Just to say, my new blog is now available at:
http://wallscometumblingdown.wordpress.com/
All the same but using Wordpress (as recommended by Mr Moo) rather than Blogger.
See what you think...
Chris
Monday, 3 December 2007
Thursday, 22 November 2007
There is something rotten in the state of English football...
As the English national football team lurched it's carcass into another anti-climax, surprise was one emotion that I failed to experience. Whilst the tub-thumpers may be blaming all and sundry for England's demise - weren't they the same people who a few night before were calling for us all to get behind the Steve MacLaren and the boys following Israel's defeat of Russia? - the rot goes much deeper than the level of the MacLarens, Barwicks, Rooneys and Lampards. Go to any local park on a Sunday morning, find the youngest team playing (probably about 6 years of age) and you will see how far the rot has set.
Kid's football in this country is largely a disgrace, one that people overlook and ignore because we're 'passionate' about the game. Screaming at and humiliating 6 years old on a weekly basis is really tantamount to child abuse irrespective of whether you're passionate or not.
Having had kids play football for the past six seasons in one guise or another, this season has again opened my eyes to the reality that is English football. five weeks ago, during a game that my son was playing in, the 'coach' - I use the term loosely - said to a 9 year old from his team after substituting him, "You'll never fucking well play for me again after that...you were shit, fucking shit".
My son, after having tripped over the ball and accidentally treading on another player's hand had his grandfather shout the following tactics to him, "Take blondie - teach him a lesson". 'Blondie' for your understanding is the highly original name he gave my son due to him having had 'blonde' hair. I wonder if I'd have shouted 'kick the ball at that baldie old git who can't keep his fucking mouth shut' whether he'd have felt good about himself? Probably not but hey, he said what he did because he was 'passionate' and wanted to bring out some 'fight' in the child.
Surprised by some of this? well don't be, this is just one season and in previous years I've heard parents tell their kids to kick mud at other players, to 'get stuck in' (which typically means foul the other player), shout abuse at referees, players, managers/coaches and parents in varying degrees. In my own club we've already had a fight between two of the same club's managers on the touchline resulting in a caution from the police for GBH and my own son being shouted at so much by his own coach that I have had to take him out of the team for his own wellbeing. on doing this, the suggestion was made that he was more 'sensitive' than the other lads which - in football-speak - reads 'soft' or even worse. For most coaches, managing a kids team is a way of them living out their unfulfilled fantasies, remembering how they were on the verge of 'making it' having all somehow mysteriously - and mythically - had trials for West Ham/ West Brom/ Walsall/ Port Vale and so on (deleting as necessary)
But it's not just the coaches and managers, far too many parents with kids of 7 and 8 are already 'living the dream' through their kids of one day playing in the glorious Premiership. From a generation of parents who no longer aspire that their children achieve their full potential, we have now a generation of parents who aspire to their children getting the 'break' needed that will open the floodgates to fame and fortune: WAGs, Bentleys, driving bans, Hello magazine and Lucozade adverts all de rigeur.
When I myself was coaching a boys team a few years ago, I had two separate parents bring their kids to the team. the first announced that his son was the next Peter Schmeichel (no, he didn't have a purple nose a la the real Danish Peter). The other told me that his son had the potential of David Beckham for his age. Within a season, both players had left the team looking for another team that would 'bring them on' a bit further. Sad I know but even for those parents who stay and don't air their views to you, when their child is on the pitch, you can hear in their shouts exactly what they're thinking.
But the winner of the prize for worse football parent that I am aware of is the mother who's son is now 11 who meets every Thursday at the Starbucks in Merry Hill. For a whole 90 minutes, she talks to her coffee buddy - who must incidentally be either completely deaf or able to meditate whilst looking interested - about her son's developing football career. She knows exactly why her son should be and/or have been in the team last Sunday; why he did/did not score and/or set up goals; where the coach got it right/wrong normally involving her son in some way; and who, this week at least, was watching him. Of course, they were just waiting for the right team to 'come in for him' and that will be it. All hail the new Wayne Rooney.
But completing the jigsaw are the clubs themselves - the Man Utd's, the Villa's and so on. From the age of 7, scouts from ALL - yes ALL - the Premier and Football League clubs begin scouting. They attend matches every Sunday and make contact with the parents of kids who at the age of 7 look as though in another 15-ish years will have the potential to be world beaters. With highly polished sales pitches and glossy, badge inlaid business cards, the scouts plant the seeds of the dream whilst reeling in the parents. Yes, your son is brilliant, yes I do admire him, yes he is so much better than the rest of the team, and yes he should be playing for a big club, not some poxy little kids team down the park. With that, the parents are sold and from just 9 years of age, boys from all over the place are signed and taken to various academies.
Bet you think that it must be fantastic for them, eh?
Think again. Irrespective of what team they support, the parents sign contracts to say that they will from hereon in, only wear kit from the club that owns them under contract. They must wear the accessories and training kit that they demand. They can no longer play football with their friends or in the leagues that they have been in previous years. And they usually, cannot play for their schools in case they're injured. The reality is then that by the age of 9/10, kids are being primed to be prima donnas, excluded from the rest because they merely aren't good enough. No longer can they play with their friends or just have fun. These kids are - despite their early years - told that they are better than everybody else and that they are going to 'make it': they are the elite. I wonder why when fully grown then, most footballers are totally obnoxious?
And of the vast number of kids the clubs sign around the age of 10, by age 13 a massive percentage of these are dropped from a great height by those same clubs because they didn't 'make the grade'. Shattering the dreams and aspirations of both parents and children seems to matter not in the business of football and the uncovering of new talent. Given that these kids have not been able to play with their schools or their mates for the past few years at the same time that they have been telling everyone how great and good they were, the eventual drop not only shatters their playing football (anecdotally, many just drift away from football) but also their self-esteem.
Irrespective of who the next England manager is, the rot that is creeping through the dying carcass of this country's grassroots football is where the 'root and branch' investigation into our national game must begin. No longer can we - not if we want to protect our kids as well as our wonderful game - ignore the reality of this situation nor the way in which young, immature kids who desperately need protection are being used, abused and exploited by all. Yes it's a game of two halves, but only looking at the half where the Beckhams, Terrys, Ferdinands and Owens exist is an extremely myopic and dangerous thing.
Kid's football in this country is largely a disgrace, one that people overlook and ignore because we're 'passionate' about the game. Screaming at and humiliating 6 years old on a weekly basis is really tantamount to child abuse irrespective of whether you're passionate or not.
Having had kids play football for the past six seasons in one guise or another, this season has again opened my eyes to the reality that is English football. five weeks ago, during a game that my son was playing in, the 'coach' - I use the term loosely - said to a 9 year old from his team after substituting him, "You'll never fucking well play for me again after that...you were shit, fucking shit".
My son, after having tripped over the ball and accidentally treading on another player's hand had his grandfather shout the following tactics to him, "Take blondie - teach him a lesson". 'Blondie' for your understanding is the highly original name he gave my son due to him having had 'blonde' hair. I wonder if I'd have shouted 'kick the ball at that baldie old git who can't keep his fucking mouth shut' whether he'd have felt good about himself? Probably not but hey, he said what he did because he was 'passionate' and wanted to bring out some 'fight' in the child.
Surprised by some of this? well don't be, this is just one season and in previous years I've heard parents tell their kids to kick mud at other players, to 'get stuck in' (which typically means foul the other player), shout abuse at referees, players, managers/coaches and parents in varying degrees. In my own club we've already had a fight between two of the same club's managers on the touchline resulting in a caution from the police for GBH and my own son being shouted at so much by his own coach that I have had to take him out of the team for his own wellbeing. on doing this, the suggestion was made that he was more 'sensitive' than the other lads which - in football-speak - reads 'soft' or even worse. For most coaches, managing a kids team is a way of them living out their unfulfilled fantasies, remembering how they were on the verge of 'making it' having all somehow mysteriously - and mythically - had trials for West Ham/ West Brom/ Walsall/ Port Vale and so on (deleting as necessary)
But it's not just the coaches and managers, far too many parents with kids of 7 and 8 are already 'living the dream' through their kids of one day playing in the glorious Premiership. From a generation of parents who no longer aspire that their children achieve their full potential, we have now a generation of parents who aspire to their children getting the 'break' needed that will open the floodgates to fame and fortune: WAGs, Bentleys, driving bans, Hello magazine and Lucozade adverts all de rigeur.
When I myself was coaching a boys team a few years ago, I had two separate parents bring their kids to the team. the first announced that his son was the next Peter Schmeichel (no, he didn't have a purple nose a la the real Danish Peter). The other told me that his son had the potential of David Beckham for his age. Within a season, both players had left the team looking for another team that would 'bring them on' a bit further. Sad I know but even for those parents who stay and don't air their views to you, when their child is on the pitch, you can hear in their shouts exactly what they're thinking.
But the winner of the prize for worse football parent that I am aware of is the mother who's son is now 11 who meets every Thursday at the Starbucks in Merry Hill. For a whole 90 minutes, she talks to her coffee buddy - who must incidentally be either completely deaf or able to meditate whilst looking interested - about her son's developing football career. She knows exactly why her son should be and/or have been in the team last Sunday; why he did/did not score and/or set up goals; where the coach got it right/wrong normally involving her son in some way; and who, this week at least, was watching him. Of course, they were just waiting for the right team to 'come in for him' and that will be it. All hail the new Wayne Rooney.
But completing the jigsaw are the clubs themselves - the Man Utd's, the Villa's and so on. From the age of 7, scouts from ALL - yes ALL - the Premier and Football League clubs begin scouting. They attend matches every Sunday and make contact with the parents of kids who at the age of 7 look as though in another 15-ish years will have the potential to be world beaters. With highly polished sales pitches and glossy, badge inlaid business cards, the scouts plant the seeds of the dream whilst reeling in the parents. Yes, your son is brilliant, yes I do admire him, yes he is so much better than the rest of the team, and yes he should be playing for a big club, not some poxy little kids team down the park. With that, the parents are sold and from just 9 years of age, boys from all over the place are signed and taken to various academies.
Bet you think that it must be fantastic for them, eh?
Think again. Irrespective of what team they support, the parents sign contracts to say that they will from hereon in, only wear kit from the club that owns them under contract. They must wear the accessories and training kit that they demand. They can no longer play football with their friends or in the leagues that they have been in previous years. And they usually, cannot play for their schools in case they're injured. The reality is then that by the age of 9/10, kids are being primed to be prima donnas, excluded from the rest because they merely aren't good enough. No longer can they play with their friends or just have fun. These kids are - despite their early years - told that they are better than everybody else and that they are going to 'make it': they are the elite. I wonder why when fully grown then, most footballers are totally obnoxious?
And of the vast number of kids the clubs sign around the age of 10, by age 13 a massive percentage of these are dropped from a great height by those same clubs because they didn't 'make the grade'. Shattering the dreams and aspirations of both parents and children seems to matter not in the business of football and the uncovering of new talent. Given that these kids have not been able to play with their schools or their mates for the past few years at the same time that they have been telling everyone how great and good they were, the eventual drop not only shatters their playing football (anecdotally, many just drift away from football) but also their self-esteem.
Irrespective of who the next England manager is, the rot that is creeping through the dying carcass of this country's grassroots football is where the 'root and branch' investigation into our national game must begin. No longer can we - not if we want to protect our kids as well as our wonderful game - ignore the reality of this situation nor the way in which young, immature kids who desperately need protection are being used, abused and exploited by all. Yes it's a game of two halves, but only looking at the half where the Beckhams, Terrys, Ferdinands and Owens exist is an extremely myopic and dangerous thing.
Tuesday, 20 November 2007
Calling the kettle black through a rose-like tint
Following on from the piece about contradictions and my concerns about recent developments surrounding the 'Search for Common Ground' report, I came across this short piece at www.mediawatch.org that struck a chord with me...
Emerging out of this and developing a theme was the piece published on Comment is Free today from Sunny Hundal. I thought it was interesting:
Bari: Satanic Verses “should have been pulped”
10 November 2007
In an interview with the Telegraph, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari complains that the government and media are creating “an air of suspicion and unease” about the Muslim community”. He appears to be blissfully unaware of his own contribution to this atmosphere.
Asked about Salman Rushdie’s knighthood, he said:
He caused a huge amount of distress and discordance with his book, it should have been pulped.
His attitude to Islamic hate literature, however, is far more liberal-minded:
The bookshops are independent businesses. We can’t just go in and tell them what to sell … I will see what books they keep, if they have one book which looks like it is inciting hatred, do they have counter books on the same shelf?
Fair enough. Pity he cannot see the contradiction.
Emerging out of this and developing a theme was the piece published on Comment is Free today from Sunny Hundal. I thought it was interesting:
Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, youIt's all making me think...
20th November 2007
Over the past 18 months of writing on Cif, I have been consistent in my criticism of "community leaders" who claim to speak on behalf of people of minority religious backgrounds. This is for two main reasons: firstly because their motives are never as benign as they claim; secondly because they have a rather cosy relationship with religious extremists of the same backgrounds. This applies to Sikh and Hindu organisations as much as it does to British Muslim ones, though the former attract less media interest for obvious reasons.
Even if they don't command grassroots support, these organisations remain relevant by riding on legitimate concerns. For example, though there is little backing for an independent Sikh state, the Sikh Federation UK retains support by emphasising human rights abuses against Sikhs in India to bolster its cause. The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) similarly rides on concerns that Muslims as a whole are being demonised and actively voices their opposition to the war in Iraq. The MCB benefits by taking a hardline position on issues and clearly makes people more wary of British Muslims thanks to its over-the-top assertions and contradictions. There is little point to its existence.
Monday, 19 November 2007
New chapter published - "Islamophobia and its consequqnces"
You can now download a pdf version of the new book, "European Islam: Challenges for Society and Public Policy" (eds. Samir Amghar, Amel Boubekeur and Michael Emerson) from my website at
www.chris-allen.co.uk
For free.
The publishers, the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), describe the book:
www.chris-allen.co.uk
For free.
The publishers, the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), describe the book:
Works on Islam in Europe often read like a juxtaposition of national case studies covering the history and perhaps the sociology of immigrant groups in the countries considered. Although the sociology of Islam is well-developed in certain European countries such as France, Germany and the UK, it is only in its infancy as a discipline at the European level. The chapters in this work, by leading European experts in the field, therefore aim to supply policy-makers, analysts and civil society leaders with an inventory of the main issues concerning the presence of Islam in Europe. The key message is that European Islam exists as a powerful transnational phenomenon, and European policy must keep pace with this reality.
Contributors include Samir Amghar, Amel Boubekeur, Michael Emerson, Chris Allen, Valerie Amiraux, Tufyal Choudhury, Bernard Godard, Imane Karich, Isabelle Rigoni, Olivier Roy and Sara Silvestri.
Guardian Media: What Muslim journalists think about the UK media
Good old Laura, she's still battling away at trying to get some good PR for the 'Search for Common Ground' report. Flogging a dead horse given the size and number of the 'enemies'? Who knows...
Guardian reporter Laura Smith spoke to journalists from Muslim backgrounds about how they felt about the mainstream media's coverage of Islam and their place in the industry
November 19, 2007 4:05 PM
Last year, I interviewed journalists from Muslim backgrounds about their experiences working within the mainstream press, writes Laura Smith. At a time when opinion about Muslims takes up a great deal of space in newspapers, I was interested to find out how they felt about this coverage and about their own role in it.
The results of those six interviews, conducted alongside the Guardian's Hugh Muir and published last week in the Greater London Authority report The Search for Common Ground: Muslims, non-Muslims and the UK media, make thought-provoking reading.
Most of the journalists we spoke to had been brought up with the suspicion that the media was biased - a sense not helped by coverage of the Salman Rushdie affair in the late 1980s. But only one had entered the profession with a conscious aim to alter portrayal of Muslims and Islam. The rest gave a range of reasons, from "I'm really nosey" to "I thought it was an interesting career".
Once working within newsrooms, however, most found it impossible to ignore the way their religious identities were perceived - especially after the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 and July 7 2005. The way they coped varied.
Some put their heads down and tried to stick to stories that did not involve such subjects. "The thing is I don't want to be pigeon-holed. I'm a professional journalist, not a professional Paki", was how one put it. Others began to use their position to contribute to more balanced coverage. One reporter, who had thought she could leave her Muslim identity "in a box away from my role as a journalist" found herself drawn to exploring it. Another put it like this: "I have been thrown into writing about Muslim issues rather than having a massive interest in them. But I'd rather do it than let anyone else do it because I am more aware of the issues. Otherwise you get stuck with stereotypes."
There were, of course, advantages to being, in many cases, the only Muslim journalist in the building. Several spoke of becoming a "valuable commodity" to the newsdesk and finding themselves with a new status. Others said they had been able to bring in stories other journalists were unable to access - "I can see why it might be reasonable for me rather than Bob Jones to go undercover at Finsbury Park" was how one put it - and of having a positive influence on the way Muslim issues were reported.
But there were pitfalls too, with more than one regarding reporting on such issues as a "gilded cage" or a "cul-de-sac". The assumption that they knew more than they did was also problematic. One reporter told me: "People assume that because of my name I know about Islamic society... the religion, the language, the background. The reality is quite different." "I haven't got a magic hotline to Osama or Bakri Mohammed," said another. "People think I must know people and I'm hiding it. Of the Muslims I know, 99% of them are my relatives."
The struggle to retain their integrity, an issue facing all journalists, was particularly fraught. More than one journalist we spoke to had been asked to infiltrate al-Qaida, and regarded the idea with incredulity. Others felt they had compromised their religious beliefs. One said he felt like a "charlatan" attending mosques to pick up stories, while another said of a particularly difficult incident: "I felt I had used my Muslim background for my own glory but I didn't have the confidence to say I was really upset about it."
Despite strong feelings about being in such a minority among reporters ("There are times when I just want to leave and do something where I am not this token Asian", said one), they were on the whole wary of calling for 'more Muslim journalists' to improve coverage. Most called instead for a more representative workforce in general - "If journalism is about finding out the view from the ground then class is as important as race or religion", said one - and for all journalists to educate themselves, whatever their background. As one put it: "It's up to the journalists to be more aware about the country we live in."
Guardian reporter Laura Smith spoke to journalists from Muslim backgrounds about how they felt about the mainstream media's coverage of Islam and their place in the industry
November 19, 2007 4:05 PM
Last year, I interviewed journalists from Muslim backgrounds about their experiences working within the mainstream press, writes Laura Smith. At a time when opinion about Muslims takes up a great deal of space in newspapers, I was interested to find out how they felt about this coverage and about their own role in it.
The results of those six interviews, conducted alongside the Guardian's Hugh Muir and published last week in the Greater London Authority report The Search for Common Ground: Muslims, non-Muslims and the UK media, make thought-provoking reading.
Most of the journalists we spoke to had been brought up with the suspicion that the media was biased - a sense not helped by coverage of the Salman Rushdie affair in the late 1980s. But only one had entered the profession with a conscious aim to alter portrayal of Muslims and Islam. The rest gave a range of reasons, from "I'm really nosey" to "I thought it was an interesting career".
Once working within newsrooms, however, most found it impossible to ignore the way their religious identities were perceived - especially after the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 and July 7 2005. The way they coped varied.
Some put their heads down and tried to stick to stories that did not involve such subjects. "The thing is I don't want to be pigeon-holed. I'm a professional journalist, not a professional Paki", was how one put it. Others began to use their position to contribute to more balanced coverage. One reporter, who had thought she could leave her Muslim identity "in a box away from my role as a journalist" found herself drawn to exploring it. Another put it like this: "I have been thrown into writing about Muslim issues rather than having a massive interest in them. But I'd rather do it than let anyone else do it because I am more aware of the issues. Otherwise you get stuck with stereotypes."
There were, of course, advantages to being, in many cases, the only Muslim journalist in the building. Several spoke of becoming a "valuable commodity" to the newsdesk and finding themselves with a new status. Others said they had been able to bring in stories other journalists were unable to access - "I can see why it might be reasonable for me rather than Bob Jones to go undercover at Finsbury Park" was how one put it - and of having a positive influence on the way Muslim issues were reported.
But there were pitfalls too, with more than one regarding reporting on such issues as a "gilded cage" or a "cul-de-sac". The assumption that they knew more than they did was also problematic. One reporter told me: "People assume that because of my name I know about Islamic society... the religion, the language, the background. The reality is quite different." "I haven't got a magic hotline to Osama or Bakri Mohammed," said another. "People think I must know people and I'm hiding it. Of the Muslims I know, 99% of them are my relatives."
The struggle to retain their integrity, an issue facing all journalists, was particularly fraught. More than one journalist we spoke to had been asked to infiltrate al-Qaida, and regarded the idea with incredulity. Others felt they had compromised their religious beliefs. One said he felt like a "charlatan" attending mosques to pick up stories, while another said of a particularly difficult incident: "I felt I had used my Muslim background for my own glory but I didn't have the confidence to say I was really upset about it."
Despite strong feelings about being in such a minority among reporters ("There are times when I just want to leave and do something where I am not this token Asian", said one), they were on the whole wary of calling for 'more Muslim journalists' to improve coverage. Most called instead for a more representative workforce in general - "If journalism is about finding out the view from the ground then class is as important as race or religion", said one - and for all journalists to educate themselves, whatever their background. As one put it: "It's up to the journalists to be more aware about the country we live in."
The 'age of impunity and over-riding human rights is over' (unless you're Saudi)
Having recently watched the Saudi King visit Britain and be duly entertained by both Gordon Brown and the Queen, I thought that it was interesting that little more than two weeks had passed before this story emerged...
Having read this, I felt disgusted when I came across this news article from the Independent.
Good to see that Gord if not Liz is being true to his word - about five weeks prior to the visit by the Saudis, Mr Brown was telling the Labour Party conference in Bournemouth that:
That's a clear and consistent message then...
Saudi gang-rape victim is jailed
An appeal court in Saudi Arabia increases the sentence on a teenage gang-rape victim.
BBC News Online, 15 November 2007
An appeal court in Saudi Arabia has doubled the number of lashes and added a jail sentence as punishment for a woman who was gang-raped.
The victim was initially punished for violating laws on segregation of the sexes - she was in an unrelated man's car at the time of the attack.
When she appealed, the judges said she had been attempting to use the media to influence them.
The attackers' sentences - originally of up to five years - were doubled.
According to the Arab News newspaper, the 19-year-old woman was gang-raped 14 times in an attack in the eastern province a year-and-a-half ago.
Having read this, I felt disgusted when I came across this news article from the Independent.
Brown 'did not discuss rights'
Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
2 November 2007
Gordon Brown did not raise alleged human right abuses in Saudi Arabia during his talks this week with King Abdullah, the Saudi Foreign Minister confirmed yesterday.
"We haven't talked of human rights," Prince Saud al-Faisal told Sky News. "Human rights is the responsibility for the government of its own people, not of other governments. We are doing what our people expect us to do."
Good to see that Gord if not Liz is being true to his word - about five weeks prior to the visit by the Saudis, Mr Brown was telling the Labour Party conference in Bournemouth that:
"the age of impunity and over-riding human rights is over".
Calling Burma's government an "illegitimate and repressive regime", Mr Brown said: "The whole issue of sanctions is going to take on a new dimension."
He called for UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari to be sent to Burma, to "make sure that the Burmese regime directly is aware that any trampling of human rights that takes place will have the whole eyes of the world upon them and will not be acceptable in future".
Mr Brown said: "I want to see all the pressures of the world put on this regime now - sanctions, the pressure of the UN, pressure from China and all the countries in the region, India, pressure from the whole of the world."
Brown urges UN action over Burma
BBC News Online, 26 September 2007
That's a clear and consistent message then...
Sunday, 18 November 2007
Inside the inner sanctum of 'The Search for Common Ground'
Let's be honest...there ARE problems with the report.
In my chapter - chapter 2 - a lot of relevant information is overlooked or edited out including two very important pieces, especially if you've read the criticisms shown on this blog.
First, the report fails to include the typology employed to highlight how 'positive', 'negative' and 'neutral' were identified, leaving a void that the critics have rightly capitalised upon.
Second, the report fails to include the overwhelming fact that in comparison with research that was undertaken a mere decade ago by Elizabeth Poole, the amount of articles about Islam and Muslims in the press has increased by nearly 270%. This piece of information alone is staggering and why it was left out of the final publication absolutely astounds me.
Some other criticisms that I think are fair include the fact that the report...
Was edited, edited and re-edited, then left for months, then edited, edited and...you get the picture;
Had - in my opinion - been the subject of too much behind closed doors politic-ing and was used - or not - accordingly;
Was somewhat out of date by the time it came to press;
Focused on far too many things that were 'personal' (interpret that as you see fit) to some of those involved and/or commissioning it;
And - along with the al-Qaradawi chapter that was sensibly axed - needed to have the Panorama chapter cut or at least heavily edited also.
There were also a lot of people named in the writing of the report that if honest, rarely attended the meetings and so wonder what their retrospective influence/ involvement was. Were they the ones inside the report's inner sanctum? Who knows...
Maybe all this is a little controversial and too soon after the report's publication to be completely objective, but could it be that this report is open to the same criticisms that I made in my 'The first decade of Islamophobia' think-piece? Surely if nothing else, we need to re-think how we talk about Islamophobia if nothing else...
Actually, if you take the chapter out about the Panorama programme, the report is not much worse than many other reports that see the light of day. It just seems to be who were or at least perceived to have been pulling the strings that has caused the problems.
Further evidence for me to think that it's not worth getting involved in work such as this...
In my chapter - chapter 2 - a lot of relevant information is overlooked or edited out including two very important pieces, especially if you've read the criticisms shown on this blog.
First, the report fails to include the typology employed to highlight how 'positive', 'negative' and 'neutral' were identified, leaving a void that the critics have rightly capitalised upon.
Second, the report fails to include the overwhelming fact that in comparison with research that was undertaken a mere decade ago by Elizabeth Poole, the amount of articles about Islam and Muslims in the press has increased by nearly 270%. This piece of information alone is staggering and why it was left out of the final publication absolutely astounds me.
Some other criticisms that I think are fair include the fact that the report...
Was edited, edited and re-edited, then left for months, then edited, edited and...you get the picture;
Had - in my opinion - been the subject of too much behind closed doors politic-ing and was used - or not - accordingly;
Was somewhat out of date by the time it came to press;
Focused on far too many things that were 'personal' (interpret that as you see fit) to some of those involved and/or commissioning it;
And - along with the al-Qaradawi chapter that was sensibly axed - needed to have the Panorama chapter cut or at least heavily edited also.
There were also a lot of people named in the writing of the report that if honest, rarely attended the meetings and so wonder what their retrospective influence/ involvement was. Were they the ones inside the report's inner sanctum? Who knows...
Maybe all this is a little controversial and too soon after the report's publication to be completely objective, but could it be that this report is open to the same criticisms that I made in my 'The first decade of Islamophobia' think-piece? Surely if nothing else, we need to re-think how we talk about Islamophobia if nothing else...
Actually, if you take the chapter out about the Panorama programme, the report is not much worse than many other reports that see the light of day. It just seems to be who were or at least perceived to have been pulling the strings that has caused the problems.
Further evidence for me to think that it's not worth getting involved in work such as this...
Spiked: London’s PC despot - in the name of combating 'Islamophobia', Ken Livingstone has launched an attack on press freedom that reveals his fear
And another one about the 'Search for Common Ground' report...it's very difficult to distinguish between where actual criticism begins and the 'politic-ing' mentioned previously ends. One thing though, there is a lot of criticism about the report and that is on the version that had the chapter about the visit by Yusuf al-Qaradwai cut from it !!! Imagine what the response would have been had that been included too...
What kind of leader launches an open assault on the press, accusing it of jeopardising public safety and demanding that it put its ‘house in order’? What sort of ruler proposes ‘guidelines’ to the press on what stories it should cover, and even worse, what kind of language it should use to cover them, what kind of people it should employ, and what kind of values it should uphold and communicate to the mass of the population? Kim Jong-il, perhaps? Saddam Hussein, before he was chased into his hole in the ground and later executed? How about Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London?
This week, ‘Red Ken’, as some people insist on calling him, launched a report on British media coverage of ‘Muslim issues’. Titled The Search for Common Ground: Muslims, Non-Muslims and the UK Media, the report was commissioned by Livingstone’s Greater London Authority. It explores the alleged rise of Islamophobia in the media. And in the name of tackling the apparent spread of prejudice through the papers (especially tabloid ones), Livingstone and his supporters have crossed a line normally only transgressed by despots: they’re using their political clout to try to shape the media in their own image. Strip away all the PC lingo about ‘protecting Muslims’, and the London mayor’s latest initiative comes across as an intolerable attack on press freedom.
The report argues that Islamophobia is rampant in the British press, and that new attitudes amongst journalists and codes of ethics will be required to deal with it. In his foreword, Livingstone argues that there is an increasingly ‘negative portrayal of Muslims and Islam in the media’, which is helping to ‘[sow] divisions among London’s diverse communities’ (pxi). Elsewhere, the report argues that such coverage means ‘Muslims understandably feel vulnerable to hate crimes and unlawful discrimination’; indeed, the ‘drip-drip-drip’ repetition of ‘abusive and emotive language’ about Muslims could lead to ‘more hate crimes and acts of discrimination than otherwise’ (p128). In short, the media’s irresponsible coverage of Muslim issues is a threat to social cohesion and a potential harbinger of violence.
In fact, the report uses questionable, one might even say dodgy methodology to show that the media are continually ‘abusing’ Muslims. For chapter 2 – ‘A normal week? Threats and crises in Britain and the world’ – the report’s authors select a ‘random’ week in 2006 and assess the newspapers’ coverage of Muslim affairs during that week. They chose Monday 8 May to Sunday 14 May 2006. During this week there were apparently 352 articles on Muslim-related issues in all the mainstream daily newspapers. The report’s authors found that of these 352 articles, 91 per cent were ‘negative’ in their portrayal of Muslims and Islam, and only four per cent were judged to be positive. Five per cent were judged neutral. This is evidence, the report claims, of the ‘demonisation’ of Muslims by a ‘torrent’ of negative stories (p18).
It pays – a lot – to look more closely at how this research was carried out. First, the random week selected by the researchers happened to be the week in which the government published its report on the 7/7 bombings. That report came out on Friday 12 May. Not surprisingly, there was a huge amount of press coverage, and not surprisingly most of it was ‘negative’, in the sense that it was about four British-born Muslims who blew up themselves and 52 others in London a year earlier; even individuals of an old Stalinist bent, such as those who stack’s Livingstone’s GLA, would find it hard to put a ‘positive’ spin on such a story. Of the study’s 352 newspaper stories related to Muslims, 69 – or 19.6 per cent – were about the 7/7 bombings (p26).
What’s more, the researchers made a broad sweep indeed when selecting articles ‘about Muslims’. They counted all articles that included the words ‘Islam’, ‘Muslims’, ‘Islamic’, ‘Islamist’, ‘Sunni’, ‘Shia’, or the words ‘radical’, ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘extremist’ if the ‘context was such that it was reasonable to assume that an association with Islam or Muslims would be made’. In other words, even an article about an ‘extremist’ online al-Qaeda sympathiser, say, could be selected as a negative story about Muslims, even if it did not say anything about his religious identity (p17). The researchers also included articles where the names of people were obviously Muslim, ‘even if their religious identity was not explicitly stated’. This leads to a bizarre situation where articles about the sentencing of the former boxer Prince Naseem for dangerous driving are included as part of the torrent of negative stories about Muslims. Naseem was sentenced to 15 months in prison in the week selected by the researchers (on 12 May 2006), and because his name (Naseem Hamed) is obviously Muslim, and because the stories (on dangerous driving) are obviously negative, they are added to the pile of evidence that the media are abusing Muslims. Of the 352 articles selected by the researchers, 15, or 4.3 per cent, were ‘negative’ stories about Prince Naseem (p26).
Even worse, in selecting articles that include the words ‘Sunni’ and ‘Shia’, the researchers included all of that random week’s coverage of the bloody mess that is postwar Iraq. May 2006 was the bloodiest month of the year so far in Iraq: according to the Iraq Body Count website, between 2,000 and 2,100 people were killed in Iraq during that month. Not surprisingly, articles about Iraq come second only to articles about 7/7 in the researchers’ list of ‘negative stories on Muslims’. Of their 352 selected articles, 49 – or 13.9 per cent – were news articles about the violence and instability in Iraq. Here, even reporting about a bloody foreign war, which might not necessarily mention ‘Muslims’ but by necessity mentions the words ‘Sunni’ and ‘Shia’, is cited as an example of irresponsible and abusive media content on Muslims.
What are the researchers saying? That coverage of things like Iraq and 7/7 needs to be more positive? That journalists who write on war and rare acts of terrorism should mind their language lest they offend Muslims? Or more to the point, lest they offend those who fancy themselves, through the power of self-selection rather than anything so grubby as an electoral process, to be the representatives of Muslims. The contributors to Livingstone’s report include Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain, Mohammed Abdul Aziz of the Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism, and Tariq Hameed, who writes reports for the Muslim Council of Britain on how journalists should cover Muslim affairs. Are these individuals so narcissistic that they read about the debacle in Iraq and think only of their personal feelings?
In labelling as ‘negative’ and ‘abusive’ even stories about war and terrorism, the report’s authors show their deeply censorious streak. They are effectively updating, in PC terminology, the old BBC man Martyn Lewis’s demand in the 1990s for more ‘happy news’. Where Lewis said news reporters should seek out ‘good news stories’ as well as bad news stories, effectively spreading the ‘And Finally’ bit of News at Ten across the whole news agenda, Ken’s researchers label everything from coverage of Prince Naseem to the war in Iraq as overly negative, and demand more positive stories on Muslim affairs. This is a demand for the press to overhaul its agenda, for journalists to shift their focus, change their language, and, as the report says, ‘contribute to informed discussion and debate amongst Muslims and non-Muslims about ways of working together to maintain and develop Britain as a multicultural, multifaith democracy’ (pxiv). In short, the press should do the kind of thing that Livingstone wants it to. It speaks volumes about Livingstone’s arrogance and contempt for public debate that he would like to, if only he had the power, turn the press into an offshoot of his political fiefdom.
So, the demonisation of Muslims in the media does not normally consist of articles attacking or slurring Muslims – rather it consists of news reports on Iraq, 7/7, Prince Naseem, as well as Iran, Palestine and numerous other newsworthy issues. Thus, the authors of the report are forced to trawl the dodgier regions of the tabloid media for what they consider to be truly disturbing examples of anti-Muslim prejudice. In chapter 3 – ‘Britishness is being destroyed: worries in a changing world’ – they flag up examples of the media abuse of Muslims. The main example – make sure you are sitting comfortably – appeared on the front page of the Daily Express in October 2005. It was headlined: ‘HOGWASH: Now the PC brigade bans piggy banks in case they upset Muslims.’ The report spends five pages discussing and dissecting this silly but fairly typical ‘PC gone mad’ story that the vast majority of us will have shrugged off at the time and certainly forgotten about since. In total, chapter 3 breaks down what the authors admit are ‘four small episodes’, ‘each relatively trivial in itself’ – that is, all of them are tabloid-style ‘PC gone mad’ stories – yet cites them as evidence that there is an ‘attack on Muslims’ in the media (p31).
The authors then get really desperate. Unable to find many clear expressions of serious anti-Muslim prejudice in the mainstream, they move on to the online discussion boards of the tabloid newspapers. On the Daily Express website they find that web-users have written things like ‘I am sick to the back teeth of hearing about Muslims this and Muslims that’; ‘The Islamic tail is wagging the British bulldog’; and ‘Instead of assimilating into our culture, Muslims whine and complain… They should return to the homeland of their beloved prophet Mohammed.’ (p11) Clearly some of these statements were written by individuals with noxious views. But material posted on the free-for-all discussion boards of the Daily Express website hardly represents a mainstream torrent of abuse. If I took seriously everything that was ever said about me on online discussion boards, I’d never leave the house. That the researchers had to trawl the gutters of the World Wide Web in order to find abuse of Muslims (and even here, the abuse cited is fairly mild) shows that ‘Islamophobia’ is not a mainstream or powerful prejudice. Yet the researchers seem desperate to demonstrate that it is. That is because this report looks to me less like an attempt to tackle real prejudice than to propose some quite authoritarian ideas under the guise of ‘tackling Islamophobia’.
This report demonstrates what the phenomenon of Islamophobia is actually about today. There has been no public groundswell in anti-Muslim prejudice, or in anti-Muslim violence; rather, the spectre of ‘Islamophobia’ exists in the minds of the elite, who look upon Britain’s white working-class communities as an unpredictable blob liable to carry out acts of violence against Muslims if they read an article about piggy banks being banned or Prince Naseem being jailed. The Islamophobia agenda, as pushed by central government, the GLA, the police, various self-selected Muslim community groups and, as it happens, large sections of the media itself, is underpinned by a poisonous view of the masses as irrational and given to violent outbursts, and Muslims as pathetic victims who need heroic Ken and his handpicked Muslim community warriors to protect them. That is why this report focuses mostly on the tabloids, because, as it says, these papers are read by ‘millions’ of people. Those horrible, hard-to-predict millions; we can’t have them reading inflammatory material, can we? (pxvii)
The report says that media coverage may lead to increased violence, yet all the evidence suggests that there has not been a rise in anti-Muslim attacks. At the end of last year, the Crown Prosecution Service revealed that in 2005-2006 – in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings, when politicians, the police and others predicted there would be an anti-Muslim pogrom – there were only 43 cases of religiously aggravated crime, 18 of them against Muslims (or ‘perceived’ Muslims). This represented a decline from 23 anti-Muslim crimes in 2004-2005 (1). It is the irrational fear of public opinion that is widespread in the GLA and elsewhere that leads some to see a connection between fairly ordinary media coverage of important events and a possible rise in violence. The truth is that Livingstone’s desire to police the language that journalists use, just as central government has tried to curb the language all of us use in relation to ‘religious hatred’, does nothing to rejuvenate or improve communuty relations or public life; instead it allows ideas to fester, unchallenged.
Common Ground, with its strange methodology, cliquish community group input and fear of tabloids and tabloid readers, ends by calling for an overhaul of the media. It calls for ‘codes of professional conduct and style guides about use of terminology’; for the employment of ‘more journalists of Muslim heritage who can more accurately reflect the views and experiences of Muslim communities’; and for the Commission for Equality and Human Rights and the government’s Department for Communities and Local Government to focus on ‘combating anti-Muslim prejudice in the media’ and in ‘the general climate of public opinion’ (p133). These are explicit demands for increased government intervention into the press, and anyone who believes in the freedom of the press should rigorously oppose them and hope that the government ignores them.
Of course there are vast problems with the British press, its tendency to scaremonger about the threat of terrorism amongst them. Yet as Karl Marx, history’s most passionate and consistent defender of freedom of the press, argued, a ‘bad’ free press is better than a ‘good’ controlled press. Marx said: ‘The free press remains good even when its products are bad, because these products are deviations from the nature of a free press, [while] the censored press remains bad, even when its products are good, because these products are only good insofar as they represent the free press within the censored press’ (2). Marx ridiculed nineteenth-century European rulers who argued that the press should be restricted because it threatened the ‘public good’ and who called on newspapers to hire only ‘respectable’ individuals whose ‘position and character guarantee the seriousness of their activities and the loyalty of their thinking’ (3). Livingstone, if he had the power, would do precisely these two things. He argues that the media is ‘sowing divisions’ and ‘harming social cohesion’ – that is, threatening public safety – and his report goes so far as to suggest who the media should employ: more Muslims, who apparently have the expertise and the loyalty to uphold the multicultural vision.
There is something archaically tyrannical in Livingstone’s vision for the press: on the basis of questionable findings, he and his supporters express their desire to cajole the media into promoting the Livingstone vision for society, which is the ‘building and maintenance of Britain as a multicultural society’ (pxiii). If Livingstone got his way, it would represent an explicit politicisation of the media, though it would be done under the guise of representing the interests of Muslim communities and the British people more broadly. Yet as Marx said, in a controlled or censored media, the government ‘hears only its own voice, knows that it hears only its own voice, and is yet fixed on the delusion to hear the voice of the people...’ (4) The press should remain free from all forms of delusional interference by the authorities. Our current bad media – fairly free, messy, a bit mad, but which represents at least an aspiration to independence and objectivity – is a million times better than Livingstone’s vision of a calm, slavish and unquestioning ‘good media’ could ever be.
Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked. Visit his website here.
(1) See Hands up if you’re suffering from Islamofatigue, by Brendan O’Neill
(2) Communication and Freedom: Karl Marx on Press Freedom and Censorship, Hanno Hardt, The Public, Vol.7 (2000)
(3) Communication and Freedom: Karl Marx on Press Freedom and Censorship, Hanno Hardt, The Public, Vol.7 (2000)
(4) Communication and Freedom: Karl Marx on Press Freedom and Censorship, Hanno Hardt, The Public, Vol.7 (2000)
What kind of leader launches an open assault on the press, accusing it of jeopardising public safety and demanding that it put its ‘house in order’? What sort of ruler proposes ‘guidelines’ to the press on what stories it should cover, and even worse, what kind of language it should use to cover them, what kind of people it should employ, and what kind of values it should uphold and communicate to the mass of the population? Kim Jong-il, perhaps? Saddam Hussein, before he was chased into his hole in the ground and later executed? How about Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London?
This week, ‘Red Ken’, as some people insist on calling him, launched a report on British media coverage of ‘Muslim issues’. Titled The Search for Common Ground: Muslims, Non-Muslims and the UK Media, the report was commissioned by Livingstone’s Greater London Authority. It explores the alleged rise of Islamophobia in the media. And in the name of tackling the apparent spread of prejudice through the papers (especially tabloid ones), Livingstone and his supporters have crossed a line normally only transgressed by despots: they’re using their political clout to try to shape the media in their own image. Strip away all the PC lingo about ‘protecting Muslims’, and the London mayor’s latest initiative comes across as an intolerable attack on press freedom.
The report argues that Islamophobia is rampant in the British press, and that new attitudes amongst journalists and codes of ethics will be required to deal with it. In his foreword, Livingstone argues that there is an increasingly ‘negative portrayal of Muslims and Islam in the media’, which is helping to ‘[sow] divisions among London’s diverse communities’ (pxi). Elsewhere, the report argues that such coverage means ‘Muslims understandably feel vulnerable to hate crimes and unlawful discrimination’; indeed, the ‘drip-drip-drip’ repetition of ‘abusive and emotive language’ about Muslims could lead to ‘more hate crimes and acts of discrimination than otherwise’ (p128). In short, the media’s irresponsible coverage of Muslim issues is a threat to social cohesion and a potential harbinger of violence.
In fact, the report uses questionable, one might even say dodgy methodology to show that the media are continually ‘abusing’ Muslims. For chapter 2 – ‘A normal week? Threats and crises in Britain and the world’ – the report’s authors select a ‘random’ week in 2006 and assess the newspapers’ coverage of Muslim affairs during that week. They chose Monday 8 May to Sunday 14 May 2006. During this week there were apparently 352 articles on Muslim-related issues in all the mainstream daily newspapers. The report’s authors found that of these 352 articles, 91 per cent were ‘negative’ in their portrayal of Muslims and Islam, and only four per cent were judged to be positive. Five per cent were judged neutral. This is evidence, the report claims, of the ‘demonisation’ of Muslims by a ‘torrent’ of negative stories (p18).
It pays – a lot – to look more closely at how this research was carried out. First, the random week selected by the researchers happened to be the week in which the government published its report on the 7/7 bombings. That report came out on Friday 12 May. Not surprisingly, there was a huge amount of press coverage, and not surprisingly most of it was ‘negative’, in the sense that it was about four British-born Muslims who blew up themselves and 52 others in London a year earlier; even individuals of an old Stalinist bent, such as those who stack’s Livingstone’s GLA, would find it hard to put a ‘positive’ spin on such a story. Of the study’s 352 newspaper stories related to Muslims, 69 – or 19.6 per cent – were about the 7/7 bombings (p26).
What’s more, the researchers made a broad sweep indeed when selecting articles ‘about Muslims’. They counted all articles that included the words ‘Islam’, ‘Muslims’, ‘Islamic’, ‘Islamist’, ‘Sunni’, ‘Shia’, or the words ‘radical’, ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘extremist’ if the ‘context was such that it was reasonable to assume that an association with Islam or Muslims would be made’. In other words, even an article about an ‘extremist’ online al-Qaeda sympathiser, say, could be selected as a negative story about Muslims, even if it did not say anything about his religious identity (p17). The researchers also included articles where the names of people were obviously Muslim, ‘even if their religious identity was not explicitly stated’. This leads to a bizarre situation where articles about the sentencing of the former boxer Prince Naseem for dangerous driving are included as part of the torrent of negative stories about Muslims. Naseem was sentenced to 15 months in prison in the week selected by the researchers (on 12 May 2006), and because his name (Naseem Hamed) is obviously Muslim, and because the stories (on dangerous driving) are obviously negative, they are added to the pile of evidence that the media are abusing Muslims. Of the 352 articles selected by the researchers, 15, or 4.3 per cent, were ‘negative’ stories about Prince Naseem (p26).
Even worse, in selecting articles that include the words ‘Sunni’ and ‘Shia’, the researchers included all of that random week’s coverage of the bloody mess that is postwar Iraq. May 2006 was the bloodiest month of the year so far in Iraq: according to the Iraq Body Count website, between 2,000 and 2,100 people were killed in Iraq during that month. Not surprisingly, articles about Iraq come second only to articles about 7/7 in the researchers’ list of ‘negative stories on Muslims’. Of their 352 selected articles, 49 – or 13.9 per cent – were news articles about the violence and instability in Iraq. Here, even reporting about a bloody foreign war, which might not necessarily mention ‘Muslims’ but by necessity mentions the words ‘Sunni’ and ‘Shia’, is cited as an example of irresponsible and abusive media content on Muslims.
What are the researchers saying? That coverage of things like Iraq and 7/7 needs to be more positive? That journalists who write on war and rare acts of terrorism should mind their language lest they offend Muslims? Or more to the point, lest they offend those who fancy themselves, through the power of self-selection rather than anything so grubby as an electoral process, to be the representatives of Muslims. The contributors to Livingstone’s report include Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain, Mohammed Abdul Aziz of the Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism, and Tariq Hameed, who writes reports for the Muslim Council of Britain on how journalists should cover Muslim affairs. Are these individuals so narcissistic that they read about the debacle in Iraq and think only of their personal feelings?
In labelling as ‘negative’ and ‘abusive’ even stories about war and terrorism, the report’s authors show their deeply censorious streak. They are effectively updating, in PC terminology, the old BBC man Martyn Lewis’s demand in the 1990s for more ‘happy news’. Where Lewis said news reporters should seek out ‘good news stories’ as well as bad news stories, effectively spreading the ‘And Finally’ bit of News at Ten across the whole news agenda, Ken’s researchers label everything from coverage of Prince Naseem to the war in Iraq as overly negative, and demand more positive stories on Muslim affairs. This is a demand for the press to overhaul its agenda, for journalists to shift their focus, change their language, and, as the report says, ‘contribute to informed discussion and debate amongst Muslims and non-Muslims about ways of working together to maintain and develop Britain as a multicultural, multifaith democracy’ (pxiv). In short, the press should do the kind of thing that Livingstone wants it to. It speaks volumes about Livingstone’s arrogance and contempt for public debate that he would like to, if only he had the power, turn the press into an offshoot of his political fiefdom.
So, the demonisation of Muslims in the media does not normally consist of articles attacking or slurring Muslims – rather it consists of news reports on Iraq, 7/7, Prince Naseem, as well as Iran, Palestine and numerous other newsworthy issues. Thus, the authors of the report are forced to trawl the dodgier regions of the tabloid media for what they consider to be truly disturbing examples of anti-Muslim prejudice. In chapter 3 – ‘Britishness is being destroyed: worries in a changing world’ – they flag up examples of the media abuse of Muslims. The main example – make sure you are sitting comfortably – appeared on the front page of the Daily Express in October 2005. It was headlined: ‘HOGWASH: Now the PC brigade bans piggy banks in case they upset Muslims.’ The report spends five pages discussing and dissecting this silly but fairly typical ‘PC gone mad’ story that the vast majority of us will have shrugged off at the time and certainly forgotten about since. In total, chapter 3 breaks down what the authors admit are ‘four small episodes’, ‘each relatively trivial in itself’ – that is, all of them are tabloid-style ‘PC gone mad’ stories – yet cites them as evidence that there is an ‘attack on Muslims’ in the media (p31).
The authors then get really desperate. Unable to find many clear expressions of serious anti-Muslim prejudice in the mainstream, they move on to the online discussion boards of the tabloid newspapers. On the Daily Express website they find that web-users have written things like ‘I am sick to the back teeth of hearing about Muslims this and Muslims that’; ‘The Islamic tail is wagging the British bulldog’; and ‘Instead of assimilating into our culture, Muslims whine and complain… They should return to the homeland of their beloved prophet Mohammed.’ (p11) Clearly some of these statements were written by individuals with noxious views. But material posted on the free-for-all discussion boards of the Daily Express website hardly represents a mainstream torrent of abuse. If I took seriously everything that was ever said about me on online discussion boards, I’d never leave the house. That the researchers had to trawl the gutters of the World Wide Web in order to find abuse of Muslims (and even here, the abuse cited is fairly mild) shows that ‘Islamophobia’ is not a mainstream or powerful prejudice. Yet the researchers seem desperate to demonstrate that it is. That is because this report looks to me less like an attempt to tackle real prejudice than to propose some quite authoritarian ideas under the guise of ‘tackling Islamophobia’.
This report demonstrates what the phenomenon of Islamophobia is actually about today. There has been no public groundswell in anti-Muslim prejudice, or in anti-Muslim violence; rather, the spectre of ‘Islamophobia’ exists in the minds of the elite, who look upon Britain’s white working-class communities as an unpredictable blob liable to carry out acts of violence against Muslims if they read an article about piggy banks being banned or Prince Naseem being jailed. The Islamophobia agenda, as pushed by central government, the GLA, the police, various self-selected Muslim community groups and, as it happens, large sections of the media itself, is underpinned by a poisonous view of the masses as irrational and given to violent outbursts, and Muslims as pathetic victims who need heroic Ken and his handpicked Muslim community warriors to protect them. That is why this report focuses mostly on the tabloids, because, as it says, these papers are read by ‘millions’ of people. Those horrible, hard-to-predict millions; we can’t have them reading inflammatory material, can we? (pxvii)
The report says that media coverage may lead to increased violence, yet all the evidence suggests that there has not been a rise in anti-Muslim attacks. At the end of last year, the Crown Prosecution Service revealed that in 2005-2006 – in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings, when politicians, the police and others predicted there would be an anti-Muslim pogrom – there were only 43 cases of religiously aggravated crime, 18 of them against Muslims (or ‘perceived’ Muslims). This represented a decline from 23 anti-Muslim crimes in 2004-2005 (1). It is the irrational fear of public opinion that is widespread in the GLA and elsewhere that leads some to see a connection between fairly ordinary media coverage of important events and a possible rise in violence. The truth is that Livingstone’s desire to police the language that journalists use, just as central government has tried to curb the language all of us use in relation to ‘religious hatred’, does nothing to rejuvenate or improve communuty relations or public life; instead it allows ideas to fester, unchallenged.
Common Ground, with its strange methodology, cliquish community group input and fear of tabloids and tabloid readers, ends by calling for an overhaul of the media. It calls for ‘codes of professional conduct and style guides about use of terminology’; for the employment of ‘more journalists of Muslim heritage who can more accurately reflect the views and experiences of Muslim communities’; and for the Commission for Equality and Human Rights and the government’s Department for Communities and Local Government to focus on ‘combating anti-Muslim prejudice in the media’ and in ‘the general climate of public opinion’ (p133). These are explicit demands for increased government intervention into the press, and anyone who believes in the freedom of the press should rigorously oppose them and hope that the government ignores them.
Of course there are vast problems with the British press, its tendency to scaremonger about the threat of terrorism amongst them. Yet as Karl Marx, history’s most passionate and consistent defender of freedom of the press, argued, a ‘bad’ free press is better than a ‘good’ controlled press. Marx said: ‘The free press remains good even when its products are bad, because these products are deviations from the nature of a free press, [while] the censored press remains bad, even when its products are good, because these products are only good insofar as they represent the free press within the censored press’ (2). Marx ridiculed nineteenth-century European rulers who argued that the press should be restricted because it threatened the ‘public good’ and who called on newspapers to hire only ‘respectable’ individuals whose ‘position and character guarantee the seriousness of their activities and the loyalty of their thinking’ (3). Livingstone, if he had the power, would do precisely these two things. He argues that the media is ‘sowing divisions’ and ‘harming social cohesion’ – that is, threatening public safety – and his report goes so far as to suggest who the media should employ: more Muslims, who apparently have the expertise and the loyalty to uphold the multicultural vision.
There is something archaically tyrannical in Livingstone’s vision for the press: on the basis of questionable findings, he and his supporters express their desire to cajole the media into promoting the Livingstone vision for society, which is the ‘building and maintenance of Britain as a multicultural society’ (pxiii). If Livingstone got his way, it would represent an explicit politicisation of the media, though it would be done under the guise of representing the interests of Muslim communities and the British people more broadly. Yet as Marx said, in a controlled or censored media, the government ‘hears only its own voice, knows that it hears only its own voice, and is yet fixed on the delusion to hear the voice of the people...’ (4) The press should remain free from all forms of delusional interference by the authorities. Our current bad media – fairly free, messy, a bit mad, but which represents at least an aspiration to independence and objectivity – is a million times better than Livingstone’s vision of a calm, slavish and unquestioning ‘good media’ could ever be.
Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked. Visit his website here.
(1) See Hands up if you’re suffering from Islamofatigue, by Brendan O’Neill
(2) Communication and Freedom: Karl Marx on Press Freedom and Censorship, Hanno Hardt, The Public, Vol.7 (2000)
(3) Communication and Freedom: Karl Marx on Press Freedom and Censorship, Hanno Hardt, The Public, Vol.7 (2000)
(4) Communication and Freedom: Karl Marx on Press Freedom and Censorship, Hanno Hardt, The Public, Vol.7 (2000)
Sunday Telegraph: Am I the demoniser… or is it Ken's 'experts'?
It's so popular this 'Search for Common Ground' report...but for all the wrong reasons!!! Here's another response to the report and it's findings.
The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) claims to be "the most reasonable and most representative spokesperson for the British Muslim community". Unlike most religious organisations, it is also explicitly political. The MCB has opinions on everything, from school uniforms to the NHS; from the recall of Parliament to the extradition to the US of Babar Ahmad. And it is not shy about lobbying for them.
Political Islam is relatively new to Britain. It's an important development. The MCB complains of "demonisation" when journalists criticise it, yet the MCB's response to its media critics seems often to be to "demonise" them. At least, it felt like that when it happened to me. I've been called an "Islamophobe", a "Zionist" and an "enemy of Islam" by the MCB; a "kufaar" and "a low caste koolie journalist" on another Muslim website.
Why? In the wake of the 7/7 bombings, I made a BBC Panorama programme in which I was crystal clear that Muslim leaders had unreservedly condemned the bombings. But four leading Muslims also argued that the MCB's leadership was in denial about the causes and the extent of extremism, which I suggested fed off a conviction that Islam is a superior faith and culture that Christians and Jews in the West are conspiring to undermine.
advertisement
The programme subjected the MCB to the kind of questioning and inquiry to which the press has a duty to subject every politically significant organisation. But only last week, Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, unveiled a report into media "Islamophobia" which he had commissioned and which was highly critical of the programme - a programme which the Mayor had condemned as "a witch hunt... of demonisation and spin" even before it had been edited.
Criticism of my Panorama programme made up a quarter of the report written by "nine leading academics, professionals from the media industry and experts on Islam". Mr Livingstone believes the report demonstrates how "ignorance, prejudice and Islamophobia" is "stirred up by some sections of the media" has "overwhelmingly portrayed Muslims and Islam in a negative way". His experts said the programme "did not facilitate or support the level of debate that is required". In fact it provoked a great deal of debate. But the result wasn't the one the MCB wanted: a year after the programme, Tony Blair ended the Government's special relationship with the MCB as its interlocutor of choice for contacts with the Muslim community in Britain.
Who were the three "experts on Islam" who helped to produce the report? Surprise, surprise: they all turn out to be from the MCB. There has been some silly and offensive coverage of Islam in the press, but the report's authors provided no evidence at all that the Panorama programme was part of it. Broadening out from the documentary, they claimed that in "a typical week", over 90 per cent of the 352 articles in 20 national daily and Sunday papers that "referred to Islam and Muslims were negative". But the week they chose - the second week in May, 2006 - was anything but typical. It was the week when the Government published its reports on the 7/7 bombing, and it was the week in which Iran announced it would continue its nuclear development programme. Those events probably go a long way to explain the number of "negative" reports, many of which were simply factual.
Mr Livingstone and his "experts" insist that the way Islam is covered in the media deepens divisions, causing Muslims to feel "vulnerable and alienated" and giving non-Muslims "increased feelings of insecurity, suspicion and anxiety". Their solution? The Press Complaints Commission should have "new terms of reference" so that it can "consider distorted and inaccurate coverage of groups and communities as well of individuals". Tougher rules and prohibitions on reporting will, they claim, produce more "community sensitive reporting about multi-culturalism and British Muslim identities" which will "increase… a sense of common ground, shared belonging and civic responsibility".
Their advocacy of prohibitions suggests the aim of the "experts" is to put political Islam beyond the scope of media inquiry. For the result of those prohibitions would certainly be to introduce a new level of censorship into the coverage of Muslim affairs - and that would be quite wrong. While condemning violence here, the MCB has sent out mixed signals over political violence abroad and over integration.The press has a responsibility to highlight and explore these. That's part of its role in helping people make sensible, informed decisions at election-time - something which most of us, including the vast majority of British Muslims, regard as essential. By discouraging the media from performing that role, Ken and his "experts" won't help British Muslims or the cause of integration: they could seriously damage it.
John Ware is a reporter for BBC Current Affairs
The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) claims to be "the most reasonable and most representative spokesperson for the British Muslim community". Unlike most religious organisations, it is also explicitly political. The MCB has opinions on everything, from school uniforms to the NHS; from the recall of Parliament to the extradition to the US of Babar Ahmad. And it is not shy about lobbying for them.
Political Islam is relatively new to Britain. It's an important development. The MCB complains of "demonisation" when journalists criticise it, yet the MCB's response to its media critics seems often to be to "demonise" them. At least, it felt like that when it happened to me. I've been called an "Islamophobe", a "Zionist" and an "enemy of Islam" by the MCB; a "kufaar" and "a low caste koolie journalist" on another Muslim website.
Why? In the wake of the 7/7 bombings, I made a BBC Panorama programme in which I was crystal clear that Muslim leaders had unreservedly condemned the bombings. But four leading Muslims also argued that the MCB's leadership was in denial about the causes and the extent of extremism, which I suggested fed off a conviction that Islam is a superior faith and culture that Christians and Jews in the West are conspiring to undermine.
advertisement
The programme subjected the MCB to the kind of questioning and inquiry to which the press has a duty to subject every politically significant organisation. But only last week, Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, unveiled a report into media "Islamophobia" which he had commissioned and which was highly critical of the programme - a programme which the Mayor had condemned as "a witch hunt... of demonisation and spin" even before it had been edited.
Criticism of my Panorama programme made up a quarter of the report written by "nine leading academics, professionals from the media industry and experts on Islam". Mr Livingstone believes the report demonstrates how "ignorance, prejudice and Islamophobia" is "stirred up by some sections of the media" has "overwhelmingly portrayed Muslims and Islam in a negative way". His experts said the programme "did not facilitate or support the level of debate that is required". In fact it provoked a great deal of debate. But the result wasn't the one the MCB wanted: a year after the programme, Tony Blair ended the Government's special relationship with the MCB as its interlocutor of choice for contacts with the Muslim community in Britain.
Who were the three "experts on Islam" who helped to produce the report? Surprise, surprise: they all turn out to be from the MCB. There has been some silly and offensive coverage of Islam in the press, but the report's authors provided no evidence at all that the Panorama programme was part of it. Broadening out from the documentary, they claimed that in "a typical week", over 90 per cent of the 352 articles in 20 national daily and Sunday papers that "referred to Islam and Muslims were negative". But the week they chose - the second week in May, 2006 - was anything but typical. It was the week when the Government published its reports on the 7/7 bombing, and it was the week in which Iran announced it would continue its nuclear development programme. Those events probably go a long way to explain the number of "negative" reports, many of which were simply factual.
Mr Livingstone and his "experts" insist that the way Islam is covered in the media deepens divisions, causing Muslims to feel "vulnerable and alienated" and giving non-Muslims "increased feelings of insecurity, suspicion and anxiety". Their solution? The Press Complaints Commission should have "new terms of reference" so that it can "consider distorted and inaccurate coverage of groups and communities as well of individuals". Tougher rules and prohibitions on reporting will, they claim, produce more "community sensitive reporting about multi-culturalism and British Muslim identities" which will "increase… a sense of common ground, shared belonging and civic responsibility".
Their advocacy of prohibitions suggests the aim of the "experts" is to put political Islam beyond the scope of media inquiry. For the result of those prohibitions would certainly be to introduce a new level of censorship into the coverage of Muslim affairs - and that would be quite wrong. While condemning violence here, the MCB has sent out mixed signals over political violence abroad and over integration.The press has a responsibility to highlight and explore these. That's part of its role in helping people make sensible, informed decisions at election-time - something which most of us, including the vast majority of British Muslims, regard as essential. By discouraging the media from performing that role, Ken and his "experts" won't help British Muslims or the cause of integration: they could seriously damage it.
John Ware is a reporter for BBC Current Affairs
Thursday, 15 November 2007
London Evening Standard: "How Ken whitewashed the Muslim extremists"
Another article about "The Search for Common Ground" report for the GLA. Interestingly, a lot of the report was cut before publication much of which - in my opinion - was highly dubious anyway and didn't deserve to make the final cut. Even some of that which has made the final report is also questionable.
There has been too much 'politic-ing' going on in the background and it's a shame - as this article suggests - that the credibility of the sound research that underpins some of the chapters (mine included) is being overshadowed by the associations being made to certain certain groups and/or individuals.
Sadly, I have no option but to agree with some of the comments made in this article...
Watching Ken Livingstone at the mayoral press conference yesterday was like watching an old bare-knuckle fighter. Horrible, but you had to admire his nerve.
He spun away from danger so adroitly you could blink and miss the trickiness of the foot movements. He landed low blows and then turned to the referee as if butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.
Ostensibly he was releasing a report by "leading academics and experts on Islam" on Islamophobia. He had a poll which showed that Muslim Londoners weren't very different from other Londoners, which was fair enough, and descriptions of the prejudices Muslim journalists face. These revelations were merely the build-up to the shocking news that "leading academics and experts" had found that 91 per cent of articles on Islam "were negative in their associations".
Ninety-one per cent! Imagine. I knew there was bigotry, but not the "torrent of Islamophobic demonisation" Livingstone described. Where could we get further particulars?
We couldn't, initially. Although Livingstone had sat on the report for weeks, no copies were available before the conference - "problems with couriers", apparently. It arrived while Livingstone was speaking and as we skim-read we learned that it was giving Islam "negative associations" to report that the Iranian regime was holding a conference of Holocaust deniers. Muslim democrats in Iran opposed it. Livingstone and his " leading academics" could not. Meanwhile, journalists - including me - conveyed "negative associations" when we wrote that Jack Straw was standing up for the rights of women when he criticised the full veil. Muslim feminists oppose the veil. Mr Livingstone and his "leading academics and experts" cannot.
The worst of it was that a large chunk of the report was a devious attack on a Panorama expose; of the Muslim Council of Britain by John Ware of the BBC. As luck would have it, Ware was at the press conference and able to point out that all the criticisms of the MCB that he broadcast came from liberal-minded British Muslims. Were they, like Iranian democrats and Arab feminists, Islamophobes as well?
Then he looked at the press release and noticed that one of Livingstone's nine "leading academics and experts" wasn't an academic or expert at all but Inayat Bungawala of the MCB. Later I discovered that two others were also from the MCB. At a cost of £30,000 to the taxpayer, Livingstone was allowing the MCB and its friends to rubbish a well-sourced and balanced documentary and dressing up the results as an impartial study.
I've written a book on why the Left is going along with the Islamist Right and won't go over it all again here. The point is that while the Labour government has cut links with the MCB, and announced that no organisation will receive public money until it explicitly opposes extremism, Livingstone can't admit a mistake. He never explains, never apologises and always attacks.
There has been too much 'politic-ing' going on in the background and it's a shame - as this article suggests - that the credibility of the sound research that underpins some of the chapters (mine included) is being overshadowed by the associations being made to certain certain groups and/or individuals.
Sadly, I have no option but to agree with some of the comments made in this article...
Watching Ken Livingstone at the mayoral press conference yesterday was like watching an old bare-knuckle fighter. Horrible, but you had to admire his nerve.
He spun away from danger so adroitly you could blink and miss the trickiness of the foot movements. He landed low blows and then turned to the referee as if butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.
Ostensibly he was releasing a report by "leading academics and experts on Islam" on Islamophobia. He had a poll which showed that Muslim Londoners weren't very different from other Londoners, which was fair enough, and descriptions of the prejudices Muslim journalists face. These revelations were merely the build-up to the shocking news that "leading academics and experts" had found that 91 per cent of articles on Islam "were negative in their associations".
Ninety-one per cent! Imagine. I knew there was bigotry, but not the "torrent of Islamophobic demonisation" Livingstone described. Where could we get further particulars?
We couldn't, initially. Although Livingstone had sat on the report for weeks, no copies were available before the conference - "problems with couriers", apparently. It arrived while Livingstone was speaking and as we skim-read we learned that it was giving Islam "negative associations" to report that the Iranian regime was holding a conference of Holocaust deniers. Muslim democrats in Iran opposed it. Livingstone and his " leading academics" could not. Meanwhile, journalists - including me - conveyed "negative associations" when we wrote that Jack Straw was standing up for the rights of women when he criticised the full veil. Muslim feminists oppose the veil. Mr Livingstone and his "leading academics and experts" cannot.
The worst of it was that a large chunk of the report was a devious attack on a Panorama expose; of the Muslim Council of Britain by John Ware of the BBC. As luck would have it, Ware was at the press conference and able to point out that all the criticisms of the MCB that he broadcast came from liberal-minded British Muslims. Were they, like Iranian democrats and Arab feminists, Islamophobes as well?
Then he looked at the press release and noticed that one of Livingstone's nine "leading academics and experts" wasn't an academic or expert at all but Inayat Bungawala of the MCB. Later I discovered that two others were also from the MCB. At a cost of £30,000 to the taxpayer, Livingstone was allowing the MCB and its friends to rubbish a well-sourced and balanced documentary and dressing up the results as an impartial study.
I've written a book on why the Left is going along with the Islamist Right and won't go over it all again here. The point is that while the Labour government has cut links with the MCB, and announced that no organisation will receive public money until it explicitly opposes extremism, Livingstone can't admit a mistake. He never explains, never apologises and always attacks.
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Guardian Media: Study shows 'demonisation' of Muslims
Here is a piece that appeared in the Guardian Media today about the GLA report. If you want to view the article in its original form, click here.
A "torrent" of negative stories has been revealed by a study of the portrayal of Muslims and Islam in the media, according to a report published yesterday.
Research into one week's news coverage showed that 91% of articles in national newspapers about Muslims were negative. The London mayor, Ken Livingstone, who commissioned the study, said the findings were a "damning indictment" of the media and urged editors and programme makers to review the way they portray Muslims.
"The overall picture presented by the media is that Islam is profoundly different from and a threat to the west," he said. "There is a scale of imbalance which no fair-minded person would think is right." Only 4% of the 352 articles studied were positive, he said.
Livingstone said the findings showed a "hostile and scaremongering attitude" towards Islam and likened the coverage to the way the left was attacked by national newspapers in the early 1980s. "The charge is that there are virtually no positive or balanced images of Islam being portrayed," he said. "I think there is a demonisation of Islam going on which damages community relations and creates alarm among Muslims."
Among examples in the study was a report which claimed that Christmas was being banned in one area because it offended Muslims, which researchers said was "inaccurate and alarmist". The report said that Muslims in Britain were sometimes depicted as a threat to traditional British values, and the coverage weakened government attempts to reduce extremism. The report is an amalgam of research projects individually prepared by members of a panel. Some research, examining published newspaper articles and reporting the experiences of Muslim journalists, involved Hugh Muir, of the Guardian.
A "torrent" of negative stories has been revealed by a study of the portrayal of Muslims and Islam in the media, according to a report published yesterday.
Research into one week's news coverage showed that 91% of articles in national newspapers about Muslims were negative. The London mayor, Ken Livingstone, who commissioned the study, said the findings were a "damning indictment" of the media and urged editors and programme makers to review the way they portray Muslims.
"The overall picture presented by the media is that Islam is profoundly different from and a threat to the west," he said. "There is a scale of imbalance which no fair-minded person would think is right." Only 4% of the 352 articles studied were positive, he said.
Livingstone said the findings showed a "hostile and scaremongering attitude" towards Islam and likened the coverage to the way the left was attacked by national newspapers in the early 1980s. "The charge is that there are virtually no positive or balanced images of Islam being portrayed," he said. "I think there is a demonisation of Islam going on which damages community relations and creates alarm among Muslims."
Among examples in the study was a report which claimed that Christmas was being banned in one area because it offended Muslims, which researchers said was "inaccurate and alarmist". The report said that Muslims in Britain were sometimes depicted as a threat to traditional British values, and the coverage weakened government attempts to reduce extremism. The report is an amalgam of research projects individually prepared by members of a panel. Some research, examining published newspaper articles and reporting the experiences of Muslim journalists, involved Hugh Muir, of the Guardian.
The Search for Common Ground
You can download the Greater London Authority (GLA) report, 'The Search for Common Ground" can now be downloaded by clicking here.
My research and writing can be found in chapter 2 of the report. I want to make sure that everyone is aware of my contribution as there have been 'political' problems with some parts of the report. The key findings of my chapter are shown below (reproduced from the Executive Summary):
Chapter 2: A normal week?
To explore the context and implications of representations of Islam and Muslims in the media, a study was made of the British press over the course of a week. The week beginning Monday 8 May 2006 was chosen at random about a month in advance. A count was made of every article mentioning ‘Islam’, ‘Muslims’, derivatives such as ‘Islamic’ and ‘Islamist’, and words and phrases with an obvious association with Islam, for example ‘Sunni’ and ‘Shi’a’.
On the basis of these criteria, 352 articles were identified. They were categorised according to type of paper, whether they were about domestic or international affairs, whether the context was negative, positive or neutral, and whether the articles expressed a sense of threat or crisis. The principal findings included:
• There were substantial differences between daily newspapers with regard to how many articles mentioning Islam or Muslims they contained during the week in question. There were just over 50 articles in the Guardian, over 40 in The Times, Financial Times, Daily Telegraph and Independent, but less than 20 in the Sun, Mirror, Express and Star.
• Tabloids and broadsheets differed not only in the amount of coverage they provided but also in whether they focused on domestic or international affairs. Close to 60 per cent of articles in tabloids pertained to Britain and 40 per cent to the wider world. In the case of the broadsheets, however, the proportions were the other way round: 60 per cent were about the wider world, and 40 per cent about Britain.
• Of the 352 articles that referred to Islam and Muslims during the week in question, 91 per cent were judged to be negative in their associations. Only four per cent were judged to be positive, and five per cent were judged neutral.
• In 12 of the 19 papers studied during the week there were no positive associations.
• In the tabloids, 96 per cent of all articles were judged to be negative, compared with 89 per cent in the broadsheets. It is relevant to bear in mind in this connection that the combined circulation of the The search for common ground Muslims, non-Muslims and the UK media xvii tabloids is about three times greater than that of the broadsheets (May 2007 figures).
• It was judged that almost half of the articles represented Islam as a threat. Of these, about a third pertained to Britain and two-thirds to the wider world.
• The overall picture presented in the media during the week in question was that on the world stage 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’.
My research and writing can be found in chapter 2 of the report. I want to make sure that everyone is aware of my contribution as there have been 'political' problems with some parts of the report. The key findings of my chapter are shown below (reproduced from the Executive Summary):
Chapter 2: A normal week?
To explore the context and implications of representations of Islam and Muslims in the media, a study was made of the British press over the course of a week. The week beginning Monday 8 May 2006 was chosen at random about a month in advance. A count was made of every article mentioning ‘Islam’, ‘Muslims’, derivatives such as ‘Islamic’ and ‘Islamist’, and words and phrases with an obvious association with Islam, for example ‘Sunni’ and ‘Shi’a’.
On the basis of these criteria, 352 articles were identified. They were categorised according to type of paper, whether they were about domestic or international affairs, whether the context was negative, positive or neutral, and whether the articles expressed a sense of threat or crisis. The principal findings included:
• There were substantial differences between daily newspapers with regard to how many articles mentioning Islam or Muslims they contained during the week in question. There were just over 50 articles in the Guardian, over 40 in The Times, Financial Times, Daily Telegraph and Independent, but less than 20 in the Sun, Mirror, Express and Star.
• Tabloids and broadsheets differed not only in the amount of coverage they provided but also in whether they focused on domestic or international affairs. Close to 60 per cent of articles in tabloids pertained to Britain and 40 per cent to the wider world. In the case of the broadsheets, however, the proportions were the other way round: 60 per cent were about the wider world, and 40 per cent about Britain.
• Of the 352 articles that referred to Islam and Muslims during the week in question, 91 per cent were judged to be negative in their associations. Only four per cent were judged to be positive, and five per cent were judged neutral.
• In 12 of the 19 papers studied during the week there were no positive associations.
• In the tabloids, 96 per cent of all articles were judged to be negative, compared with 89 per cent in the broadsheets. It is relevant to bear in mind in this connection that the combined circulation of the The search for common ground Muslims, non-Muslims and the UK media xvii tabloids is about three times greater than that of the broadsheets (May 2007 figures).
• It was judged that almost half of the articles represented Islam as a threat. Of these, about a third pertained to Britain and two-thirds to the wider world.
• The overall picture presented in the media during the week in question was that on the world stage 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’.
Birmingham Post: Being old is the new being young
This article forms my column in the Birmingham Post to be published tomorrow, 15th November. you might see that it's very similar - without the more gruesome parts - to the post I made yesterday entitled "In the words of the Mitchell Brothers...". This is because the Mitchell Brothers piece was the original - and something that I wanted to get 'out-there' whilst this piece is what the Post published. Both are entirely my writing but the Post were worried about libel etc and you can't blame them for that. So no conspiracies, no falling out...both myself and the Post very happy with the outcome...
Having recently become a single parent if widespread opinion is to be believed, then my three kids are on a slippery slope towards wanton crime, educational underachievement, ASBOs and at least one teenage pregnancy. Personally, I hate these knee-jerk reactions that lump all single parents, young people or indeed whoever together as they are extremely dangerous. Unfortunately, it seems to be something that as a society we increasingly do.
Nonetheless, making the transition from ‘happy family’ (tongue placed firmly in cheek) to ‘single parent family’ does require some support. I have to say though, there’s not too many places so far that I’ve found where this is readily available.
It’s funny because when you’re thrown into this type of situation, you begin to think about what ‘family’ means and about what you think being a part of family is. For many of us, we look over our rose-tinted and nostalgic shoulders to the ‘Good Old Days’ when you could leave your doors unlocked and when policemen would clip kids round the ears (I’m welling up with emotion already…!!!). Not now though, not with the youth of today…
As a population in the UK today, we’re ageing. That’s not to merely state the obvious, but to note that a larger percentage us will in the very near future be much more ‘distinguished’ (for distinguished read ‘old’). Given that we’re also living longer, there is the distinct possibility that the older population will become much wider, where two or three generations could all be ‘OAP’ at the same time – all of whom were once young I hasten to add.
These changes will mean that it will be very difficult to generalise about who or what ‘old people’ are in the same way we do about young people for example. Even more so when we have an OAP population that lived through the swinging sixties, the summer of love and in about a decade’s time, the punk revolution. God help us all then when John (Johnny Rotten) Lydon enters his twilight years. To use the old adage, you would think that he knew better at his age (Mick Jagger also please take note).
Knowing better for their age is not something that you can charge kids with. Yet seeing the way that they have responded to recent family events has reassured me that they not only have good sense but that they are reasonably balanced. No addictions, arrests, attacks or ASBOs have yet to arrive at my door.
Despite what society might think about young people - especially those from non-idealistic ‘2.1 kid’ backgrounds – we shouldn’t always presume that they are inherently bad, troublesome or a scourge on society. Things are always far more complex and the mere number of years alive cannot be used as a marker against which your value – or lack of it – in society can be measured.
Given the increasingly ageing population in the UK, maybe we need to re-think the phrase ‘help the aged’ (Lydon and Jagger again take note) as maybe it will be they rather than our youth that will be teetering on the edge of that slippery slope – or at least looking back into it.
If this is the case, then maybe in just a few years time ‘being old’ will become the new ‘being young’.
Having recently become a single parent if widespread opinion is to be believed, then my three kids are on a slippery slope towards wanton crime, educational underachievement, ASBOs and at least one teenage pregnancy. Personally, I hate these knee-jerk reactions that lump all single parents, young people or indeed whoever together as they are extremely dangerous. Unfortunately, it seems to be something that as a society we increasingly do.
Nonetheless, making the transition from ‘happy family’ (tongue placed firmly in cheek) to ‘single parent family’ does require some support. I have to say though, there’s not too many places so far that I’ve found where this is readily available.
It’s funny because when you’re thrown into this type of situation, you begin to think about what ‘family’ means and about what you think being a part of family is. For many of us, we look over our rose-tinted and nostalgic shoulders to the ‘Good Old Days’ when you could leave your doors unlocked and when policemen would clip kids round the ears (I’m welling up with emotion already…!!!). Not now though, not with the youth of today…
As a population in the UK today, we’re ageing. That’s not to merely state the obvious, but to note that a larger percentage us will in the very near future be much more ‘distinguished’ (for distinguished read ‘old’). Given that we’re also living longer, there is the distinct possibility that the older population will become much wider, where two or three generations could all be ‘OAP’ at the same time – all of whom were once young I hasten to add.
These changes will mean that it will be very difficult to generalise about who or what ‘old people’ are in the same way we do about young people for example. Even more so when we have an OAP population that lived through the swinging sixties, the summer of love and in about a decade’s time, the punk revolution. God help us all then when John (Johnny Rotten) Lydon enters his twilight years. To use the old adage, you would think that he knew better at his age (Mick Jagger also please take note).
Knowing better for their age is not something that you can charge kids with. Yet seeing the way that they have responded to recent family events has reassured me that they not only have good sense but that they are reasonably balanced. No addictions, arrests, attacks or ASBOs have yet to arrive at my door.
Despite what society might think about young people - especially those from non-idealistic ‘2.1 kid’ backgrounds – we shouldn’t always presume that they are inherently bad, troublesome or a scourge on society. Things are always far more complex and the mere number of years alive cannot be used as a marker against which your value – or lack of it – in society can be measured.
Given the increasingly ageing population in the UK, maybe we need to re-think the phrase ‘help the aged’ (Lydon and Jagger again take note) as maybe it will be they rather than our youth that will be teetering on the edge of that slippery slope – or at least looking back into it.
If this is the case, then maybe in just a few years time ‘being old’ will become the new ‘being young’.
24 Hour Dash.com: Media report reveals 'torrent' of negative Muslim
Another article about the GLA research. Click link in widget to view 'au naturel'...
A "torrent" of negative stories has been revealed by a study of the portrayal of Muslims and Islam in the British media, according to a report today.
Research into one week's news coverage showed that 91% of articles in national newspapers about Muslims were negative.
London mayor Ken Livingstone, who commissioned the study, said the findings were a "damning indictment" on the media and he urged editors and programme makers to review the way they portray Muslims.
"The overall picture presented by the media is that Islam is profoundly different from and a threat to the West," he said.
"There is a scale of imbalance which no fair-minded person would think is right."
Only 4% of the 352 articles studied last year were positive, he said.
Mr Livingstone told his weekly news conference that the findings showed a "hostile and scaremongering attitude" among the national media towards Islam and likened the coverage to the way the Left was attacked by national newspapers in the early 1980s.
"The charge is that there are virtually no positive or balanced images of Islam being portrayed," he said.
"I think there is a demonisation of Islam going on which damages community relations and creates alarm among Muslims."
Among the examples highlighted in the study was a report which claimed that Christmas was being banned in one area because it offended Muslims, which researchers said was "inaccurate and alarmist".
The report said that Muslims in Britain were depicted as a threat to traditional British values.
Alternative world views or opinions were not mentioned and facts were frequently distorted, exaggerated or over-simplified, said the report.
The researchers said that the coverage weakened government attempts to reduce and prevent extremism.
A separate opinion poll published by Mr Livingstone today showed that Muslims in London were more likely to feel "British" in their attitudes than other members of the community.
More Muslims were proud of their local area compared with other members of the public.
A "torrent" of negative stories has been revealed by a study of the portrayal of Muslims and Islam in the British media, according to a report today.
Research into one week's news coverage showed that 91% of articles in national newspapers about Muslims were negative.
London mayor Ken Livingstone, who commissioned the study, said the findings were a "damning indictment" on the media and he urged editors and programme makers to review the way they portray Muslims.
"The overall picture presented by the media is that Islam is profoundly different from and a threat to the West," he said.
"There is a scale of imbalance which no fair-minded person would think is right."
Only 4% of the 352 articles studied last year were positive, he said.
Mr Livingstone told his weekly news conference that the findings showed a "hostile and scaremongering attitude" among the national media towards Islam and likened the coverage to the way the Left was attacked by national newspapers in the early 1980s.
"The charge is that there are virtually no positive or balanced images of Islam being portrayed," he said.
"I think there is a demonisation of Islam going on which damages community relations and creates alarm among Muslims."
Among the examples highlighted in the study was a report which claimed that Christmas was being banned in one area because it offended Muslims, which researchers said was "inaccurate and alarmist".
The report said that Muslims in Britain were depicted as a threat to traditional British values.
Alternative world views or opinions were not mentioned and facts were frequently distorted, exaggerated or over-simplified, said the report.
The researchers said that the coverage weakened government attempts to reduce and prevent extremism.
A separate opinion poll published by Mr Livingstone today showed that Muslims in London were more likely to feel "British" in their attitudes than other members of the community.
More Muslims were proud of their local area compared with other members of the public.
Associated Press of Pakistan: "Publication of a major study into portrayal of Muslims"
As before, this is another article about the work I was commissioned to undertake for the Greater London Authority. You cannot use the widget to the right to open the article in a new window so you will have to click on the following link:
LONDON, Nov 13 (APP): The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, on Tuesday welcomed the publication of a major study into the portrayal of Muslims and Islam in the UK print and broadcast media.
The report, ‘The Search for Common Ground,’ was researched by 9 leading academics, professionals from the media industry and experts on Islam, and shows that during the period of investigation the national media overwhelming portrayed Muslims and Islam in a negative way.
Speaking on the occasion ,The Mayor said:
‘While there were some examples of good practice, one of the most startling findings of this report is that in one typical week in 2006, over 90% of the articles that referred to Islam and Muslims were negative. The overall picture presented by the media is that Islam is profoundly different from and a threat to the west.
‘I hope that those who make the day - to - day decisions in the newsrooms of our national papers and TV will read this report and take on board the researchers recommendations.
Among the key findings of the report are that in one week, 8th to the 14th May 2006 there were 352 articles that mentioned Islam, Muslim, Islamic or Islamist, in the national daily press and of those 91% were deemed by the professional researcher team to have been negative.
In 12 out of 19 papers covered, the researchers concluded that every article carried was negative. 96% of Tabloid coverage was assessed to be negative while 89% of broadsheet reporting was deemed to be negative.
They also found that Muslims in the national press were portrayed as being a threat to traditional British customs, that there was little or no common ground between the West and Islam and that the tone of language in many articles was emotive, immoderate, alarmist or abusive.
Robin Richardson was the leader of the team that produced the report and is Co-Director of the Insted Consultancy, the company that undertook the research project said:
‘This is one of the first major pieces of research to be conducted into the manner and style of the way the UK media portrays one of the UK’s most significant religious and cultural groups. Our clear conclusion after twelve months of research and taking evidence is that the coverage we saw over this period was likely to provoke and increase feelings of insecurity, suspicion and anxiety amongst many non Muslims while at the same time causing many Muslims to feel vulnerable and alienated.
Out of London’s eight million population, there are over 600,000 Muslims living in the British capital. The report was researched between the 1st May 20006 and 30th April 2007.
LONDON, Nov 13 (APP): The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, on Tuesday welcomed the publication of a major study into the portrayal of Muslims and Islam in the UK print and broadcast media.
The report, ‘The Search for Common Ground,’ was researched by 9 leading academics, professionals from the media industry and experts on Islam, and shows that during the period of investigation the national media overwhelming portrayed Muslims and Islam in a negative way.
Speaking on the occasion ,The Mayor said:
‘While there were some examples of good practice, one of the most startling findings of this report is that in one typical week in 2006, over 90% of the articles that referred to Islam and Muslims were negative. The overall picture presented by the media is that Islam is profoundly different from and a threat to the west.
‘I hope that those who make the day - to - day decisions in the newsrooms of our national papers and TV will read this report and take on board the researchers recommendations.
Among the key findings of the report are that in one week, 8th to the 14th May 2006 there were 352 articles that mentioned Islam, Muslim, Islamic or Islamist, in the national daily press and of those 91% were deemed by the professional researcher team to have been negative.
In 12 out of 19 papers covered, the researchers concluded that every article carried was negative. 96% of Tabloid coverage was assessed to be negative while 89% of broadsheet reporting was deemed to be negative.
They also found that Muslims in the national press were portrayed as being a threat to traditional British customs, that there was little or no common ground between the West and Islam and that the tone of language in many articles was emotive, immoderate, alarmist or abusive.
Robin Richardson was the leader of the team that produced the report and is Co-Director of the Insted Consultancy, the company that undertook the research project said:
‘This is one of the first major pieces of research to be conducted into the manner and style of the way the UK media portrays one of the UK’s most significant religious and cultural groups. Our clear conclusion after twelve months of research and taking evidence is that the coverage we saw over this period was likely to provoke and increase feelings of insecurity, suspicion and anxiety amongst many non Muslims while at the same time causing many Muslims to feel vulnerable and alienated.
Out of London’s eight million population, there are over 600,000 Muslims living in the British capital. The report was researched between the 1st May 20006 and 30th April 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
