A group of weekly newspapers on whose patch Islamic State executioner Mohammed Emwazi grew up and went to college have banned the use of the nickname ‘Jihadi John’ in stories.
Geoff Martin, editor of the Hamsptead & Highgate Express and other Archant titles in North West London, believes the widely-used moniker is “too playful” and in bad taste.
Emwazi, who was unmasked by US newspaper the Washington Post as the brutal ISIS killer, was a former pupil at Quintin Kynaston school in St John’s Wood and grew up on the Mozart Estate in Queen’s Park, which is covered by the Ham&High’s sister title the Brent and Kilburn Times.
Geoff banned the nickname from being used in Archant titles produced from Hampstead after the issue came up while he was taking part in an election hustings event at Belsize Square Synagogue last weekend. In future, the newspapers will simply refer to Emwazi by name.
Said Geoff: “During the debate I shared my distaste for the term ‘Jihadi John’. I believe it is altogether too playful, given the shocking images we’ve seen in our national newspapers, on television screens and most graphically of all, on the internet.
“The audience reaction was very positive… two members of the audience came up to me afterwards to discuss and the stance was also backed by local blogger Richard Osley of the Camden New Journal.”
Writing in his leader column in the Ham&High, Geoff said: “Do we really need to attach a nickname to someone who has revelled in shedding innocent blood in the most savage and despicable manner? I think not. The term that’s being used to describe him makes him sound like a superhero from a Marvel comic.
“What next? Action Man figures? Mohammed Emwazi is no hero: he’s an evil cold-blooded killer who should be hunted down ruthlessly and brought to justice.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
l couldn’t agree more
l have said to my family it sound like the name of a kids book
Report this comment
Jihadi John makes him sound like a likeable rogue, rather than the psychopathic, sadistic murderer he clearly is, and I’ve never understood why any journalist would try to soften his image with such a ‘friendly’ nickname.
Report this comment
Serious news reporting should be just that, although I suppose the ‘name’ started before his identity was known. However, now we know his name, it should be used. Jihadi John sounds like a dodgy used car salesman or a rapper. Perhaps we could try Murderer Mike, Beheader Bill or Fundamentalist Fred if we ever need more of these ridiculous pseudonyms.
Report this comment
The media has always glamourised criminals and the public do have a fascination with such individuals from Jack the Ripper to the Boston marathon bomber who has become a heartthrob with teenage girls.
Report this comment
The editor says “we” have seen graphic images on the Internet. I have not, and I don’t want to. And although of course the sentiment behind the naming decision is correct, I think he is wrong to generalise and make assumptions that his readers will have sought out the beheading videos. Many will take the view, and there has been some interesting serious writing about this, that watching such horrors in some way perpetuates the act.
Report this comment
What a rubbish superhero name….
Report this comment
Isn’t it the case that he was called Jihadi John because he and his accomplices were known as ‘The Beatles.’ Assuming he was the John Lennon figure. Or am I wrong about that?
Report this comment
Agree completely with Geoff’s decision. This psychopath, who obviously delights in shocking people (he despises the western way of life, yet uses 21st century western technology to broadcast his atrocities to the world) should not be known by such a flippant moniker. ‘Vermin’ would be a more apt description of him.
Report this comment
I dunno, didn’t this ‘wretched man’ and one or two others get nicknamed named John, Paul and (maybe) Ringo for their undisclosed IDs by some in the vicinity of their vicious activities who’d heard their Brit accents and, since those in danger of them applied it, is it the fault of the meeja to follow up earlier reports with the same moniker in the interests of continuing the train of reported evidence?
Report this comment