So why on earth have various media groups seen it fit to give one of the most high-profile terrorists a nickname befitting only to a comic-book villain? Are we weren't already looking upon what is going on in horror? Is it entirely necessary to give such a juvenile name to a despicable human? "Jihadi John" sounds like the name of a toy company's latest action figure, "Get your Jihadi-John doll today!"
I don't know about you, but I am not to keen on the prospect of giving this head-chopping monster celebrity status. Because that is all that is achieved by the monicker he has been given. I was plenty disgusted when he was just a regular, anonymous, masked head chopper. The acts alone were enough to get me upset about what I was reading about. But now, as I see the words "Jihadi John" written on news articles, I can't help but to feel noticeably less outrage (though the disgust is still uncontrollable), but a newfound (or newly rediscovered) contempt for the sources who are perpetuating an infantilization of one of the worlds most despicable, despised men. Almost the exact same thing happened when Rolling Stones magazine decided to make one of the Boston Marathon bombers look like a rockstar on their front cover, though thankfully that was an isolated incident. Now, thanks to the media's absolutely unnecessary portrayal, all I can imagine when they talk about "Jihadi John" is him going back to wherever the hell these maniacs hang out at night saying to all his terrorist colleagues "Move aside boys, JIHADI JOHN IS IN THE HOUSE!" before kicking his feet up drinking hot chocolate from the hollowed out head of his latest victim. It is laughable, and I am disgusted and ashamed that I am able to say such a thing, but the story has become less important than the man involved thanks to this silly moniker, and IS is almost just a side show to the big Jihadi John show.
