‘Emotional Loading’: Decoding the Media Coverage of the Bondi Beach Shooting

The Bondi Beach shooting, which left 16 people killed and tens more injured, was a horrific crime. It has also been highly instrumentalised to promote a particular narrative: that those who oppose Israel’s genocide in Gaza are responsible for this violence.

Caitlin Johnstone has forcefully rejected this claim: “Massacring civilians is wrong. It’s wrong in Bondi Beach, and it’s wrong in Gaza. Today the worst people in the world are trying to claim that because the former happened, everyone needs to stop protesting the latter. This is pure, cynical manipulation designed to protect a genocidal apartheid state from criticism. It deserves nothing but a scoff and a dismissal.”

While this argument is so crude that it scarcely merits more than “a scoff and a dismissal”, it nevertheless offers a clear example of how media narratives are constructed through emotional manipulation.

One of the most common techniques used is the emotional loading of information in ways that obstruct critical analysis and prevent a clear examination of motive and context. This begins with the careful selection of emotionally charged vocabulary, designed to short-circuit a reader’s analytical capacity. Through repetition, certain key terms are normalised and gradually presented as unquestionable truth.

Several media outlets and individuals have pounded one specific talking point: that the Bondi Beach shooting was part of a global intifada. The Wall Street Journal, the Telegraph, The Free Press, The New York Times and The Atlantic, amongst others, had almost the exact same wording. That, in itself, should cause suspicion, but that’s a different line of enquiry.

Let’s examine two of those headlines that emerged immediately after the shooting. The New York Times ran “Bondi Beach Is What ‘Globalize the Intifada’ Looks Like”, while The Atlantic published “The Intifada Comes to Bondi Beach”.

The emotional force of these headlines rests on two terms: “intifada” and “Bondi Beach”. The reader is assumed to be familiar with the attack itself, allowing the focus to shift toward linking the tragedy with a second, already loaded concept. In doing so, the event is framed as an antisemitic act directly connected to developments in Palestine.

The term ‘intifada’, which originally means ‘uprising’ or ‘resistance’ in Arabic, has been manipulated by the media since the 1980s, in much the same way as the Arabic term jihad. Intifada, according to Zionist usage, means irrational hatred for Jews with the intent of killing them because of that hatred and not because of anything they might have done. But the term itself, when used by Palestinians, actually refers to resistance against the illegal occupation of Palestine by the Zionist state.

Equating Zionism with Judaism is another trick performed by official Israeli propaganda (Hasbara) and repeated by many media outlets, which essentially obfuscates any criticism of the political project of the State of Israel. The Anti-Defamation League, a prominent Israeli lobby, states this point specifically: “Anti-Zionism is antisemitic, in intent or effect”.

If Zionism and Judaism are the same, then criticism of the State of Israel can be cast as antisemitism. Given that antisemitism is what led to the Holocaust, this logic implicitly suggests that critics of Israel must be supporters of the Holocaust.

The writers of the previous headlines are fully aware of this coarse rationale; that’s why they’ve used it. The implication embedded in their framing is that the Bondi Beach shooting forms part of the same historical continuum that led to the Holocaust, and that Israel exists as a safeguard against its recurrence. As David Frum writes in The Atlantic: “The more dangerous the anti-Israel movement makes the Diaspora for Jews, the more Jews will leave the Diaspora for the state that exists to protect them.”

This narrative was reinforced by Israeli officials and prominent pro-Israel figures, including Israel’s foreign minister, the UK Health Secretary, editors at Newsweek, Andrew Neil, and others, who repeated the exact same talking point in their condemnations of the gruesome mass murder. The repetition of such precise language in their speech creates the impression of a spontaneous consensus rather than something thought of in a newsroom, lending it an appearance of authenticity.

Emotion perceived as “authentic” is especially persuasive. By saturating coverage with emotionally charged language and reinforcing it through repetition, media and political actors limit the space for critical evaluation. Speed is essential to this process. Facts might emerge afterwards that challenge that initial emotional narrative; if that happens, the impression on mass consciousness must be made already. An emotional imprint rarely changes because of rational facts presented afterwards.

Another tool that reinforces this primary emotional framing is to hyperfocus on the victims and to make the perpetrators seem inhuman. This is not to deny the suffering of victims or to excuse acts of violence, but to note how such framing further neutralises analytical distance.

For instance, The Guardian published the headline: “Holocaust survivor, London-born rabbi and 10-year-old girl among victims of Bondi Beach terror attack”. Faced with such imagery, rational examination becomes morally fraught. Another powerful example is that of Arsen Ostrovky, who appeared bloodied and with bandages all over his head. He was allegedly also a survivor of the Nova Festival on 7 October 2023, which directly links Bondi Beach to the Hamas attack on 7 October.

At the same time, perpetrators are labelled as terrorists, which places them under distinct legal and political frameworks, who were supporters of the Islamic State—here the emotional connection to a previously loaded concept is strongly emphasized—and had been flagged by security forces before.

This connection to an almost non-existent entity and initially unconfirmed by police, broadens the scope of their actions to imply that other Muslims might do the same. This, despite the fact that the so-called Islamic State has done nothing against Israel since 7 October—Israel was never really a target for them—and has been widely condemned by Muslim communities worldwide.

However, this connection is most opportune. A recent study commissioned by the Israeli foreign ministry from the PR firm Stagwell Global, whose founder is an AIPAC donor and has ties to Netanyahu’s Likud, concluded that the best way to try to turn around worsening public perception of Israel in the West is by fearmongering about Muslims conducting global jihad and terrorist attacks.  The rhetoric of a “global intifada” tied to the Islamic State aligns closely with that objective.

Netanyahu was quick to capitalize on this narrative, and he sent a clear message not only to Australia, but to the entire world. “Your call for a Palestinian state pours fuel on the antisemitic fire. It rewards Hamas terrorists. It emboldens those who menace Australian Jews and encourages the Jew hatred now stalking your streets”, he wrote in a letter to Anthony Albanese, Australia’s prime minister.

This message was not directed solely at Australia. Its primary audience was the US political right. Over the last few months, there has been growing criticism of Israeli actions in Gaza and the Middle East in general that has divided the right into two camps. Tucker Carlson has been a leading voice questioning US support for Israel. In this context, the Bondi Beach tragedy became a potent tool for Israeli advocacy.

The purpose of this madia manipulation is to use the tragedy to equate support for Palestinians with support for jihadist terrorism, and criticism of the State of Israel with antisemitism, thereby shielding the Zionist state from accountability and trying to change the rising negative perception of Israel. The method is blunt but effective, echoing classic propaganda techniques outlined by Edward Bernays.

This form of emotional loading is not unique to this case, nor to Israel’s supporters. It has become standard practice in modern journalism, reinforced by social media and click-driven incentives. Journalism students are routinely taught to prioritise emotional proximity and affective impact. Nevertheless, there are ways and ways to use it, and, by being aware, offers some protection against it.

It is not clear what the motivation of the criminals who killed innocent people in Bondi Beach was; it is possible that it was a type of twisted protest against Israel’s genocide in Gaza. However, notwithstanding the suffering of the victims, their actions have done more to further the Israeli cause than they have done to help the Palestinians. Senseless violence always ends up harming the cause that it is supposed to uphold, and Israel should know that well.