By Tracey Compton, Indianapolis Public Editor | The Poynter Institute
Edited by Kelly McBride and Copy Edited by Lauren Klinger
Executive Overview
In the volatile lead-up to the midterm elections, the political landscape of Indiana became a testing ground for a dangerous brand of rhetoric. Across the state, prominent conservative political figures increasingly turned their focus toward anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim messaging, weaponizing civic platforms to cast marginalized groups as "un-American" and existential threats to the cultural fabric of the nation.
From state-level legal investigations targeting Muslim civil rights and pro-Palestine organizations to incendiary social media posts labeling Islam a "demonic death cult," this rhetoric was designed to provoke, polarize, and capture headlines. For local news media, these developments presented a recurring, high-stakes dilemma: How do journalists report on powerful officials spreading offensive, xenophobic claims without acting as unwitting megaphones for hate?
This column—part of the grant-funded Indianapolis Public Editor project, a pilot initiative by the Poynter Institute designed to evaluate how media analysis can elevate audience trust and foster media literacy—examines local news coverage during this turbulent cycle. A deep dive into how Indianapolis newsrooms handled this surge reveals a heartening shift away from passive stenography. Rather than simply repeating shocking soundbites in the name of rigid "objectivity," Indy’s local journalists largely chose context, rigor, and community-centered storytelling.
By grounding inflammatory political statements in factual history, legal analysis, and the lived realities of those targeted, local outlets like the IndyStar, The Indiana Citizen, WTHR, and WFYI demonstrated how the press can successfully neutralize fear-mongering and push back against the politics of exclusion.
Detailed Chronology: Escalating Rhetoric and Political Posturing
To understand the weight of the journalistic challenge in Indianapolis, one must trace the timeline of political escalation that defined the election cycle. Over several months, state leaders systematically targeted Muslims, immigrants, and foreign-born communities through coordinated policy moves, public speeches, and digital campaigns.
Spring and Summer: Laying the Groundwork for Exclusion
The rhetoric intensified significantly in May, when Indiana Lieutenant Governor Micah Beckwith appeared on an online conservative talk show. During the broadcast, Beckwith made the jarring assertion that citizens should be given "permission to hate again." Shortly thereafter, Beckwith turned his focus toward religious freedoms, setting his sights on the Islamic call to prayer (Adhan). He publicly claimed that the Adhan was "not part of American culture or history" and advocated for bans on public calls to prayer across Indiana—a direct challenge to constitutional protections of religious expression.
Concurrently, a relatively new political action group, Save Heritage Indiana, emerged on the scene, hosting a high-profile mass deportation rally in Fishers, Indiana, in August. The event served as a physical manifestation of a broader political strategy aimed at "othering" non-white and foreign-born residents, framing demographic shifts not as a natural facet of American society, but as an invasion.
Fall: Legal Maneuvers and the 9/11 Anniversary Escalation
As the midterm elections approached, the rhetoric translated from ideological posturing into aggressive state-level actions. In early October, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita announced that his office would launch formal investigations into two prominent organizations that support Muslim and pro-Palestine causes: the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP). Rokita characterized the move as an effort to "expose terrorists," while civil rights groups and affected communities immediately denounced the inquiry as a transparent, politically motivated publicity stunt designed to chill free speech.
The tension reached a grim peak around the 25th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks. On that solemn day, Lt. Gov. Beckwith escalated his feud with critics by sharing a video on X (formerly Twitter) depicting a person falling from a burning World Trade Center tower. The post carried a chilling caption: "Never forget what Islam wants to do to the American way of life."
For Indianapolis newsrooms, each of these milestones presented an urgent test of journalistic responsibility. The central question was clear: Would the press report these events as standard political horse-race news, or would they treat them as what they fundamentally were—calculated campaigns of xenophobic intimidation?
Supporting Context & Metrics: The Anatomy of "Otherness"
The challenges faced by Indianapolis journalists are not isolated incidents; they fit into a long, documented historical pattern of political mobilization built on exclusion. In her landmark 2025 book, American Otherness in Journalism: News Media Representations of Identity and Belonging, media scholar Angie Chuang explores how news organizations have historically struggled to cover political efforts aimed at marginalizing specific groups.
Chuang’s research highlights a persistent historical pitfall: journalists frequently fail to accurately identify racist or discriminatory behavior by political elites, opting instead for a false equivalence of "objectivity." Under the guise of neutrality, the press has often allowed racially coded statements to hijack public discourse—a phenomenon memorably observed during the 2017 "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. At the time, major news organizations and wire services, such as the Associated Press, had to issue internal reckonings and guidance urging newsrooms to abandon euphemisms like "alt-right" in favor of precise, uncompromising terms like "white supremacist," "neo-Nazi," and "racist."
How Indy Newsrooms Defied the Trap
When asked to evaluate the performance of Indianapolis media outlets during this recent cycle, Dr. Chuang offered high praise, noting a marked departure from historical missteps.
"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 noted. "Unlike the news events I highlight in my book… 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."
Local newsrooms achieved this through multi-layered reporting strategies that refused to let politicians dictate the single narrative:
- The IndyStar assigned the beat to First Amendment reporter Cate Charron, whose work directly connected the dots between politician-led Islamophobic remarks and a measurable surge in community discrimination. Charron incorporated data from the Pew Research Center, expert testimony on the intent of the Founding Fathers, and firsthand accounts from Muslim residents.
- The Indiana Citizen, a nonpartisan platform dedicated to civic engagement, deployed journalist Sydney Byerly to research and document the deep, centuries-long history of Muslims in the United States, systematically dismantling Lt. Gov. Beckwith’s false claims that Islam is alien to American culture.
- WTHR stepped in with rigorous fact-checking, investigating whether local mosques were actually broadcasting the call to prayer over community loudspeakers—exposing Beckwith’s assertions as baseless fear-mongering.
- WFYI amplified the voices of those targeted, giving pro-Palestine groups and civil rights advocates a platform to articulate why Attorney General Rokita’s investigations were viewed as political theater.
Furthermore, editorial boards and opinion columnists at the IndyStar—including staff columnist James Briggs and various guest contributors—published scathing rebukes of Beckwith’s assertions, pointing out not only their constitutional flaws regarding the separation of church and state, but also their transparently self-serving political motivations.
Official Statements and Community Impact
While local journalists earned praise for breaking the cycle of passive stenography, the real-world human cost of unchecked political rhetoric remains profound. The rhetoric has bled out of the digital ether and into the daily lives of Indiana residents, generating an atmosphere of palpable fear.
Jordan Esparza-Kelley, communications coordinator for CAIR-Chicago—one of the organizations targeted by Attorney General Rokita—emphasized that while journalism has evolved, communities under fire still expect deeper probing from the press.
"I would like the press’ curiosity and more of their input," Esparza-Kelley said. "Don’t be a stenographer for these politicians. Like I said, follow the thread; let’s ask ‘why’ a couple more times."
This sentiment is shared widely across minority leadership groups in the region. Rupal Thanawala, president of the Asian American Alliance in Indianapolis, warned of the dangers of granting unchecked megaphones to purveyors of hate speech. She noted that digital platforms, including the comments sections of news stories and social media broadcasts, quickly become breeding grounds for vicious harassment that leaves community members feeling vulnerable and exposed.
"Everybody’s so uncomfortable and everybody’s even worried about backlash," Thanawala said.
The fear is not theoretical. In September, amidst the rising tide of political vitriol, leadership at the Alhuda Islamic Center of Indiana in Fishers was forced to take the sobering step of increasing on-site security and arranging for police patrols during daily prayers. When political speech directly precipitates the militarization of houses of worship, the media’s response ceases to be merely an academic exercise in ethics—it becomes a matter of public safety.
Future Outlook: The Ongoing Responsibility of Local Journalism
The intersection of politics, media, and civil rights in Indiana offers a crucial blueprint for local newsrooms nationwide. The events leading up to the recent midterm elections proved that xenophobic rhetoric is not a bug, but a frequently deployed feature of modern political campaigns designed to manipulate public anxiety and manufacture out-groups.
When newsrooms choose to report responsibly—by contextualizing shocking statements, checking facts in real-time, refusing to use euphemisms for bigotry, and centering the voices of those directly impacted—they empower the public. They transform their audiences from passive consumers of outrage into informed citizens capable of seeing through fear-mongering and political posturing.
Conversely, when the press fails, it normalizes hate and accelerates social fractures. The performance of Indianapolis newsrooms over recent months demonstrates that ethical, courageous local journalism is entirely possible. It proves that editors and reporters do not have to choose between relevance and responsibility; they can achieve both by demanding accountability and refusing to act as passive conduits for bigotry.
As Indiana moves past this election cycle, the standard set by these local news outlets must be maintained and expanded. The test of a free press is not merely how it covers times of peace, but how fiercely it defends truth, human dignity, and democratic norms when powerful figures seek to tear them down.
The Indianapolis Public Editor project is a grant-funded pilot project run by the Poynter Institute. To share your thoughts on local media coverage, submit questions about the Indianapolis media ecosystem, or request a community presentation, reach out to Public Editor Tracey Compton at [email protected].