Don't let alarmist possibilities distract from more probable realities
Language and tone can magnify purported threats. Terms like terrorism are highly evocative, but they lack a meaningful definition and inflame the passions without informing.
Is the tone alarmist or reactionary?
Does the report provide a rational definition for critical terms such as terrorism or security?
Watch out for:
Language that promotes hypothetical future threats while ignoring pressing and immediate security needs, especially in the domestic sphere.
Narrow, U.S.-centric views that assume American interests are universal, benign, and shared.
Reporting that adheres to measured, thoughtful language without relying on scare tactics or alarmism.
Reports that acknowledge a diversity of international opinion and interest, especially in cases of marginalized populations.
Approaches that treat hypothetical threats realistically while remaining focused instead on solutions to threats are are pressing and extant.