Media Bias and the Silence on Syria’s Alawite Massacres: Terrorism Labeling in the Shadow of Geopolitics

By Mohamad Hammoud

The Selective Use of 'Terrorism'

The term ‘terrorism’ has become one of the most politically charged words in modern discourse, frequently used to justify military interventions and shape foreign policies. However, it is often applied selectively, depending on the interests of America and its allies. Consequently, the way violence is labeled and how atrocities are reported—or ignored—by global media varies significantly. This duality is sharply evident in the ongoing massacres of Syria’s Alawite minority, where over 1,300 civilians have been slaughtered in just 72 hours by forces loyal to Syria’s newly led government under Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham [HTS] leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani. Despite the scale of the violence, Western media coverage has been muted, highlighting a troubling pattern of neglect when victims of terrorism are non-Western. This essay examines the Alawite massacres as a case study in media bias, connecting it to historical critiques of how terrorism is framed and whose suffering merits global attention.

A Humanitarian Catastrophe Ignored

Since March 7, 2025, Syrian security forces and allied militias have executed systematic killings of Alawite civilians in Latakia and Tartus, the historic heartland of Syria’s Alawite minority. Verified reports from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights [SOHR] detail horrific events, including over 500 Alawite men, women, and children killed in a single day, with many victims shot at close range or burned alive in their homes. Survivors describe a campaign to “purge” Alawites from coastal Syria, with security forces looting property, burning villages, and torturing civilians. Despite the new government claiming to pursue “inclusive governance,” it has dismissed Alawite officials and failed to protect civilians, while al-Julani has publicly defended the crackdown as necessary.

Yet, headlines in Western outlets like FOX News and CNN have relegated these events to brief updates, often overshadowed by coverage of Ukraine or US politics. This contrasts sharply with the extensive reporting on the 2015 Paris attacks [130 deaths] or the 2017 Manchester bombing [22 deaths]. Such disparity highlights a racialized hierarchy of grief: non-white, non-Western lives are rendered invisible unless they fit preconceived narratives of “terrorism.”

Contradictions in Terrorism Labeling

The Alawite massacres expose contradictions in how political violence is framed. Al-Julani’s HTS—a former al-Qaeda affiliate—now leads Syria’s government, merging state authority with terrorist ideology. This complicates media narratives, as while HTS’s past suicide bombings were universally labeled “terrorism,” its current atrocities as a governing power are framed as “clashes” or “revenge killings.” The term “terrorism” evaporates when perpetrators hold state legitimacy and align with Western interests, even as their tactics mimic those of non-state groups. Furthermore, the Alawites, associated with the ousted Assad regime, are portrayed as “collateral damage” in a power struggle rather than victims of sectarian terrorism. This is in stark contrast to the immediate condemnation of ISIS’s 2014 Yazidi genocide, which fit the “terrorist vs. minority” template.

Research from the Global Terrorism Database shows that “terrorism” is often defined not by the act itself but by the identities of perpetrators and victims. When violence targets marginalized groups in non-Western conflicts, it is sanitized as “ethnic strife” or “civil war.”

Historical Parallels: Lessons from the Past

The Alawite massacres echo past episodes where non-Western atrocities were minimized, such as in Sri Lanka’s Tamil Genocide (2009), where government forces killed 40,000 Tamil civilians in months, yet Western media largely framed it as a “counterterrorism” operation. Similarly, in Yemen, Saudi-led airstrikes, backed by the U.S., have killed 377,000 Yemenis since 2015, receiving minimal coverage compared to the Ukraine conflict. In both cases, violence against non-white populations was excluded from the “terrorism” framework, reflecting philosopher Achille Mbembe's concept of necro-politics—the power to decide whose deaths are grievable. The Alawites, like Tamils and Yemenis, are deemed ungrievable, as their suffering disrupts simplistic “good vs. evil” narratives.

Media Complicity and the Double Standard

Studies show systematic biases in terrorism coverage, including that attacks by Muslims receive 449% more coverage than those by non-Muslims, even with comparable casualties. Language plays a crucial role; white perpetrators are labeled “lone wolves” or “mentally ill,” while Muslim perpetrators are labeled “terrorists” by default. Al-Julani’s forces, despite their terrorism roots, escape the label now that they govern. This bias extends to Syria: while ISIS’s genocide against Yazidis dominated headlines, the Alawite massacres—equally sectarian—are relegated to footnotes. Outlets like The Guardian and Reuters mention the killings but avoid terms like “terrorism” or “genocide,” using passive phrases like “clashes led to deaths.”

Conclusion: The Cost of Silence

The Alawite massacres are not just a Syrian tragedy but a litmus test for global media ethics. By refusing to label state-sponsored sectarian slaughter as terrorism, media outlets legitimize al-Julani’s regime and erase the humanity of Alawite victims. This silence perpetuates cycles of violence, as seen in Sri Lanka and Yemen, where impunity followed indifference. To dismantle this hierarchy, media must apply “terrorism” uniformly, labeling state and non-state violence consistently based on acts, not identities. They must amplify marginalized voices by centering Alawite testimonies and challenge necro-politics by recognizing that all lives, regardless of race or religion, merit equal grief.

As Alawite survivors plead for international intervention, their cries echo a universal truth: until media unshackles itself from racialized frameworks, “terrorism” will remain a tool of erasure, not justice.