Has violence become so normalized that people who throw bombs are considered mere “counterprotesters”? From the news coverage of a recent event, it appears so. US News headlined an article “Counterprotester Threw Improvised Explosive at Anti-Islam Event in NYC, Police Say.” The article was from AP and appeared on many sites.

It went on: “The sparsely attended event drew a far larger group of counterdemonstrators, including one person who tossed a smoking object containing nuts, bolts, screws and a ‘hobby fuse’ into the crowd, police said.” The article repeatedly uses the words “counterprotesters” and “counterdmonstrators,” making it sound as if the whole body of counterdemonstrators was bent on violent destruction.

What actually was happening was that a small group held a “Stop the Islamic Takeover of New York City” rally in front of Gracie Mansion, where Mayor Mamdani lives, and a larger group was demonstrating against the rally. The first group was clearly bigoted, but I can’t find any indication that either group was violent. The only violence I’ve seen mentioned was from the two bomb-throwers who embedded themselves in the crowd.

A tweet by CNN, which seemed to say the suspects were minding their own business when they were inexplicably arrested, has gotten more attention, but the “counterprotester” story is worse. By trivializing the attack, it makes the actual counterdemonstrators seem like a terrorist mob.

If protest and terrorism are the same thing, that cuts both ways. The federal government has reportedly charged eight people with “material support for terrorism,” said terrorist support consisting of wearing “black bloc” clothes to a protest. When you accept an equivalence, you accept all that it implies.

While it’s not directly relevant, I should remind readers that Islamic State and Iran are on opposite sides of Islam’s great religious divide, so it’s unlikely that these bombers were working for Iran.