When will mainstream media, major newspapers, and influential organisations take a hard look in the mirror and ask themselves a difficult question: what role have we played in radicalising individuals?
It’s a question that demands urgent attention—not just in the wake of each violent act or surge of online extremism, but as part of a continuous cultural self-examination. More than a decade ago, I was involved in the English Defence League (EDL), and even then, I noticed a troubling contradiction that still lingers today. People who express views—often drawn directly from reputable media sources—are frequently met with hostility, dismissed outright as racists, or branded far-right. But if those same opinions appear in a polished opinion piece or are voiced by a columnist with the right credentials, they are considered part of “respectable debate”.
This double standard is not just frustrating—it’s dangerous.
Mainstream media has long operated under a powerful paradox. On one hand, they serve as gatekeepers of legitimate discourse. On the other, they amplify divisive narratives—about immigration, crime, identity, and religion—often in ways that blur the line between reporting and provocation. Tabloid headlines stoke fear. Think tanks with ideological agendas are quoted as neutral experts. Dog-whistles are sanitised and published under the guise of concern for “integration” or “security”.
And yet, when readers absorb this language, respond to it emotionally, and express it—sometimes clumsily, sometimes passionately—they’re told they’ve crossed a line. But who drew that line in the first place? And why is it that people repeating media-sanctioned talking points are excluded from civil discourse?
This dissonance can breed resentment and alienation. For some—especially those already on the fringes—it creates a fertile ground for radicalisation. They begin to distrust institutions that appear hypocritical or elitist. They turn to alternative platforms that claim to say “what the mainstream won’t”. These platforms often exploit genuine grievances but distort them into dangerous ideologies.
Of course, individuals are responsible for their actions. But institutions—especially those with the power to shape public perception—must also take responsibility for the broader consequences of their messaging.
