In a recent column for Quillette, philosopher Maarten Boudry described how a Flemish public broadcaster reportedly instructed journalists to downplay survey findings showing elevated intolerance among respondents from certain foreign and religious backgrounds. Instead, coverage was steered towards explanations centred on the "manosphere". Whether one agrees with Boudry's interpretation or not, the episode raises a broader question confronting modern journalism: what happens when inconvenient findings are filtered out of public discussion because they complicate preferred narratives?
The significance of such decisions extends beyond a single newsroom. Boudry's purpose was to examine a particular editorial decision within a specific media environment. From the text of the column, it appears that the media house tried to avoid any coverage that might cause harm to immigrants or to religious lobbies in the country. In a globally interconnected information environment, omissions, selective framing, and narrative management can become political ammunition for actors thousands of miles away.
Global Machinery of Reciprocal Radicalisation
Reports of intolerance rarely remain local. They are absorbed into wider narratives of grievance, victimhood, and retaliation that travel rapidly across borders through media networks, diaspora communities, and social media platforms. This dynamic contributes to what might be called a global machinery of reciprocal radicalisation, a cycle in which competing ideological, political, and religious movements sustain one another by highlighting the prejudices and abuses of their adversaries while minimising or rationalising their own. The process is not confined to any particular religion, ideology, or region. It has become an increasingly visible feature of the modern information landscape.
A recent editorial in Pakistan's Dawn newspaper illustrates one side of this phenomenon. Published on the International Day to Combat Islamophobia, the editorial highlighted the very real challenges facing Muslim communities around the world, including anti-Muslim prejudice, discriminatory rhetoric, and the political exploitation of immigration anxieties by far-right movements in several Western countries. These concerns deserve serious attention and responsible reporting.
Selective Omissions and Their Consequences
Yet the same information environment that exposes anti-Muslim prejudice abroad also carries reports of sectarian violence, religious persecution, and discrimination within Muslim-majority societies. Observers such as Boudry argue that some Western media organisations occasionally frame or omit information that conflicts with prevailing domestic narratives. Whether such criticisms are fully justified in every case is less important than the broader consequence: reports of intolerance do not stay confined to the societies in which they originate. They are repurposed elsewhere to advance entirely different political agendas.
The result is a self-reinforcing feedback loop. Political and religious hardliners in Muslim-majority countries frequently point to Islamophobia, anti-immigrant sentiment, or discrimination against Muslims in Western societies as evidence that criticism of their own treatment of minorities is hypocritical or politically motivated. Meanwhile, majoritarian movements in Western countries and elsewhere point to religious persecution, sectarian violence, or restrictions on minority rights in Muslim-majority states as justification for their own exclusionary policies. Neither side is entirely inventing its evidence. The danger lies in treating abuses elsewhere as moral permission for abuses at home.
Cross-Border Database Reveals Consistent Patterns
For several years, I have maintained a cross-border database tracking reports of ideologically motivated hate crimes, sectarian violence, communal unrest, and state-sanctioned intolerance across multiple regions. Individual incidents differ dramatically in scale and severity, but one pattern emerges with striking consistency: no society possesses a monopoly on intolerance, and no ideology has an exclusive claim to victimhood.
South Asia offers a particularly revealing example. In Bangladesh, data compiled by organisations such as the South Asia Terrorism Portal and corroborated by local reporting has documented a persistent pattern of communal and sectarian tensions. In early 2026, over 133 communal incidents were recorded in a single quarter, alongside targeted desecrations of Sufi shrines and institutional crackdowns on Buddhist and Hindu temples.
Intolerance Across South Asia
In Pakistan, sectarian hatred and religious discrimination continue to affect multiple communities. The sealing of Ahmadi places of worship, recurring attacks on religious minorities, and periodic violence directed against both Sunni and Shia worshippers demonstrate that intolerance remains a serious domestic challenge. In India, reports of these very abuses against Hindus in neighbouring Bangladesh are frequently invoked by majoritarian nationalist groups seeking to justify discriminatory rhetoric or policies directed at Muslim communities at home.
The pattern is remarkably consistent. Hardliners in Pakistan and Bangladesh point to vigilante violence, anti-Muslim rhetoric, and discriminatory policies in India. Majoritarian activists in India point to the persecution of Hindus, Ahmadis, Christians, and other minorities elsewhere in South Asia. Each side treats abuses across the border as confirmation of its own narrative while dismissing equivalent concerns within its own society. This is the essence of reciprocal radicalisation.
Global Reach of the Phenomenon
The phenomenon extends far beyond South Asia. Across Europe, North America, the Middle East, and Africa, ideological actors routinely exploit reports of intolerance elsewhere to justify intolerance within their own communities. Every atrocity committed by an adversary becomes a recruiting tool. Every instance of selective reporting becomes evidence for a narrative of victimhood. Every omission strengthens claims that only partisan voices are telling the truth.
This divergence is not merely theoretical; it is visible in contemporary events. The recent riots in Belfast, triggered by the stabbing of an Irish citizen by an immigrant from Sudan, quickly escalated into intimidation, rioting, and attempts by some individuals to identify motorists and passers-by based on their perceived background or identity. Whatever the motives behind the original attack, the broader reaction demonstrated how quickly individual acts of violence can become catalysts for collective hostility.
Belfast Riots as a Case Study
Such incidents rarely remain local. Within hours, images, videos, and commentary circulate globally through social media, diaspora networks, and ideological media outlets. Events that begin as local crises are rapidly incorporated into broader narratives about immigration, religion, and national identity. The Belfast riots will be interpreted very differently by different audiences. Yet, each interpretation is likely to become material for political actors elsewhere seeking evidence for their own pre-existing beliefs.
This is why journalistic omissions carry consequences beyond questions of professional ethics. When media organisations consistently emphasise one form of extremism while minimising another, they may unintentionally provide radicals with one of their most effective rhetorical weapons. Extremists thrive on perceived double standards. The moment audiences discover facts that appear to have been ignored, downplayed, or selectively framed, demagogues step forward with a familiar message: the media is hiding the truth, and only we can be trusted.
Precision and Consistency in Reporting
A more responsible approach to journalism does not require false equivalence. Different societies face different problems, and different forms of intolerance produce vastly different consequences. Online harassment is not the same as mob violence. Social discrimination is not the same as state persecution. Precision remains essential. The greatest gift extremists receive is not support from their own followers but validation from their adversaries. Every act of intolerance abroad becomes evidence for intolerance at home. The Belfast riots now provide fresh ammunition for extremists across South Asia. At the same time, ideological narratives from Western researchers and analysts offer opinion-makers in South Asia convenient material: even the slightest sign of selectivity in Western reporting is repurposed as propaganda for someone else's grievance.
Yet recognising those distinctions should not prevent journalists from applying consistent standards. The underlying mechanisms of tribalism, dehumanisation, and ideological conformity often display striking similarities across cultural and political boundaries. The targets change; the psychology frequently does not. Understanding both the similarities and the differences is essential if we are to comprehend the forces driving contemporary extremism around the world.
Journalism's Role in Denying Extremists Their Weapons
Journalism cannot eliminate extremism. Yet it can deny extremists one of their most effective weapons: the illusion that intolerance belongs exclusively to the other side. A truly accountable press does not merely expose the failures of its opponents. It illuminates the global mirror in which every society confronts its own reflection.
