on the security and political dimensions rather than framing it as an ideologically motivated act.
In contrast, Al Jazeera’s reporting on the Bondi Beach attack in Sydney framed the incident explicitly as a targeted act against a religious community. The coverage noted that two gunmen attacked a Jewish festival at Bondi Beach, killing at least 15 people and injuring dozens. Australian authorities described the attack as inspired by ISIL, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called it an “act of pure evil, an act of terror, an act of anti-Semitism,” emphasising both the ideological motive and the identity of the victims. The report used terms like Jewish to identify the targeted community, highlighting the religious and terror-related context, in contrast to the neutral security-focused framing of the Kashmir incident.
The New York Times
The New York Times coverage of the Pahalgam attack in what the report called “Indian-administered” Kashmir reported that at least 24 tourists were killed when militants opened fire on a group visiting the scenic region. The report focused on the human toll and the broader implications for India-Pakistan relations, emphasising the escalation of tensions following the attack. While the newspaper avoided labeling the perpetrators as “terrorists” or attaching any religious identifier, it highlighted government and local media reports confirming the killings and injuries, framing the incident as a serious security challenge in the region.
This neutral language drew criticism from some quarters, such as the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, which publicly called the NYT’s wording “removed from reality” and insisted that the attack should be described as a “terrorist act.”
In contrast, the New York Times’ coverage of the Bondi Beach attack in Sydney was more explicit about ideological motivation and terror connections. The report detailed how a father and son targeted a Jewish holiday celebration, killing 15 people, and linked the attack to Islamic State ideology. Authorities charged the suspects with murder and terrorism, and the coverage contextualised the incident alongside other IS-inspired attacks globally, including in England and Poland.
Terms like Islamic State and terrorist group were used to describe the attackers and their motivations, reflecting both the religious targeting of the victims and the broader global terror context, in stark contrast to the more neutral framing of the Kashmir incident.
One Ideology, Two Narratives
Across ten media houses, the pattern is consistent and undeniable. When Islamist terrorists murdered Jewish civilians in Sydney, terrorism was named, ideology examined, and victim identity respected. When the same ideology targeted Hindu civilians in Pahalgam, language softened, identities blurred, and terror reframed as militancy or insurgency.
This is not an argument against recognising antisemitism. It is an indictment of why Hindu victims of Islamist terror are denied the same moral clarity. Journalism claims universality, but this record reveals hierarchy. Terrorism, in global media practice, appears to depend not on the act but on who is killed.
Credit : Organiser Weekly
