Reading anonymity: Narrative difference and framework selection in the claiming of terrorist violence

Abstract

Despite the supposed importance of media coverage in achieving terrorist objectives, data indicate that terrorist groups increasingly commit unclaimed acts of violence. This article hopes to draw connections between the constitutive role of the press in framing attack narratives and the counterintuitive tendency for terrorists to refrain from claiming responsibility for violence. Using a comparative approach to assess representations from 13 newspapers and wire services, this article examines the presumption of difference and causal linkage between the claimed/unclaimed status of al Qaeda/al Qaeda affiliate attacks and the transmission of salient narrative elements to the target audience. Findings suggest variation in the narrative framework of both attack styles and identify this disparity as a potential factor influencing terrorists’ declining tendency to claim credit for violence.