By Rachel Avraham
On October 2, 2025, during Yom Kippur, a violent terror attack outside Heaton Park Synagogue in Manchester shocked Britain and the global Jewish community. Two people were killed, four injured, and the attacker — a 27-year-old British citizen of Syrian descent — was shot dead by police.
Yet what followed was just as revealing: the way Western media framed the story. Terms like terrorist, attacker, or suspect varied from outlet to outlet — changing how millions perceived the same event.
Reuters was the first major outlet to label the incident as a terror attack, reporting in clear, clinical terms: the suspect rammed pedestrians, stabbed victims, and was “neutralized by armed police.”
AP News added another layer — one fatality might have resulted from a police bullet — introducing early controversy about the response. TIME Magazine highlighted political reaction, quoting British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s vow to “crush antisemitic hatred.” Meanwhile, local Manchester papers gave voice to eyewitnesses, Jewish leaders, and Muslim residents fearing retaliation. In short: international media provided facts; local journalism supplied emotion and context.
Most Western outlets framed the event as an act of antisemitic violence. TIME’s headline read: “Jews targeted because they were Jews.” Accurate, perhaps — but it narrowed the focus, turning the narrative into one about religious hatred rather than global terrorism.
The timing — Yom Kippur — became central to every story. This reinforced the image of “faith under attack,” intensifying emotional engagement. AP’s note that one victim might have been hit by police reframed the debate. Now, the tragedy wasn’t only about the attacker, but also about systemic failure and accountability — a tension between heroism and human error.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blamed “Western weakness toward terror,” while British officials condemned “politicization of tragedy.” The Guardian called it a “transatlantic blame game,” showing how one act of terror can ripple through diplomacy.
Coverage often avoided mentioning radicalization. Descriptions like “British man of Syrian descent” replaced any exploration of ideology. Victims’ stories were emotional, but the deeper questions — why and how — remained muted. Some outlets, such as The Washington Post and The Independent, tried balancing empathy with analysis, yet fragmentation left readers piecing together the full picture themselves
The Manchester synagogue attack coverage was factually accurate but emotionally curated. The emphasis on antisemitism was legitimate, yet the absence of radicalization context showed a pattern: Western media, in its pursuit of sensitivity, often limits full honesty.
The press should not choose between empathy and inquiry — it must hold both. In Manchester, tragedy spoke clearly. The question is: did journalism truly listen, or simply echo what audiences wanted to hear?
Photo from BBC News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7vBbkGub-4
