__MAIN_TEXT__

Page 1

Islamophobia in the media and the impact of recent events

Written evidence submitted to the ALL PARTY PARLIAMENTARY GROUP ON ISLAMOPHOBIA by

Dr Chris Allen 16th October 2013

Institute of Applied Social Studies, School of Social Policy 1|P a g e


ISLAMOPHOBIA IN THE MEDIA: RESEARCH FINDINGS 2001-12

1. Sample front pages relating to the coverage of Muslims and Islam are included in Appendix 1. 2. The role and impact of the media is “contentious and debatable”i 3. 74% of the British public claim that they know 'nothing or next to nothing about Islam'ii 4. 64% of the British public claim that what they do know is ‘acquired through the media’iii 5. Research from 2006 suggests that the press coverage relating to Muslims and Islam in British national newspapers had increased by approximately 270% over the preceding decadeiv 6. 91% of that coverage was deemed negativev 7. 84% of press coverage represented Islam and Muslims either as ‘likely to cause damage or danger’ or as ‘operating in a time of intense difficulty or danger’ vi 8. Research from 2008 once again confirmed that the press coverage of British Muslims had increased significantly since 2000, peaking in 2006, and remaining at high levels in 2007 and 2008vii 9. 2008 was shown to be the first year in which the ‘volume of stories about religious and cultural differences (32% of stories by 2008) overtook terrorism related stories (27% by 2008)’viii 10. Research from 2007ix set out that the consequences of this type of media coverage was: 

Likely to provoke and increase feelings of insecurity, suspicion and anxiety amongst non-Muslims;

Likely to provoke feelings of insecurity, vulnerability and alienation amongst Muslims, and in this way to weaken the Government’s measures to reduce and prevent extremism;

Unlikely to help diminish levels of hate crime and acts of unlawful discrimination by non-Muslims against Muslims;

Likely to be a major barrier preventing the success of the Government’s community cohesion policies and programmes;

2|P a g e


Unlikely to contribute to informed discussion and debate amongst Muslims and non-Muslims about ways of working together to maintain and develop Britain as a multicultural, multi-faith democracy.

ISLAMOPHOBIA IN THE MEDIA: OBSERVATIONS FROM THE PAST YEAR

11. The Leveson Report published in 2012 highlighted a number of issues that seemed to reinforce existing research in relation to the representation of Islam and Muslims in the mediax 

“[w]hen assessed as a whole, the evidence of discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers, is concerning. The press can have significant influence over community relations and the way in which parts of society perceive other parts”

“…it is important that stories on those issues are accurate, and are not calculated to exacerbate community divisions or increase resentment…there are enough examples of careless or reckless reporting to conclude that discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting…is a feature of journalistic practice in parts of the press, rather than an aberration”.

“…there has been a significant tendency within the press which leads to the publication of prejudicial or pejorative references to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or physical or mental illness or disability”

11. Following the brutal murder of Lee Rigby in Woolwich the perpetrators used social media to justify their actions by claiming to have acted ‘in the name of Islam’ xi. Given the extremely public and mediatised nature of the perpetrator’s declaration, the problematic nature of reporting such incidents was highlighted: to report or not. It is right that this should have featured in media’s resulting coverage of the event however balance should be sought in order that the claims of a few are not attributable to all Muslims without differentiation. The difficulty of doing so however should be acknowledged. 12. The need for balance is given further emphasis by the fact that after Woolwich, opinion polls showed that nearly two-thirds of British people believe there will be a 3|P a g e


'clash of civilisations' between British Muslims and white Britons in the foreseeable futurexii. 13. The media coverage following the unexploded pipe bomb being found outside the Aisha Mosque in Walsall in the West Midlands highlighted an interesting point in that it was referred to as a ‘hate crime’ as opposed to being an act of ‘terrorism’xiii. This would seem to suggest that media discourses focus more on the perpetrator – alleged or otherwise – than on the incident or potential victims in order to define what is and is not seen to be ‘terrorism’. 14. As has been evident in the media for a number of years, the post-Woolwich period presented an opportunity for a number of individuals to use their positions in the media to publicly attack the notion and concept of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate, the validity of the data that was being collected by the Government-funded Tell MAMA service and some of the individuals involved in collecting that dataxiv. 15. At times these attacks were extremely personal and viciousxv. It is fair to suggest that there are a handful of well-known journalists and commentators who at every opportunity make a concerted effort to undermine all evidence relating to Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred as also to try and de-rail all attempts to tackle it at the political and policy levelsxvi. 16. It is interesting to note that whilst in the past many of these individuals have suggested that their opposition has been against the concept and term ‘Islamophobia’ as opposed anti-Muslim hatredxvii, following Woolwich their attacks have been the same despite the term ‘Islamophobia’ rarely being used or prominent in any ensuing discourses. 17. More recently, there has been extensive media coverage in relation to what the Muslim Council of Britain described as the ‘moral panic’ surrounding the wearing of the niqabxviii. Clearly driven by institutionalxix and political action and rhetoricxx, it might be appropriate to question the motivation and intention for such extensive media coverage especially when there were so few health professionals who do apparently wear the niqab xxi and that bans were already in place – without controversy – in at least 17 hospitals across the countryxxii. 18. It remains therefore that the ongoing media coverage of Muslims and Islam will continue to result in the consequences set out in point 9 above. 4|P a g e


INTRODUCTION In focusing on the topic of ‘Muslims’, ‘Islam’ and ‘the media’, it is necessary to refer back to a point I made in the European Monitoring Centre on Racism & Xenophobia’s (EUMC) report, Summary report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001xxiii. As it stated, the role and impact of the media is both “contentious and debatable”xxiv. As I went on to explain for the EUMC, understanding the role of the media is extremely difficult because rarely can the media – whether through a particular broadcast or printed article – be seen to have directly caused or be held responsible for a reported or identified act of aggression or change in attitudexxv. However, research has shown that the media plays a fundamental role in the formulation and establishment of popular views and attitudes in society. So whilst no direct evidence exists to suggest that the media’s role causes Islamophobia or antiMuslim hate, the media’s role cannot also be entirely dismissed either given that it has the ability to shape and influence public attitudes that could create, feed into and subsequently justify Islamophobic and anti-Muslim attitudes and expressions.

A decade on and the contentious and debatable nature of the media is maybe even more problematic. This is because today social media is beginning to change the form and nature of ‘the media’ in turn presenting many new and different challenges. In the social media sphere, we have recently seen existing boundaries being pushed, not just in what can and cannot be said, but so too by whom and to which audiences. The recent YouTube ‘film’, The Innocence of Muslims is one example of this type of phenomenon. So too is the proliferation of Facebook ‘groups’ where individuals are able to form alliances around a whole series of different issues, issues which are not always necessarily conducive. Similarly also is the use of Twitter where taste and decency as well as the manifestation of hate speech and other problems have recently come to the fore.

Such is the newness of many of these forms of social media that little research has been undertaken to explore its role and impact. Over the next few months, two projects undertaken here at the University of Birmingham will begin to contribute to improving knowledge and understanding about social media. Briefing papers are expected to be 5|P a g e


published before the end of 2012 which will set out the findings from two pieces of research: the first, exploring the opposition to the proposed Dudley mosque using Facebook groups; the second, the response of British Muslim political elites to Innocence of Muslims.

This written evidence therefore only focuses on research undertaken into the role and impact of traditional broadcast and print media in the British context.

ISLAMOPHOBIA & THE MEDIA It is necessary to consider what is meant by Islamophobia.

If Islamophobia is an all-encompassing term which covers such disparate things as attitudes, sentiments, discourse, rhetoric, physical and material acts including anti-Muslim hate crime as well as processes which prejudice and discriminate against Muslims, then it is extremely difficult to understand the role and influence of the media within such a broad understanding. If however - as my research has suggested - Islamophobia is best understood in terms of it being ideological in its nature, then it is easier to consider the potential role and impact of the media.

In my book, Islamophobiaxxvi, I argue that discriminatory phenomena function on a threefold basis: 

a political programme or ideology that becomes largely interdependent with the notion and ideology of nationalism as well as providing knowledge and meaning about other both new and existing relations of power and meaning;



a set of prejudices, opinions and attitudes that may be held by either individuals, groups, communities or society, or indeed a combination of these;

6|P a g e


a set of exclusionary practices as a result of prejudice and discrimination in employment, housing and other socio-economic spheres as well as subjection to violence as a tool of exclusion

The first is where I place the phenomenon of Islamophobia. Through the perpetuation and provision of negative meanings about Muslims and Islam, Islamophobia as an ideology creates a form of order about who we are, or perhaps more precisely who we are not, by the processes of stigmatisation, marginalisation and intolerance associated with this. More importantly, these meanings are routinely employed to ‘make sense’ of the need to hold such attitudes and views which can then translate into discriminatory and exclusionary practices.

In this written evidence, I will therefore be focusing on the role of the media in its capacity to shape and inform the ideological component of Islamophobia. It is worth stressing that any ideology of Islamophobia is not the sole construct of the media. Such an ideology can be reinforced through messages and meanings from the social, political and cultural spaces, from individual and collective interactions, and from ideas and understandings which are already embedded in our histories also. Such messages and meanings can be as equally gleaned through the ‘real’ as indeed the perceived, the misrepresented or inaccurate. For example, the factual and accurate reporting of the events of 7/7 can reinforce any ideology of Islamophobia as much as any inaccurate or inappropriate reportingxxvii. All have the potential to contribute to the process of stigmatisation, marginalisation and intolerance.

7|P a g e


RESEARCH FINDINGS: 2001-2012

POST-9/11 A YouGov poll from 2002 stated that 74% of the British public claim that they know 'nothing or next to nothing about Islam'. Of those that do, 64% claimed that what they do know is ‘acquired through the media’xxviii. If this is the case, then it is important to consider exactly what it is that might be acquired about Islam and Muslims from the media.

The first findings are drawn from a small piece of research undertaken soon after the events of 9/11. Research showed that following 9/11, more than 13 million people bought a national newspaper in Britain every dayxxix. In total, the Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Financial Times, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Star, Mirror and Sun added an additional 2.5 million copies to their normal combined print runs, all of which sold out on a daily basisxxx. The disseminative audience of the British press was therefore much wider immediately following 9/11 than on what might be termed a ‘normal’ day prior to it.

From Brian Whitaker’s research, it was shown that during the period 1 January to the 9 September 2001 inclusive, the number of articles about Muslims and Islam in the national newspapers wasxxxi:

Newspaper

No. of articles

Guardian

817

Independent

681

Times

535

Daily Telegraph

417

Daily Mail

202

Mirror

164

Daily Express

139

Sun

80

Daily Star

40

8|P a g e


Replicating the research during the period 20 June 2001 to the 19 June 2002 - a period that included 9/11 – the number of articles rose dramaticallyxxxii:

Newspaper

No. of articles

% increase

Guardian

2,043

250%

Independent

1,556

228%

Times

1,486

278%

Daily Telegraph

1,176

282%

Daily Mail

650

322%

Mirror

920

561%

Daily Express

305

219%

Sun

526

658%

Daily Star

144

360%

Whilst it would be unfair to suggest that these articles were anti-Muslim, it is likely that a significant amount of the content related to matters of terrorism, threat and so on. As Elizabeth Poole’s research highlighted, there was a process emerging from media coverage at the time where all Muslims were becoming homogenised: an indistinguishable and undifferentiated group where all of its members – ‘Muslims’ – were seen to have the same attributes, qualities, capabilities and characteristics most of which were extremely negativexxxiii.

INSTED REPORT 2007 Five years later, research published by INSTEDxxxiv suggested that things had worsened. Based on an analysis of the representation of ‘Islam’ and ‘Muslims’ in the British press between 8 May and 14 May 2006 inclusive, the research sought to establish what the a ‘normal’ week looked like. It was termed a ‘normal’ week because there was no evidence to suggest that it would be any different from any other randomly selected week, from the point of view of the coverage of events related to Islam and Muslims. Comparing it to existing research from 1996, the findings suggested that the newsworthiness of Islam and 9|P a g e


Muslims, as measured by items in the national press alone, had increased by approximately 270%xxxv.

During that ‘normal week’, of the 19 national newspapers analysed on a daily basis, 12 were identified as having entirely negatively framed or associated coverage of Islam and Muslims. Across all newspapers, 91% of all coverage was deemed to be negative. Almost 50% of all of the coverage referred to Muslims and/or Islam as posing a ‘threat’ whilst a further 34% related to crises. A significant majority (84%) represented Islam and Muslims either as ‘likely to cause damage or danger’ or as ‘operating in a time of intense difficulty or danger’.

The research concluded that it was likely that through such coverage, Islam and Muslims would be widely seen as the antithesis or Other to ‘the West’, having few if indeed any similar belief systems, actors, characteristics, attributes, qualities or values. It was also noted that given the high levels of prevalence and voracity of the negative coverage, that public audiences could begin to see such negative messages as ‘truths’. Another potential consequence was that if Muslims were continued to be represented in such ways, then it might be difficult for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike to see how Islam and Muslims might ever be seen to be ‘British’ or take an equal participatory role in that which might be seen to be ‘our’ way of life.

A fuller picture of the data collected as part of this research is set out in Appendix 2.

CARDIFF UNIVERSITY REPORT, 2008 A final piece of research of note was undertaken at the Cardiff University and published in 2008xxxvi. Focusing on the coverage of British Muslims in the British press, the research confirmed the findings of the INSTED report previously: that press coverage of British Muslims had increased significantly since 2000. As it added, this peaked in 2006, and

10 | P a g e


remained at high levels in 2007 and 2008xxxvii. This was explained partly by the increase in coverage focusing on terrorism, accounting for approximately 36% of all storiesxxxviii.

The research noted a change however. Whilst recognising the increasing importance of stories focusing on Muslims and Islamic ‘difference’ – religious and cultural (22%) – and Islamic extremism (11%), it went on to note how 2008 became the first year in which the “volume of stories about religious and cultural differences (32% of stories by 2008) overtook terrorism related stories (27% by 2008)”xxxix. Reciprocally, it noted how coverage of attacks on or problems facing Muslims had declined as a proportion.

A quote from the report sets out the problems with this type of coverage:

“Four of the five most common discourses used about Muslims in the British press associate Islam/Muslims with threats, problems or in opposition to dominant British values. So, for example, the idea that Islam is dangerous, backward or irrational is present in 26% of stories. By contrast, only 2% of stories contained the proposition that Muslims supported dominant moral values.

Similarly, we found that the most common nouns used in relation to British Muslims were terrorist, extremist, Islamist, suicide bomber and militant, with very few positive nouns (such as ‘scholar’) used. The most common adjectives used were radical, fanatical, fundamentalist, extremist and militant. Indeed, references to radical Muslims outnumber references to moderate Muslims by 17 to one.

One in five stories about British Muslims makes comparisons between Islam and other religions. While around half of these comparisons do not make explicit value judgments, of those that do, negative assessments of Islam outnumber positive assessments by more than four to one. Negative assessments are particularly prominent in the tabloids.”xl

11 | P a g e


Whilst the report noted that the language used about British Muslims was largely reflective of the overly negative of ‘problematic’ contexts within which they are situated, “decontextualisation, misinformation and a preferred discourse of threat, fear and danger, while not uniformly present, were strong forces in the reporting of British Muslims in the UK national press”xli.

THE LEVESON REPORT 2012

The publication of the Leveson report in November 2012 highlighted a number of issues that were pertinent to the coverage and representation of Muslims and Islam in the British press. The most relevant passages are reproduced in full below: “[W]hen assessed as a whole, the evidence of discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers, is concerning. The press can have significant influence over community relations and the way in which parts of society perceive other parts. While newspapers are entitled to express strong views on minority issues, immigration and asylum, it is important that stories on those issues are accurate, and are not calculated to exacerbate community divisions or increase resentment. Although the majority of the press appear to discharge this responsibility with care, there are enough examples of careless or reckless reporting to conclude that discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers is a feature of journalistic practice in parts of the press, rather than an aberration. “Overall, the evidence in relation to the representation of women and minorities suggests that there has been a significant tendency within the press which leads to the publication of prejudicial or pejorative references to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or physical or mental illness or disability. Whether these publications have also amounted to breaches of the Editors’ Code in every case is debatable, but in the ultimate analysis is little to the point. That failure has, in the main, been limited to a section of the press and may well stem from an undue focus 12 | P a g e


on seeking to reflect the views (even if unsuccessfully) of a particular readership. A new regulator will need to address these issues as a matter of priority, the first steps being to amend practice and the Code to permit third party complaints.” These findings seem to support many of the findings of the research undertaken in the preceding decade.

FINAL REFLECTIONS As the EUMC report highlighted, the role and impact of the media is therefore extremely problematic. The evidence shows an overwhelmingly negative picture, where threat, otherness, fear and danger posed or caused by Muslims and Islam underpins a considerable majority of the media’s coverage. Given that 64% of the British public claimed that what they know about Muslims and Islam is acquired through the media, then it could be that such a stream of negativity goes some way to feeding, creating and justifying a form of order about who we are, or more precisely who we are not being created in the minds of the general public. All of this has the potential to then ensure stigmatisation, marginalisation and intolerance. If such messages are seen to ‘make sense’, then not only is it possible that this will result into discriminatory and exclusionary practices but so too does it make the divisive messages of those such as the far-right – the British National Party and English Defence League for instance – appear justified and fair. From an alternative perspective, such a process also reinforces the view that Muslims do not – and never will – ‘belong’ here, reinforcing dualistic and oppositional rhetoric especially of those promoting more radical ideas from within some sectors of Muslim communities.

To summarise, it is worth returning to the findings from the 2007 INSTED report where the consequences of such media coverage were set out as being: 

Likely to provoke and increase feelings of insecurity, suspicion and anxiety amongst non-Muslims;

13 | P a g e


Likely to provoke feelings of insecurity, vulnerability and alienation amongst Muslims, and in this way to weaken the Government’s measures to reduce and prevent extremism;

Unlikely to help diminish levels of hate crime and acts of unlawful discrimination by non-Muslims against Muslims;

Likely to be a major barrier preventing the success of the Government’s community cohesion policies and programmes;

Unlikely to contribute to informed discussion and debate amongst Muslims and non-Muslims about ways of working together to maintain and develop Britain as a multicultural, multi-faith democracy.

The report concluded that the media reinforces the notion that “Islam is profoundly different from, and a serious threat to the West; and that, within Britain, Muslims are different from – and a threat to – ‘us’”xlii. In other words, it almost undeniably creates a form of order about both who we are and who we are not, and so would almost certainly feed into an ideological understanding of Islamophobia.

14 | P a g e


APPENDIX 1 Set out below is an indicative sample of front pages from various British national newspapers reporting stories about Muslims and Islam. For more information, see my presentation to the Young Muslim Leadership Panel at the University of Oxford in August 2013xliii.

15 | P a g e


16 | P a g e


17 | P a g e


18 | P a g e


APPENDIX 2 All tables and data reproduced for my own research undertaken for contribution to the 2007 INSTEDxliv report.

Table 1 Articles in one week referring to Islam or Muslims, by paper, day and total Title of paper Financial Times

Fri

Sat Sun total

8

5

10

8

4

2

-

37

11

6

6

13

9

3

-

48

Star

1

2

1

3

2

2

-

11

Mirror

4

4

3

2

2

1

-

16

Express

5

3

1

1

2

2

-

14

Mail

5

9

1

4

8

4

-

31

Telegraph

5

8

4

9

12

5

-

43

Sun

2

6

2

4

1

4

-

19

11

7

11

7

12

4

-

52

Times

4

9

7

6

9

10

-

45

Independent on Sunday

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

2

Star on Sunday

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

2

Sunday Mirror

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

2

Sunday Express

-

-

-

-

-

-

4

4

Mail on Sunday

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

2

Sunday Telegraph

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

2

News of the World

-

-

-

-

-

-

7

7

Sunday People

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Observer

-

-

-

-

-

-

7

7

Sunday Times

-

-

-

-

-

-

8

8

56

59

46

57

61

37

36

352

Independent

Guardian

Total

19 | P a g e

Mon Tues WedThurs


Table 2 Images in one week referring to Islam or Muslims, by paper, day and total Title of newspaper

Fri

Sat Sun Total

Financial Times

2

1

9

3

1

-

-

16

Independent

6

4

5

7

9

2

-

33

Star

-

1

-

1

1

2

-

5

Mirror

2

3

3

2

1

1

-

12

Express

4

3

1

1

1

1

-

11

Mail

4

3

1

3

3

2

-

16

Telegraph

1

3

4

3

9

5

-

25

Sun

1

3

1

2

1

3

-

11

Guardian

5

3

5

5

8

4

-

30

Times

2

5

7

2

7

7

-

30

Independent on Sunday

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

Star on Sunday

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

2

Sunday Mirror

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

2

Sunday Express

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

Mail on Sunday

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

Sunday Telegraph

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

News of the World

-

-

-

-

-

-

5

5

Sunday People

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Observer

-

-

-

-

-

-

6

6

Sunday Times

-

-

-

-

-

-

6

6

27

29

36

29

41

27

25

214

Total

20 | P a g e

Mon Tues Wed Thurs


Table 3 Focus of articles in each newspaper: Britain, international or generic Focus of article Title

BritainInternational Generic

Financial Times

5

31

1

37

14

32

2

48

Star

9

2

-

11

Mirror

7

9

-

16

Express

8

5

1

14

Mail

19

10

2

31

Telegraph

17

23

3

43

Sun

10

9

-

19

Guardian

22

28

2

52

Times

23

21

1

45

Independent on Sunday

0

2

-

2

Star on Sunday

2

0

-

2

Sunday Mirror

2

0

-

2

Sunday Express

3

1

-

4

Mail on Sunday

2

0

-

2

Sunday Telegraph

1

1

-

2

News of the World

6

1

-

7

Observer

3

4

-

7

Sunday Times

3

5

-

8

156

184

12

352

Independent

Total

Totals

Table 4 Focus of articles by type of newspaper Focus of article Publication type

International Generic TOTAL

Tabloid

68

41

3

112

Broadsheet

90

141

9

240

158

182

12

352

Totals

21 | P a g e

Britain


Table 5

Positive, neutral or negative associations of articles, by paper Title

Association of articles (%)Number of articles Negative

Neutral

Positive

Financial Times

89

5.5

5.5

37

Independent

80

2

8

48

Star

100

-

-

11

Mirror

100

-

-

16

Express

71

21

8

14

Mail

97

-

3

31

Telegraph

91

7

2

43

100

-

-

19

Guardian

85

12

3

52

Times

89

7

4

46

Independent on Sunday

100

-

-

2

Star on Sunday

100

-

-

2

Sunday Mirror

100

-

-

2

Sunday Express

100

-

-

4

Mail on Sunday

100

-

-

2

Sunday Telegraph

100

-

-

2

News of the World

100

-

-

7

Observer

100

-

-

7

Sunday Times

100

-

-

8

91

5

4

352

Sun

Total

Table 6 Positive, neutral or negative associations, by type of paper Publication type

22 | P a g e

Association of articles (%)Number of articles Negative

Neutral

Positive

Tabloid

96

3

1

112

Broadsheet

89

6

5

240

Totals

91

5

4

352


Table 7 Positive, neutral or negative associations of images (percentages) Association of images All newspapers

Negative

Neutral

Positive

(Number)

80

14

6

214

TOTAL

Table 8 Positive, neutral or negative associations of images, by type of paper (percentages) Association of images Publication type

Negative

Neutral

Positive

Total

Tabloid

88

8

4

30

Broadsheet

77

17

6

70

Totals

80

14

6

100

Table 9 News content by story News content

23 | P a g e

Number

Percentage

Bombs on 7 July 2005

69

19.6

Iraq

49

13.9

Iran

42

11.9

Palestine

22

6.2

Afghan hijackers

20

5.7

Prince Naseem sentencing

15

4.3

Guantanemo Bay

14

4.0

Women

12

3.4

War on terror

11

3.1

Abu Qatada

10

2.8

9/11

9

2.6

Human rights

6

1.7

Islamic schools

5

1.4

Somalia

5

1.4

Afghanistan

4

1.1

Crime – UK

4

1.1

Egypt

4

1.1

Muslim world

4

1.1

Pakistan

4

1.1


Table 10 News content by broad theme Theme

PercentageTheme

Percentage

International threats

34.7

National threats

14.1

Crises

34.2

Islamic finance

0.1

Shariah law

0.3

Women’s rights

2.2

Human rights

4.0

Society – UK

3.5

Immigration

3.2

Jihad

0.1

Islam/Muslims – generic

1.2

Islamic schools

0.4

Polygamy

0.6

Racism – PC

0.1

Environment

0.1

Halal

0.3

Sport

0.1

Islamic design

0.1

Arts – all

0.3

Sexuality – homosexuality

0.1

Holocaust denial

0.1

i

Chris Allen & Jorgen Nielsen, Summary report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001 (Vienna: EUMC, 2002) 46. ii YOUGOV, Attitudes towards British Muslims, Islam Awareness Week (4 November 2002). iii

YOUGOV, Attitudes towards British Muslims, Islam Awareness Week (4 November 2002).

iv

INSTED, The search for common ground: Muslims, non-Muslims and the UK media (London: INSTED, 2007) p.xvii. v

INSTED, The search for common ground: Muslims, non-Muslims and the UK media (London: INSTED, 2007) p.xvii. vi

INSTED, The search for common ground: Muslims, non-Muslims and the UK media (London: INSTED, 2007) p.xvii. vii

Kerry Moore, Paul Mason and Justin Lewis, Images of Islam in the UK: the representation of British Muslims in the national print news media 2000-2008 (Cardiff: Cardiff University, 2008). viii Kerry Moore, Paul Mason and Justin Lewis, Images of Islam in the UK: the representation of British Muslims in the national print news media 2000-2008 (Cardiff: Cardiff University, 2008). ix INSTED, The search for common ground: Muslims, non-Muslims and the UK media (London: INSTED, 2007) p.xvii. x

See the Leveson Report, An Inquiry into the Culture, Practive and Ethics of the Press Vol.2 pp. 486487 and pp. 668-673 http://www.officialdocuments.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc07/0780/0780_ii.pdf.

24 | P a g e


xi

See for example the report in the Mirror http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woolwichattack-watch-shocking-video-1905144 xii See the Guardian article http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/25/woolwich-attack-islam xiii See the report in the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-callhomemade-bomb-outside-walsalls-ashia-mosque-a-hate-crime-and-draft-in-counterterror-police8670548.html as also the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/23/suspicious-itemmosque-hate-crime amongst others xiv See for example Andrew Gilligan’s article on the Telegraph website http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10093568/The-truth-about-thewave-of-attacks-on-Muslims-after-Woolwich-murder.html, a follow-up report in the Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334897/Truth-wave-attacks-Muslims-Woolwich-killingMost-incidents-recorded-offensive-messages-Facebook-Twitter.html and Charles Moore article also for the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-theuk/10120706/Woolwich-outrage-we-are-too-weak-to-face-up-to-the-extremism-in-our-midst.html xv I draw particular attention to Andrew Gilligan’s article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10093568/The-truth-about-thewave-of-attacks-on-Muslims-after-Woolwich-murder.html, as also Charles Moore’s http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10120706/Woolwich-outrage-weare-too-weak-to-face-up-to-the-extremism-in-our-midst.html xvi See my July 2011 report to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia, “’A momentous occasion’: an independent report to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia” in particular the section on ‘Commentators’ (p.43 onwards) http://issuu.com/drchrisallen/docs/chrisallen-appg_narrative_report-july_2011. See also my 2013 article for the Huffington Post, “Arson, attack and accusation: the need for balance and realism when considering Islamophobia” http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-chris-allen/islamisationarson-attack-accusation_b_3417952.html xvii For example, see Andrew Gilligan’s comments on the Telegraph website: “too often, the charge of “Islamophobia” has been used by Islamists to stifle and deter examination of their own actions. They deliberately conflate Islamism (followed by a tiny minority of British Muslims) with the entire faith of Islam, and accuse anyone who scrutinises or attacks their minority brand of fundamentalism of being “anti-Muslim” http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100065538/islamists-establish-abridgehead-in-parliament/ xviii http://www.gold.ac.uk/media/MCBPress%20Release.pdf xix See the Birmingham Mail’s coverage relating to the ‘banning’ of the niqab at Birmingham Metropolitan College http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/birminghammetropolitan-college-bans-veils-5872305 xx See the Telegraph’s coverage of thecomments by Jeremy Browne regarding the banning of the niqab in schools and public places http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10311469/JeremyBrowne-Ban-Muslim-women-from-wearing-veils-in-schools-and-public-places.html and the BBC’s coverage of Jeremy Hunt’s call for a review of the wearing of the niqab by health professionals http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24158041 xxi See the article in the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/few-if-anymuslim-hospital-workers-wear-full-veil-8826042.html

25 | P a g e


xxii

See the article in the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10319264/Secret-banon-face-veils-for-staff-at-17-hospitals.html xxiii Chris Allen & Jorgen Nielsen, Summary report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001 (Vienna: EUMC, 2002). xxiv Ibid, 46. xxv Ibid, 48. xxvi Chris Allen, Islamophobia (Farnham: Ashgate, 2010). xxvii Ibid, 99. xxviii YOUGOV, Attitudes towards British Muslims, Islam Awareness Week (4 November 2002). xxix

Michael Bromley & Stephen Cushion, “Media fundamentalism: the immediate response of the UK national press to September 11th”, in Journalism after September 11, eds. Barbie Zelizer & Stuart Allan (London: Routledge, 2003), 160-77. xxx

ibid.

xxxi

Brian Whitaker, “Islam and the British press”, in Hamid & Sharif (2002), 53-7.

xxxii

ibid, 54.

xxxiii

Ziauddin Sardar, “The excluded minority: British Muslim identity after 11 September”, in Reclaiming Britishness, eds. Phoebe Griffith & Mark Leonard (London: Foreign Policy Centre, 2002), 51-56. xxxiv

Chris Allen, “A ‘normal week’” in The search for common ground: Muslims, non-Muslims and the UK media (London: INSTED, 2007). xxxv

Poole, Elizabeth Reporting Islam: media representations of British Muslims (London: IB Tauris, 2002) 23 & 57. xxxvi

Kerry Moore, Paul Mason and Justin Lewis, Images of Islam in the UK: the representation of British Muslims in the national print news media 2000-2008 (Cardiff: Cardiff University, 2008). xxxvii Ibid, 3. xxxviii Ibid. xxxix Ibid. xl Ibid, 4. xli Ibid. xlii INSTED, The search for common ground: Muslims, non-Muslims and the UK media (London: INSTED, 2007) p.xvii. xliii

http://issuu.com/drchrisallen/docs/young_muslim_panel_-_muslims_media_ INSTED, The search for common ground: Muslims, non-Muslims and the UK media (London: INSTED, 2007). xliv

26 | P a g e

Profile for Chris Allen

Islamophobia in the Media: evidence to the APPG on Islamophobia, 16 October 2013  

Written evidence submitted to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia for a meeting held at the Houses of Parliament, Westminster,...

Islamophobia in the Media: evidence to the APPG on Islamophobia, 16 October 2013  

Written evidence submitted to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia for a meeting held at the Houses of Parliament, Westminster,...

Advertisement