American Behavioral Scientist, Ahead of Print.
In the aftermath of a violent attack, questions of definition arise. News framing research has shown that the words chosen to define a given event can affect attitudes and decision-making, even when only a single word is varied. This study analyzes public discourse in the aftermath of the January 6 U.S. Capitol attacks to better understand which labels predominated and how different labels were explained/justified. We pair computer-assisted content analysis with qualitative textual analysis to identify patterns in public commentary during the week following the attacks. Results indicate that initial news coverage favored “protest(s)” as a descriptor, but “riot,” “attack(s),” and “insurrection” gained traction as the week unfolded. Many labels were also definitively applied and deployed to contextualize the attacks, providing a degree of contrast to framing norms. The results are considered in relation to ongoing debates over definitions of domestic terrorism and related crises, as well as normative considerations central to the maintenance of U.S. democracy.