Don’t hide the truth about who made violent threats against Target

Omitting or burying crucial context is one of the many ways in which newsrooms can, either intentionally or subconsciously, obscure the truth and mislead audiences.

And when it’s intentional, we may call it what it is. After all, a lie of omission is still a lie. 

And as far as lies of omission are concerned, certain newsrooms are guilty of it last week following a spate of bomb threats leveled against Target stores. The threats were made by individuals who claim they’re upset about the retailer’s decision to remove certain pride-month related merchandise, not its decision to sell that merchandise. But you’d hardly know this from a casual glance at the news.

“Target stores see more bomb threats over Pride merchandise,” the Washington Post reported this week. The subhead adds, “Locations in at least five states were evacuated this weekend, and no explosives were discovered.”

And this is how the story’s opening paragraph reads, “Target stores in at least five states were evacuated this weekend after receiving bomb threats. Though no explosives were discovered, the incidents tie into the backlash over the retail chain’s Pride Month merchandise.”

You may be shocked to learn that it was the self-declared allies of the pride movement, not its conservative adversaries, who made the bomb threats, according to both local media and law enforcement officials. Yes, the threats allegedly came from people claiming to be upset about the removal of pride-themed merchandise, not from belligerent conservatives upset about the merchandise itself.

One of these bomb threats, widely distributed throughout the New England area, accused Target of “[betraying] the LGBTQ+ community.” Another note, this time in Louisiana, accused the retailer’s executives of being “pathetic cowards who bowed to the wishes of far-right extremists who want to exterminate us.” 

“We will not tolerate intolerance nor indifference,” the note says. “If you are not with us then you are against us.”

Would you, based on the Washington Post’s front-and-center framing of the story, infer that the bomb threats allegedly came from allies of the pride movement? Probably not, and that’s almost certainly by design. It’s hard to imagine that the Washington Post, with all of its resources and institutional knowledge, simply forgot to include the “who” in the “who, what, where, when, and why” of its opening coverage. 

As for the “who” of the story, the Post didn’t even get around to mentioning the alleged culprits until the eighth paragraph. Seven entire paragraphs before the paper figured it was worth mentioning who supposedly made the bomb threats. 

That’s not just a buried lede. That’s a lede so deep in the earth that the Devil never found out it was dead.

Elsewhere, HuffPo went with the headline, “Target Stores In Multiple States Receive Bomb Threats Over Pride Month Merch.” Its subhead reads, “The bomb threats came amid a sweeping anti-LGBTQ campaign targeting corporations and employees promoting inclusive messaging.” 

Amazingly, the lede reads, “Target stores in at least five states were evacuated over the weekend after receiving bomb threats in what appears to be a continuation of backlash against the retail chain’s Pride Month merchandise.”

It’s an entire six paragraphs before the story mentions who the alleged perpetrators are.

There’s a very simple fix to all of this: the word “removal.” These headlines could have made the matter clear simply by reporting that the bomb threats were allegedly made as a response to the “removal” of pride merchandise.

Newsmax, for example, got it right with the following headline, “Target Stores in Five States Receive Bomb Threats After Removing Some Pride Month Items.” 

That wasn’t so hard, was it? Or was the obfuscation of crucial context the entire point?  

Earlier this year, when conservatives successfully targeted certain brands over pride-related merchandising, many of the same publications that struggle now to explain the basics of Target’s ongoing problems had no difficulty identifying the main players in the story. The Washington Post, for example, published an article titled, “Conservative Republicans embrace culture-war extremes — and vote more.” The article begins thus: “As the 2024 presidential contest slowly draws closer … the national political conversation is heavily centered on right-wing outrage about what are colloquially called ‘culture war’ issues,” including “Pride merchandise at Target.”

HuffPo, for its part, published a story in May titled, “Target Slammed For Removing Pride Merch Following Conservative Outrage.” The lede reads, “Target is under fire for its decision to pull some of its Pride Month merchandise from shelves ― a move the company says was done to protect employees but that critics say merely bows to pressure from anti-LGBTQ conservatives.” 

And here’s another headline, “‘Literal Definition Of Terrorism’: Mehdi Hasan Rips Right-Wing Attacks On Target.”

“MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan called out right-wingers for both hypocrisy and committing ‘the literal definition of terrorism’ in its (sic) latest culture-war antics,” the story began.

Well, would you look at that? She clearly identifies all sides involved by their respective alleged roles — and in the opening sentences no less! So it can be done.

Becket Adams is a writer in Washington and program director for the National Journalism Center.