Commentary: Islamophobic rhetoric is common in Indiana. Here’s how newsrooms cover it.

In the run-up to this week’s midterm election, it was not uncommon to hear Indiana political figures attack Muslims. 

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita announced his office would investigate two groups for connections to terrorism. The groups, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Students for Justice in Palestine, support Muslim causes.

Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith called Islam a “demonic death cult” and suggested public calls to prayer should be banned in Indiana.

A relatively new political group, Save Heritage Indiana, promoted mass deportation at an August rally hosted in Fishers, Indiana. 

Our local news media have important choices to make when xenophobic speech peppers our information feeds. Journalists must decide what to report on and how to add context. Simply repeating shocking and offensive claims like these runs the risk of giving them more power than they deserve. 

I looked closely at how Indy newsrooms performed when they faced these decisions. It’s clear that the editors and reporters serving the Indy market are making thoughtful choices as they approach statements that are designed to promote fear and stoke hate. Local news outlets also reported on the community response to these ideas, which included condemnation and counter demonstrations. This added context is key in providing news consumers a complete view of their own communities.

Politicians “other” foreign-born citizens to cast them as un-American

Xenophobic speech, or speech that seeks to vilify, humiliate, dehumanize and incite hatred against people based on their perceived foreignness, nationality or migrant status tends to ramp up during election season. These recent attacks – on immigrants, Muslims, and other non-Christian faiths – are designed to make groups of people appear un-American.

In early October, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita singled out the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the National Students for Justice in Palestine, suggesting that they should be investigated as “terrorist supporters.”

Beckwith took aim at Muslims this summer, saying that the Muslim call to prayer, or Adhan, was “not part of American culture or history.” He has also agreed with Rokita on designating CAIR and NSJP as terrorist organizations, and on the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, he shared a video of a person falling from a burning World Trade Center Tower and said in the caption: “Never forget what Islam wants to do to the American way of life.” The Indiana Citizen reported on his comments, which he posted on X.

The Indiana Citizen also reported on Beckwith’s May 21 appearance on an online conservative talk show during which he said that people should be given “permission to hate again.”

In its story, the Citizen sought comment from Muslim civil rights advocates and U.S. Rep. André Carson, who represents Indiana’s 7th Congressional District and is one of a handful of Muslims in Congress.

For the most part, Indianapolis media is doing a good job of not amplifying these comments and instead bringing context and showing the community’s reaction.

IndyStar assigned its coverage to its First Amendment issues reporter, Cate Charron, whose role is to report on threats to the five freedoms — speech, religion, press, assembly and petition. She aptly tackled the topic by reporting on the “politician-led Islamophobic surge” of policies and remarks, reaction from Indy’s Muslim community, expert testimony on the historical intent of the Founding Fathers, and data from reports and Pew Research Center studies on Islamophobic incidents and discrimination.

IndyStar also published opinion columns condemning the attacks, including by staff columnist James Briggs and these guest columnists.

Both columns described how Beckwith was flat-out wrong about the U.S. Constitution and suggested that his provocative claims are more about his own political ambitions. The Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a national religion and protects all faiths from government interference. All of this context gives readers a chance to analyze the merits and intent of Beckwith’s speech, as well as Rokita’s investigation.

The Indiana Citizen, which is a nonpartisan platform aimed at increasing Hoosiers’ civic engagement, did additional reporting. Journalist Sydney Byerly examined the history of Muslims in the United States. In doing so, she refuted Beckwith’s assertion that Muslims are not a part of America’s history and culture.

TV news station WTHR fact-checked Beckwith’s claims that the Muslim call to prayer is publicly broadcast outside Indiana mosques to the community. Public radio station WFYI talked to pro-Palestine groups about their reaction to Attorney General Rokita’s call for the investigation, which they referred to as a “publicity stunt.”

This reporting by Indy news outlets gave the public context and added depth to stories, instead of merely repeating the statements of elected officials.

The press is getting wise to the way political speech can manipulate and misinform 

In her 2025 book on “otherness,” Angie Chuang examines how the news media have historically responded to political efforts to exclude some Americans from “fully belonging to American identity.”

Throughout the book, “American Otherness in Journalism: News Media Representations of Identity and Belonging,” Chuang describes example after example where journalists have failed to identify the racist behavior of politicians in the name of “objectivity.” By contrast, when I asked her to look at how Indy news media have performed over the past couple of months, she was pleased.

“The local reporting on anti-Muslim attacks in Indianapolis, particularly the Lieutenant Governor’s Islamophobic speech and its potential incitement of other hateful acts, has been robust and contextualized,” Chuang told me. “Unlike the news events I highlight in my book, in which Trump’s insertion of racially coded statements hijacked the narratives of events like the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, the coverage in Indianapolis has prioritized the voices of community members and organizations like CAIR—and called out Beckwith’s hateful statements for what they are.”

Chuang notes in her book that the press sometimes struggle to identify political speech and actions as racist or discriminatory. In fact, at times newsrooms can sugarcoat racist ideology with more palatable descriptions, like “alt-right,” a term that took hold during President Donald Trump’s first term.

In 2017 the Associated Press advised newsrooms to avoid using the term “alt-right,” saying that it was “a euphemism to disguise racist aims.” Instead, the AP advised newsrooms to use specific wording and terms like “racist,” “white supremacist” or “neo-Nazi” when describing the Unite the Right Charlottesville protestors.

By not precisely describing the ideology behind Unite the Right as racist, Chuang argued that news media enabled Trump “to underplay the role of race and racism” of the rally.

Lack of context and depth of reporting harms communities

There is a danger in simply repeating racist political rhetoric and hoping that the audience will recognize it for what it is. It makes the statements sound normal.

I’m grateful that Indy journalists don’t do this. Instead, they fully examine each argument, exposing the weaknesses and flaws.

The people who are most harmed by these attacks tell me they appreciate that journalism has evolved. And they want even more of it.

“I would like the press’ curiosity and more of their input,” said Jordan Esparza-Kelley, communications coordinator for CAIR-Chicago, one of the organizations that state Attorney General Rokita wants to investigate. “Don’t be a stenographer for these politicians. Like I said, follow the thread; let’s ask ‘why’ a couple more times.”

Rupal Thanawala, president of the Asian American Alliance in Indy, also notes the danger of amplifying hate speech without adding analysis: “I think giving people that media platform is also wrong. You want to talk, just talk to the wall and be done with it. But, we are giving them the mouthpiece.”

Thanawala is worried that the rhetoric already emboldens people to act out and say offensive things to the community through the comments section on news stories’ social media posts.

“Everybody’s so uncomfortable and everybody’s even worried about backlash,” she said.

Just this past September, community fears led leadership at Alhuda Islamic Center of Indiana in Fishers to add security and police patrols to the mosque during daily prayers.

When powerful politicians attack Muslims or immigrants, the press have many choices about how to respond. There are consequences for the community that come with how the media respond. When the news media handle inflammatory rhetoric poorly, they risk spreading hate and inspiring violence. When they ignore it, they risk misrepresenting politicians and further marginalizing minority groups.

When they handle it responsibly, their reporting equips people with the knowledge they need to see through fear-mongering and manipulation. We should expect journalists to give this value-added perspective to their reporting. It is refreshing to see Indy newsrooms get it right in this situation.