UK: Two-thirds of UK media reports Islamophobic, research finds

Posted: 09/13
From: MNN

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=605956

Two thirds of newspaper stories in the UK portray British Muslims since 2000
as `a threat` or `problem,` according to new research.

A forty-page report, entitled Images of Islam in the UK, showed that the
press in the UK increasingly utilize negative and stereotypical imagery
about Muslims.

The authors, the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies,
found that British tabloids and broadsheets sought to engage with
the "routine, everyday coverage of British Muslims" over and above the
coverage which occurred around key events.

Coverage of British Muslims was also shown to have increased significantly
year on year, and by 2006 had reached a level twelve times higher than that
in 2000.

The authors describe how such a coverage generated a momentum all of its
own, "lasting well beyond and independent of" newsworthy events.

At the same time, the report found that the context in which British Muslims
were portrayed was of a consistently negative nature.

The main focus for a third of stories on British Muslims was either
terrorism or the 'war on terror.'

Eleven per cent of all stories focused on Muslim extremism, while in stark
contrast, only 5 per cent covered "attacks on or problems for British
Muslims."

The notion of Islamophobia was said to have "scarcely featured as a news
topic" in 2001 and 2005.

A significant yet subtle shift in stories involved a steady increase in the
proportion which focus on religious and cultural differences, to such a
degree that by 2008 these stories had overtaken terrorism as the single
largest subject matter.

It was argued that this change in focus reflects the shift in British
government policy, under the cloak of its "community cohesion" 
framework, which quietly insinuates that 'British' and 'Muslim' are mutually
exclusive identities.

The consequence was that coverage about anti-Muslim racism and attacks on
British Muslims has vastly reduced from 10 per cent in 2000 to only 1 per
cent in 2008.

In comparison with four of the five most common story threads associating
Islam and Muslims "with threats, problems or in opposition to dominant
British values," only 2 per cent suggested "that Muslims supported dominant
moral values."

In particular, the report highlighted a number of articles which frame
Britain as "becoming a place of Muslim-only, 'no-go' areas, where churches
were being replaced by mosques, and Sharia law would soon be implemented."

The perception of Islam as a threat or a problem was further enhanced by the
choice of descriptive language in the articles surveyed.

The most common nouns employed in relation to Islam or Muslims
were 'terrorist' or 'extremist' whilst the most widely used adjectives
included 'fanatical', 'fundamentalist', 'radical' and 'militant.'

Overall, "references to radical Muslims outnumber references to moderate
Muslims by 17 to one" and was consistently used by both broadsheet and
tabloid newspapers. --IRNA
-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

Robin T Cox wrote:
> UK: Two-thirds of UK media reports Islamophobic, research finds

Which is rather obviously untrue, as much more than 2/3 of media reports 
don't mention Islam or any other religion in the slightest. What 
religion is that cat stuck up a tree which is mentioned in the local 
free rag? What religion is the bloke caught without car tax, or the 
person plotting against the Prime Minister?

We also need comparative data for other flavours of god-botherer. I'm 
not sure when I last read a report that a priest /hadn't/ molested a 
small boy, the vicar /hadn't/ run off with the churchwarden's wife, etc 
etc.

Taking the papers at face value, you'd think everyone was a crook and 
only bad and unexpected things ever happened. "Person does nothing in 
particular" simply isn't news.

ISTR there was one of these "studies" which took as its sample the 
reports published immediately after the conviction of some would-be 
terrorists, which rather distorted things.

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

Robin T Cox wrote:
> UK: Two-thirds of UK media reports Islamophobic, research finds

As researched by Abdul-Muttalib-Aswad-Dhul-Fiqar-Hashim-Jabbar-Khalid 
Mujahid [jr], chairman of the Internal Fairness to UK Yemini Union ... 
Or, IFUKYU.

"Islamophobic" is a ridiculous neologism.  There is nothing at all
irrational in a fear of being bombed.

In message 
, 
Ariadne  writes
>"Islamophobic" is a ridiculous neologism.  There is nothing at all
>irrational in a fear of being bombed.

Islam has no more to do with being bombed than any other religion.

In fact more people have been bombed by Christians than Moslems.
In the UK statistically over the last 50 years you are far more likely 
to be bombed by Christians.

Thinking of the bombs that have gone off in the USA the Christians must 
be running the Moslems a close second.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Robin T Cox"  wrote in message 
news:T%Qyk.57158$E41.23603@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> UK: Two-thirds of UK media reports Islamophobic, research finds
>
> Posted: 09/13
> From: MNN
>
> http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=605956
>
> Two thirds of newspaper stories in the UK portray British Muslims since 
> 2000
> as `a threat` or `problem,` according to new research.

Which is not surprising since it was Muslim terrorists (not Christian, 
Jewish or others) who murdered over 60 Britons in "9/11" and another 52 in 
"7/7", not to mention many more wounded and the failed attacks of 14/7.

The IRA never managed a body count on quite the same scale, though they did 
achieve significant physical damage to buildings on occasion (eg. the Baltic 
Exchange).

> A forty-page report, entitled Images of Islam in the UK, showed that the
> press in the UK increasingly utilize negative and stereotypical imagery
> about Muslims.

Which is like stereotyping the Irish (ie. the Catholic Irish) as a result of 
the actions of the IRA and INLA.   The difference between then and now is 
that on the whole the Irish were not stereotyped in that way, while in some 
cases today Muslims are.

Reasons for this have to include the failure of Muslim culture to integrate 
into British culture as successfully as other immigrant groups, and the fact 
that the Muslim community at large seems to be doing little to deal with 
extremist indoctrination and extremist literature/videos within their own 
community - to wit, see Undercover Mosque programmes on TV and many other 
reports.

In message , Richard <?@?.?.invalid> 
writes
>
>"Robin T Cox"  wrote in message 
>news:T%Qyk.57158$E41.23603@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> UK: Two-thirds of UK media reports Islamophobic, research finds
>>
>> Posted: 09/13
>> From: MNN
>>
>> http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=605956
>>
>> Two thirds of newspaper stories in the UK portray British Muslims 
>>since  2000
>> as `a threat` or `problem,` according to new research.
>
>Which is not surprising since it was Muslim terrorists (not Christian, 
>Jewish or others) who murdered over 60 Britons in "9/11" and another 52 
>in "7/7", not to mention many more wounded and the failed attacks of 
>14/7.
>
>The IRA never managed a body count on quite the same scale, though they 
>did achieve significant physical damage to buildings on occasion (eg. 
>the Baltic Exchange).

They did manage a much higher body could but that was with a lot more 
smaller bombs and incidents.   The largest single incidents killed about 
20-30

>> A forty-page report, entitled Images of Islam in the UK, showed that the
>> press in the UK increasingly utilize negative and stereotypical imagery
>> about Muslims.
>
>Which is like stereotyping the Irish (ie. the Catholic Irish) as a 
>result of the actions of the IRA and INLA.   The difference between 
>then and now is that on the whole the Irish were not stereotyped in 
>that way, while in some cases today Muslims are.

I agree... The Irish were stereotyped as (thick)  navies and builders 
:-). The PIRA, INLA (and the UDA etc) were seen as terrorists/criminals 
but the Iris (north and south) were not all tarred with the same brush.

Also religion was not dragged into it in the same way. No one was anti 
catholic because of it. People were anti catholic because they were 
child abusing pedophiles.

>Reasons for this have to include the failure of Muslim culture to 
>integrate into British culture as successfully as other immigrant 
>groups,

Something Enoch warned against. Lack of integration was what he saw as 
the major problem.

>and the fact that the Muslim community at large seems to be doing 
>little to deal with extremist indoctrination and extremist 
>literature/videos within their own community - to wit, see Undercover 
>Mosque programmes on TV and many other reports.

I think they are trying to do things but they tend to do it privately 
and quietly as it is to do with honour. You don't shout about your sons 
coming off the rails.

However the other problem is MOST of the UK white, black, Christian, 
Moslem do not support the initial invasions or the reasons why Bush 
illegally invaded and Blair dragged us into it.

If the British troops were not in Afghanistan and Iraq there would be a 
hell of a lot more people from all communities assisting the fight 
against the US terrorists.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/