The head of the Lebanese terrorist organisation Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, died on 27th September in Israeli air strikes. His dead body was recovered on 29th September. While several of his followers took to the streets in mourning, his death sparked a troubling wave of media coverage that romanticised and sanitised his violent legacy. The media’s job was to reflect on the devastation caused by his leadership prominently.
However, several notable Western media outlets chose otherwise, focusing on his so-called “charisma” and political influence. They glossed over the bloodshed and terrorism he orchestrated during his decades as Hezbollah’s chief. The dangerous trend followed by media outlets to humanise individuals like Nasrallah is not just misleading but reckless. Such reporting has a long-lasting effect on the psychology of the upcoming generation.
The Guardian’s ‘adulating’ obituary to Hezbollah chief
One of the most glaring examples came from The Guardian. On 28th September, it published an article describing Nasrallah as a figure “hard to replace”. The Guardian claimed the task would be difficult because of Nasrallah rose from “humble beginnings in Beirut to a position of great power”. The article painted a picture of Nasrallah as a man who inspired loyalty and admiration among his followers. While praising the dead chief of a terrorist organisation as an “Islamic scholar”, The Guardian completely failed to adequately address the brutal acts of terrorism that Nasrallah sanctioned during his leadership of Hezbollah.
The Guardian focused on his perceived charisma, and while doing so, the media house became distracted from the essential truth: Nasrallah was a man who led a terrorist organisation responsible for numerous attacks. One of the notable terrorist attacks initiated by Hezbollah during his tenure includes the 1983 bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut, which took the lives of 241 Americans.
Interestingly, The Guardian gave him a clean chit on the 7th October terrorist attack by Hamas on Israel and stated, “There is no evidence that Nasrallah knew what Hamas had planned for 7 October, but he reacted to the bloody raids on Israel with what must have seemed fine judgment. Hezbollah did not launch a major offensive but began firing some of its vast stocks of rockets and missiles into Israel in a bid to maintain its “resistance” credentials.” For The Guardian, firing “few rockets and missiles” towards Israel was not a big deal.
The Guardian should have critically analysed the destruction Hezbollah caused under Nasrallah’s leadership. However, it chose to imply that his leadership style was something to be admired. It is a fact that Nasrallah was revered by some in Lebanon, and even in other parts of the world, including India, where he was seen as a “warrior”. However, this does not whitewash Hezbollah’s violent role in the region. It does not excuse the fact that the international community has classified Hezbollah as a terrorist group. The focus on Nasrallah’s so-called charisma risks normalising and even legitimising the very terrorism that has destabilised the Middle East for decades.
The New York Times’ whitewashing of Nasrallah’s terrorism
The Guardian is not the only media outlet that has gone to great lengths to whitewash Nasrallah’s terrifying legacy of terrorism. The New York Times took a similarly problematic approach. It offered a long, detailed account of his political and military achievements. In a 28th September article, The New York Times referred to Nasrallah as someone who built Hezbollah into “the most formidable military and political force in Lebanon”, as if this were a neutral or even positive development.
While doing so, NYT completely failed to emphasise that Hezbollah’s rise to power came at the cost of thousands of innocent lives. It destabilised not only Lebanon but also the broader Middle East. Instead of dwelling on the countless acts of violence that Nasrallah orchestrated, including rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and the terrorist organisation’s role in the Syrian Civil War, the NYT article spent a significant portion of its time recounting Nasrallah’s “determination” and “strategic thinking”.
NYT normalised Hezbollah’s violent methods and presented them as a necessary evil for political gain rather than the terroristic acts they truly are. This dangerous narrative not only erodes public understanding of Hezbollah’s true nature but also emboldens other terrorist organisations by offering them the same media legitimacy.
Le Monde: More than a terrorist leader?
Le Monde is one of France’s most prestigious newspapers. While covering the death of the head of a terrorist organisation, Le Monde did not “disappoint” and behaved exactly like its counterparts. The coverage was an obituary that described Nasrallah as “a charismatic leader for more than three decades.” The headline itself was enough to raise eyebrows as it reduced Nasrallah’s life to that of a mere political figurehead while sidestepping the heinous crimes committed by Hezbollah under his leadership.
The article painted Nasrallah as an influential political figure with a towering stature in Lebanon. However, it failed to grapple with the core truth that his leadership was responsible for fostering a terrorist group that aimed to sow division and destruction in the region.
Le Monde portrayed him as a larger-than-life political leader, which was not only misleading but immensely dangerous for society. By framing Nasrallah as a “charismatic leader” without delving deeply into the ramifications of his leadership, the publication effectively whitewashes his crimes. There was no explanation of how Hezbollah, under Nasrallah, caused thousands of deaths, particularly, through suicide bombings and missile attacks targeting civilians.
When media houses paint an aura of legitimacy around terrorists, projecting them as political actors, they contribute to the obfuscation of the real dangers these organisations pose.
AP News: A sanitised legacy
Even media agency AP News, which is generally known for its straightforward reporting, failed to deliver a truthful portrayal of the terroristic legacy of Nasrallah. The publication covered airstrikes involving Hezbollah and acknowledged the group’s military actions. However, the tone surrounding Nasrallah’s death leaned towards a neutral, almost detached perspective. It described him as an “astute strategist” and “fiery orator”.
The article published by AP News mentioned his political influence and Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon’s government. However, it failed to take a firm stance on the organisation’s violent actions and terrorist activities. AP News focused on Nasrallah’s political influence rather than the terror he endorsed, leaving readers with the impression that he was a complex political figure and not a terrorist leader.
The sanitised version of his legacy will serve to downplay the organisation’s role in violence, not only against Israel but also against moderate Lebanese who have suffered under Hezbollah’s domination. Many moderate groups celebrated his death, but at the same time, it was celebrated by radicals worldwide. Such reporting on Nasrallah’s life only fuels the problematic sentiments of the latter.
The danger of glorifying terrorists
The dangerous trend of romanticising figures like Hassan Nasrallah reflects a broader issue within media coverage of terrorist organisations and their leaders. Publications that choose to downplay or sanitise the terrorist activities of the likes of Nasrallah are complicit in distorting public perception of these individuals.
Nasrallah’s case is not the only one. The same was done with the legacy of Osama Bin Laden, Burhan Wani, Afzal Guru and many others. By portraying Nasrallah as a political leader or focusing on his charisma and influence, these media outlets became an obstruction between reality and a false narrative. Such reporting whitewashes the violence and suffering that terrorist leaders like him have caused. It not only dishonours the memory of those who died at Hezbollah’s hands but also emboldens other terrorist organisations, who may see that their leaders can be eulogised in Western media as “charismatic” figures rather than the violent criminals they are.
A call for honest reporting
It is the responsibility of the media to be careful when reporting on figures like Hassan Nasrallah. Any sort of glorification of these leaders not only projects the irresponsible behaviour of the authors of these articles but also poses a threat to the future. Such reporting shapes public opinion in ways that downplay the severity of terrorism. It inadvertently legitimises organisations that threaten global peace.
Journalists must tell the truth. In the case of Hassan Nasrallah, the truth is that he was not a figure of charisma or political acumen, but a man responsible for bloodshed and terror. His legacy is one of violence, hatred, and death. It is time for the media to report that truth without glossing over the reality of who Hassan Nasrallah truly was. The world does not need another glorified image of a terrorist; it needs an honest account of the devastation Hezbollah caused under his leadership.
