Islam and the British Press

“The media as an instrument of public ideology demonizes Islam, portraying it as a threat to Western interests, thus reproducing, producing and sustaining the ideology necessary to subjugate Muslims both internationally and domestically.” (Elizabeth Poole, 2002)
But...
“Muslims have to look at why their religion breeds so many violent militant strains”.
(Reporting Islam, Elizabeth Poole, 2002)

Title:
With reference to key world events how does the British press portray Muslims and the Islamic Religion?




Introduction

Since 1979 Islam has become an ever more salient issue on the agenda of the British press. Throughout this time the press has been vociferously criticized for its’ role in reporting Islam. In light of this, some questions concerning the British press must be asked. For example, now 27 years on from the Iranian revolution, when Islam entered the public consciousness, how is Islam reported? What negative or positive characteristics of coverage can be seen? What specific examples have changed, shaped and influenced coverage over these years?

A number of key texts have proved significant in the discussion of this issue. ‘Representing Islam’, by Elizabeth Poole, is the most recent and comprehensive compilation of theories and analyses to examine the media’s representation of Muslims. Importantly, this text is recent enough to take September 11 into account, all be it in a separate section. Poole maintains that: “We can only analyze media coverage in relation to the political conditions within which it is produced.” (Poole, 2002:1) This is especially true in relation to Islam, where media coverage is argued to have evolved from a reaction to specific events. ‘Representing Islam’ also provides discussion from a good range of commentators and theorists. The opinions of Halliday, Young, Sardar, Sayyid and most importantly Edward W. Said and Samuel P. Huntington are used by Poole to further this discussion.

The theory of ‘Orientalism’, detailed in ‘Covering Islam’ by Edward W. Said, is important for understanding the historical context that has formed the social foundation of how Islam is portrayed in the press. In contradiction to this ‘The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order’ by Samuel P. Huntington offers an opposing opinion as to the difficulties of reporting Islam. Since September 11, Huntington’s thesis has become more relevant as a classic study of international relations in this increasingly unstable political climate.

When discussing journalism it is important to first understand its’ importance and responsibility. In relation to this it is necessary to establish the foundations of integrity which journalism of the 21st century has been built upon.

‘Ethics and Media Culture’, edited by David Berry, contains a discussion of the moral responsibility of the British press as the ‘fourth estate’. Edmund Burke, at around the time of the French Revolution, famously said: “Three Estates in Parliament; but in the Reporters’ gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.” The idea of the press as a fourth estate that provides a check on the abuse of government power is a cornerstone of our liberal press. (Edgar, 2000: 73) Therefore, as theorists such as Habermas state, this fourth part of the structure has an important moral responsibility for the maintenance and development of vital issues of public debate. In relation to the title, the press can be viewed as a public space in which issues can enter the public sphere. (Edgar, 2000: 73) It is therefore important that my research evaluates how Islam is represented in the public sphere and what connotations, negative or positive, can be discerned.

So, what are the important aspects of journalism that should be addressed? Accuracy, as a principle, is something all journalists should adhere to. Johan Retief, in his book ‘Media ethics’, demonstrates a simple set of guidelines that provide a firm ethical foundation upon which journalists can base their work. He argues that: “Accuracy can be achieved only if the relevant facts are put into the proper context.” (Retief, 2002: 49) Accurate journalism is crucial to all subjects. However, in today’s political climate the potential of damage by non-accurate reporting of Islam is very significant and should be avoided at all costs: “Reporting accurately is non-negotiable, whatever the cost. Accurate reporting is not the best way of doing journalism – it is the only way.” (Retief, 2002: 50)

‘Objectivity’ is a word that will feature throughout this discussion. When journalistic places of work are almost entirely run by Caucasians, objectivity towards the reporting of Islam becomes crucial. Retief states: “Objectivity, neutrality, and impartiality all roughly mean not to take sides or to remain aloof. Journalist’s say they are at all times neutral, objective, and impartial. They do not make the news, they just report on it….The only response to this must be: how naïve people can be.” (Retief, 2002: 99) He goes on to express the problem journalists face with objectivity and the conflict they must resolve. Objectivity is an indispensable journalistic ideal. In reality, journalists are human like any other and therefore potentially subjective, partial and biased. (Retief, 2002: 99) Because of this realization, media organizations, including the British press, employ a policy of ‘due impartiality’ where journalists are encouraged to show open-mindedness, fairness and respect for truth. (Retief, 2002: 102) So long as journalists accept that they are human, but nevertheless make a mental commitment to strive to be objective, the British press can report even the most inflammable of topics in good faith.

‘Stereotyping’ has particular significance in the portrayal of Islam. Retief argues that people have an inbuilt tendency to categorize other people. Therefore stereotyping provides an ‘easy’, though highly problematic, way to handle social relationships. (Retief, 2002: 193) In the press, stereotyping is an incredibly easy thing to do but an unfortunately difficult thing to avoid. It can occur through association, terminology, turn of phrase, framing and even picture use. My definition of the danger of stereotyping is this: Stereotyping holds the potential for damaging journalism because it allows for an image of a certain group to be ingrained into the hearts and minds of an audience. The British press must not allow for a homogenous stereotype of Islam to be constructed. Discussion and debate must be pushed to the front of the public sphere to allow an audience a greater understanding of an issue, for only then does the potential for stereotyping recede.

Assuming the British press is not run by bigots, what are the origins of the problems in reporting Islam. Richard Keeble asks: “Since racist oppression is historically rooted in Britain’s imperial past, is it not inevitable that the press should reflect this? As Max Hastings, editor of the London Evening Standard, commented; ‘We’re hideously racist in our approach to news. Because people in Bosnia look like us and speak quite good English we’re more interested in what happens to them and we sympathize with them more than we do with the Sudanese’.” (Keeble, 2001: 32)

The portrayal of Islam in the British press has had a bad start. However, the foundations for good journalistic practice are in place to ensure that objectivity is maintained as well as humanly possible.



Literature Review

‘Reporting Islam’ by Elizabeth Poole provides one of the most recent and important discussions on this issue. She ultimately believes that: “The media as an instrument of public ideology demonizes Islam, portraying it as a threat to Western interests, thus reproducing, producing and sustaining the ideology necessary to subjugate Muslims both internationally and domestically.” (Poole, 2002) If this is true then it is necessary to study the cause and historic circumstance of this representation.

Orientalism is a very significant theory for understanding the historical production of knowledge about, in particular, the Islamic Other in the western world (Poole, 2002: 28) Edward W. Said threw open this discussion of Islam and the West with his theories in 1978. Said defined Orientalism as: “A style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between the Orient and, most of the time, the Occident”. (Poole, 2002: 28) As a result, divisions come about when one society or culture thinks about another as different from itself. It is however an issue of such salience as although the Orient has uniformly been considered an inferior part of the World, it has always been endowed both with greater size and with a greater potential for power (usually destructive) than the west. (Said, 1981: 4) To understand Orientalism, Said analyzed academic texts ranging from post Enlightenment British and French texts to recent American social studies that claim to know about the orient and it’s people. According to Said, Orientalism has its origins in, and has been maintained by, such academic work. This understanding has been naturalized to the point of scientific knowledge and has led to cultural generalizations that portray an Orient comprised of despotism, sensuality, irrationality, backwardness, degeneracy, deviancy and barbarism, an unchanging force incapable of describing itself. (Poole, 2002: 29) A key aspect of Orientalism is the notion of identity: “The West needed to constitute the Orient as its Other in order to constitute itself and its own subject position.” (Poole, 2002: 29) (The issue of declining identity will be further developed later in the essay)

Orientalism is seen as the foundation, on which this representation of Islam as the media villain was set. Said defines the media as the ‘cultural apparatus’ through which the public derive their consciousness of Islam. (Poole, 2002: 42) He goes on to argue the significance of the initial moment in which Islam entered the public sphere: “Said identifies the 1979 Iranian Revolution as being the initial signifier to the West of the resurgence of Islam and its problematization, with the result that Iran has come to symbolize relations with the Islamic world. Thus, Muslims are associated with militancy, danger and anti-western sentiment.” (Poole, 2002:42) From this a culture of ‘binary opposites’ has been developed by the press. ‘The West’ elicits- rational, humane, developed and superior while Islam has developed connotations for being aberrant, undeveloped and inferior. (Poole, 2002: 43) I consider Orientalism to be a useful precursor to understanding how the media has come to represent Islam. The very fact that can account for historical factors and modern events further demonstrates its’ authority. In my opinion, keeping Orientalism in mind, since 1979 the media has been the public space in which a consciousness of Islam has developed. However, negative connotations have emerged due to the very nature of the news. Said and Poole go so far as to criticize the media for reporting issues of Islam and militancy. This for me is wrong. Reporting must be done in a fair and balanced manner any connotations that derive from this become the responsibility of the public to discuss. On the other hand, in reference to so-called ‘fundamentalists’, the British press needs to represent the one million non-fundamentalist Muslims living in Britain. Said and Poole take a negative stance towards the media. In this I’m referring to their desire to limit or make unacceptable certain areas or methods of journalistic practice. I believe that everything should be brought to a public forum. Nothing should be ‘off limits’. This would allow for a public discussion to resolve the issue with the media providing the public space through which this could be achieved.
Orientalism is not without its critics. Most of these criticisms emerge from spaces and ambiguities in Said’s text. Most significant is Sayyid (1997): “Said’s limited attention to the consequences for Islam after the dissolution of Orientalism is caused by the ambiguities in his text. ‘If Islam is constituted by Orientalism, what happens when Orientalism dissolves?’ Is the negation of Orientalism the negation of Islam. ” (Poole, 2002: 30) The strength of Orientalism is that it highlights the complex historical and cultural circumstances by which a set of institutions progressively developed what Jalal al’-‘ Azm described as: “A suitable ideological superstructure with an apparatus of complicated assumptions, beliefs, images, literary productions, and rationalizations’ providing the ‘underlying foundation’ of ‘ strategic vital interests’ about the Orient and Islam.” (Poole, 2002: 31) In my opinion the strength of Orientalism is rooted in its’ historical and cultural discussion. However, I do not think it is as relevant now as it was twenty years ago as the press has made significant progress in eliminating it from journalism.

It is central to the Orientalist view that throughout history the West has had a confrontational relationship with the Orient. Poole refers to this as an essentialist reading of history that allows a myth of inherent hostility between two polarized sides to be maintained. This hostility is then mobilized as a rationale for justifying negative perceptions of Islam and associated exclusionary practices. (Poole, 2002: 32) Central to this argument, and highly criticized by Said himself, is Samuel P. Huntington’s ‘The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of Word Order’. The central notion of Huntington’s thesis is: “The New World Order is based on patterns of conflict and cooperation founded on cultural distinctions and identifications ‘The clash of civilizations’. (Poole, 2002: 36) Huntington refers to the West’s problems with Islam stemming from the ‘Ingestibility of Muslims’ and their ‘Propensity towards violent conflict’. (Huntington, 1996: 258) As the West has grown in power an influence so has the resentment against its values: “The expansion of the West has promoted both the modernization and the Westernization of non-western societies. The political and intellectual leaders of these societies have responded to the Western impact in one or more of three ways; Rejecting both modernization and Westernization, embracing both, embracing the first and rejecting the second.” (Huntington, 1996: 72) The second response, of embracing both modernization and Westernization, is referred to as ‘Kemalism’. This response has relevance to Islam as it is based on the assumptions that modernization is desirable and necessary, the indigenous culture is therefore incompatible with modernization and must be abandoned or abolished, the society must fully westernize in order to successfully modernize.” (Huntington, 1996: 73) This abolishment of religious values, moral assumptions and social structures is often fundamentally rejected by Islamic cultures. (Huntington, 1996: 73) This rejection of Westernization is central to how the media have come to portray Islam. But is it necessary? Huntington states:

Islam and modernization do not clash. Pious Muslims can cultivate the sciences, work effectively in factories, or utilize advanced weapons. Modernization requires no one political ideology or set of institutions: Elections, National boundaries, civic associations and other hallmarks of Western life are not necessary to economic growth. As a creed, Islam satisfies management consultants as well as peasants. (Huntington, 1996: 78)

The Islamic Resurgence can be compared to the French or American Revolutions in its significance to the world today. Huntington states: “While Asians became increasingly assertive as a result of economic development, Muslims in massive numbers were simultaneously turning toward Islam as a source of identity, meaning stability, legitimacy, development, power, and hope. Hope epitomized in the slogan ‘Islam is the solution’.” (Huntington, 1996: 109) This resurgence was timed in coincidence with the collapse of the Communist bloc. Hippler (1995) argues that during the cold war Islam was not seen to be threatening because it was also anti-soviet. This softened its hostile image. (Poole, 2002: 35) Halliday (1996) describes this so-called ‘green peril’ as a myth concerning the Resurgence of Islam:

It is not the religious or cultural character of Islam that is a threat, but the fear of loss of power and of anti-Western sentiments. In the current situation, Islam would be seen as most threatening if it endangered Western interests in the Middle East. The loss of control over oil prices would lead to a loss of control and power for, in particular, the USA, and would threaten its image as the number one superpower. (Poole, 2002: 36)

In relation to this, Poole argues that the threat of Islam is a propaganda tool used by the West, through the media, to serve a specific purpose. Islam was rediscovered as the new counter alternative to the West. Halliday (1996) suggests: “Islam fulfils the Western need for a menacing but subordinated Other.” (Poole, 2002: 37) From this an image of Islam as a ‘global aggressor’ has emerged, partly due to media coverage of integration problems in countries such as India, Israel, Russia and Europe. (Poole, 2002: 37) Hippler (1995) argues: “Western foreign policy does not match the ideology of Islam as a threat in the Western media; these images of ‘the enemy’ have created the politico-psychological prerequisites to justify military action if necessary.” (Poole, 2002: 37) In other words Islam has been mobilized to demonize enemies when politically it has been strategic to do so. (Poole, 2002: 2)

So where now do the problems lie with how the press and media portray Islam? Poole argues that it is through sporadic coverage of events such as 9/11, the Iranian Revolution and the Gulf war that Islam enters the public consciousness. (Poole, 2002: 2) If this is so then where is the ‘voice’ of British Muslims? In reality it is non-existent. Too often the face of radical clerics is splashed throughout our papers. This holds negative connotations: “By continuing to refer to ‘Muslim and Islamic Terrorists’, the perpetrators are seen as products of a fanatical strain of Islam. As a result, the associated negative behavior is seen to evolve out of something inherent in the religion, rendering and Muslim a potential terrorist.” (Poole, 2002: 4) This stereotyping has a domino effect. Reporting in this style produces an underlying theme of Islam and conflict. Due to this Muslims are homogenized as backward, irrational, unchanging, fundamentalist, misogynist, threatening and manipulative in the use of their faith for political and personal gain. (Poole, 2002: 18) This homogenization is a great danger for the British press. Poole argues: “Different countries have different political circumstances and motivations, which are reproduced and reconstructed in their ideological institutions… The image of ‘Islam’ will differ according to these and cannot be a unified global discourse as it is imagined.” (Poole, 2002: 18)
In ‘Covering Islam’ Said explores how the media determine how, we the public, see the world. Said believes the media to be one of the last institutions in which negative assumptions on Islam are born: “Malicious generalizations about Islam have become the last acceptable form of denigration of foreign culture in the West; what is said about the Muslim mind, or character, or religion, or culture as a whole cannot now be said in mainstream discussion about Africans, Jews, other Orientals or Asians.” (Said, 1997: xii) In specific reference to journalism this is manifested in reporters making extravagant statements that are then picked up and further dramatized in the media. (Said, 1997: xvii)

Propaganda is defined in the dictionary as information or publicity put out by an organization or government to spread and promote a policy, idea, doctrine, or cause. In the 1920’s Walter Lippmann pioneered the idea of ‘Manufactured Consent’. He claimed that propaganda had already become ‘a regular organ of popular government’. (Chomsky, 1994: x) In the text, Manufacturing Consent, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky detail how Journalists’ news values and various media filters add to the stereotyping and prejudice in the media. Central to their argument is the Propaganda Model:

The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda.” (Chomsky, 1994:1)
In Britain this model can be used to illustrate how the press has been used to mobilize the country when the given authority has seen fit. The British press is often criticized for being dominated by press moguls who use their influence to further business opportunities. The propaganda model details an inequality of wealth and power and the multilevel effects this has on mass media interests and choices: “It traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their message across to the public.” (Chomsky, 1994:2) From this Herman and Chomsky have outlined five news ‘filters’ that have become the essential ingredients for the Propaganda Model. They believe that news must pass through these successive filters, leaving only the ‘cleansed residue’ fit to print. The filters: “Fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the basis and operations of what amount to propaganda campaigns.” (Chomsky, 1994:2) The filters fall under five categories – (1) Concentrated ownership with profit orientation, (2) Advertising as primary source of income, (3) Reliance of information provided by the Government or sponsored ‘experts’, (4) Flak as a means of disciplining the media, (5) Anticommunism as a national religion and control mechanism. (Chomsky, 1994:2) Herman and Chomsky believe that these filters have been integrated so thoroughly that people working in the news media, operating with complete integrity and goodwill, convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news ‘Objectively’ on the basis of their professional news values. (Chomsky, 1994:2) This is itself can account for many of the trends in the British press. The fifth filter is relevant to Islam in the media. Herman and Chomsky base their model during the Cold war, a time when Communism was seen as the ultimate evil posing a threat to the West’s world position. At this point in time Communism was the significant Other. Now Islam has replaced it both in the press and the hearts and minds of the public. Henman and Chomsky state: “This ideology helps mobilize the populace against an enemy, and because the concept is fuzzy it can be used against anybody advocating policies that threaten property interests or support accommodation with Communist states and radicalism.” (Chomsky,1994: 29) In the twenty first century has Islam replaced Communism? Poole cites various theories that support this view. As mentioned earlier, Esposito’s ‘threat vacuum’ can be applied. When the Communist block fell Western governments lost an important method of social control. Halliday (1996) suggests: “Islam fulfils the Western need for a menacing but subordinated Other.” (Poole, 2002: 37) Hippler (1995) argues how Islam is now used as a tool, through the media, in foreign policy: “Western foreign policy does not match the ideology of Islam as a threat in the Western media; these images of ‘the enemy’ have created the politico-psychological prerequisites to justify military action if necessary.” (Poole, 2002: 37)

In light of this what are the efforts being made by the British media to resolve the problems? The Runneymede trust is one of many organizations working towards tackling the growing problem of Islamaphobia. The trust was established in 1968 to conduct research and offer timely practical and strategic thinking on race relations and cultural diversity in Britain and Europe. In 1997 they produced a journal titled ‘Islamaphobia – a challenge for us all’. Chapter 4 of this report addresses media coverage, specifically freedom of speech and rules of engagement. The trust’s correspondents made a number of suggestions for improving media coverage of Islam and Muslims, these include; a greater range of positive images of Islam in the media, a more balanced and responsible use of Muslim spokespersons, the formation of media lobbying groups, the inclusion of Muslim characters in mainstream TV, a greater and more expert use of public relations methods by Muslim organizations, the modification of the codes of practice employed by the Press Complaints Commission and the National Union of Journalists, more Muslims in the media work place, consideration of Islamaphobia and related issues in media courses and finally the provision of training, seminars and awareness raising sessions for existing journalists. (Runnymede Trust, 1997: 20) In relation to the news, seeing a so-called ‘radical cleric’ as the only voice representing British Muslims has become a far to familiar sight. A Muslim organization in the Midlands is cited in the report suggesting: “The media could be encouraged not just to highlight stories of juicy and controversial Muslim ‘leaders’, but also leaders who are moderate and who are working hard for good community relations and sincerely working to tackle deprivation.” (Runnymede Trust, 1997: 21) In addition to this the media must be more responsible in providing an overall context issues affecting Islam and Muslims: “It is often the case that the media only highlights fringe, extreme or religiously unorthodox cases, which end up tainting, consciously or unconsciously, the whole faith and its adherents. Responsible production and reporting means that they should be thorough in dealing with the particular issues but also in providing the necessary context or the larger picture.” (Runnymede Trust, 1997: 21)

Also addressed in the report is the complex issue of stereotyping and gender found in the media. Richard Littlejohn, in the article, ‘Moslem Lambasted’, can be seen to use stereotyping to negative effects. He argues:

"Barbaric methods are used to slaughter lambs for Moslem dinner tables. Yet there is not a peep from the usual vociferous quarters. This is because slitting sheep’s throat is part of Moslem culture. And to criticize their culture would be racist. And that would never do. Which is why Moslem men can continue to treat women as second-class citizens in Britain without a murmur from the equal opportunities brigade. (Runnymede Trust, 1997: 28. Daily Mail, 12 May 1995)"

At this point a number of double standards influence my standing. Yes this quote does contain stereotypes, and yes such stereotyping can result in the entire Islamic faith being tainted by such associations, but my values as a journalist override these sympathies. A journalist’s notions of public interest, the right to know and the absolute freedom of the press, justify conflicts of interest so long as the reporting is fair and balanced. (Keeble, 1994: 22) Because of this both the Runnymede Trust and the entire idea of Islam being demonized in the media loses intellectual weight. A bold statement this maybe, but a statement that any journalist who understands the value of the free press and the struggle undertaken to achieve it should adhere to. There is no doubt that journalism that stirs up religious xenophobia is unnecessary and wrong. However, fair and balanced reporting of facts must continue.


Case Study:
The Rushdie affair can be viewed in hindsight as one of the rarest and unprecedented events in history. Ahmed (1992) recognizes its’ significance suggesting that the Rushdie affair was the catalyst for the British demonization of Muslims (Poole,2002: 39). It marked the second time in which Iran, and Ayatollah Khomeini had challenged Western Civilization’s deepest norms. (Pipes, 1990: 41) Salman Rushdie was born in 1947 in Bombay, India. He undertook an English education at Cambridge University, eventually settling in England. Although born and raised a Muslim, Rushdie is best described a ‘lapsed’ Muslim. As he puts it: “I do not believe in supernatural entities whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu.” (www.danielpipes.org/article/186) Although pious Muslims always took offence to Rushdie, it was his 1989 novel The Satanic Verses that set the fire alight. In short, the novel caused such offence as it totally challenged the core values of Muhammad and the Qur’an. The Islamic faith is based around the acceptance that the Qur’an is the word of God. Rushdie challenged one particular verse in the Qur’an where is it believed that: “Satan leaped upon Muhammad’s tongue”, and caused him to adopt a casual attitude towards other Meccan goddesses. (www.danielpipes.org/article/186) To expose this inconsistency is to doubt that the Qur’an is the exact message to God, and to deny the validity of Muhammad’s message implies that the entire Islamic faith has a fraudulent base. (www.danielpipes.org/article/186)

Daniel Pipes highlights the core issue of controversy: “The real problem lies in the implication that the entire Qur’an derived not from God through Gabriel, but from Muhammad himself, who put the words in Gabriel’s mouth…If this is true, then the Qur’an is a human artifact and the Islamic faith is built on a deceit. There is nothing left.” (www.danielpipes.org/article/186)

Word-of-mouth spread the issue around the Islamic world. Not only did they find the content offensive, the title was deemed to be unquestionably offensive to Muslims. A problem of translation causes ‘The Satanic Verses’ to become ‘The Qur’anic Verses Written By Satan’. Asserting that Satan wrote the Qur’an. (www.danielpipes.org/article/186) Even though most Muslims would never come to read the book, this in itself was enough to unite Islam around a cause.
Once the flames had been lit, the stage was set for the highly unpredictable Ayatollah Khomeini, to explode on the issue. On February 14 1989, the Ayatollah addressed the world’s Muslim community. He pronounced an Islamic legal judgment (fatwa). Declaring The Satanic Verses in opposition to Islam, he pronounced a sentence of death on Rushdie and his publishers. Numerous rewards went up for his death $1 million to a non-Iranian and $3 million to an Iranian.

Almost overnight Ayatollah Khomeini had managed to create a clash of ideologies. The Rushdie affair brought into conflict Western principles of freedom of speech verses the dignity of Islam. But why did the Ayatollah make the Rushdie affair the centerpiece of Iran’s post-war diplomacy? And how did anti-western sentiment become anti-Americanism? Pipes’ maintains that this can be answered in a view of Islam held by some fundamentalist leaders: “Muslims were once strong, but are now weak. When Muslims were strong, they lived fully by the precepts of their faith, but now they do not. Therefore, Muslims are weak because they do not live up to the requirements of Islam…Therefore, Muslims must engage in a battle against Western civilization. And a battle this is, for the West is not a passive purveyor of culture, but actively thrusts it on vulnerable Muslims.” (www.danielpipes.org/article/186)

The British press reacted to the Rushdie affair with a degree of hesitancy. The press simply did not know what style of coverage would be in the best interest of the author. When writers and authors did eventually speak on Rushdie’s behalf, their manner revealed a strong motive of self-interest often using ‘freedom of speech’ as a buzz-word against the Other. (Pipes, 1990: 160) Once the shock had past journalists started to reduce Rushdie’s predicament to a routine occurrence. Fellow author, Ralph Ellison famously captured this theme with the quote: “A death sentence is a rather harsh review. (Pipes, 1990: 41) From reading the articles from the time it is clear that the press were very naïve in understanding how to report Islam. Pipes’s best describes the confusion this issue caused: “In both Europe and the United States, those who had for so many years pooh-poohed the very notion of terrorism suddenly discovered it when one of their own was the target. Twenty years of IRA and PLO atrocities made almost no impression on them so long as the targets were policemen and airline passengers; when terrorists directed their fire elsewhere, writers pleaded for an understanding of their revolutionary rage. Only when the victim was a friend and a fellow-writer did they wake up, momentarily anyway, and begin talking about an assault on civilized life.” (Pipes, 1990: 160)

From what I have read on the issue, opinions in relation to the press all agree that the Rushdie affair marked the first time the Western press came to describe Europe and America as ‘the civilized world’. This was widespread throughout all publications. In addition to this some disturbing generalizations about Muslims became to creep out of the woodwork. Pipes’s cites Norman Stone’s comments as an example of this: “Those beards, those absolutes, that dreadful unconcern with obvious sentiment. These are parody-masculine attributes, and the Ayatollah, to perfection, has them in old-man form.” (www.danielpipes.org/article/186) Elizabeth Poole’s typically analytical approach argues that after the Rushdie affair, the Muslim community in Britain was discussed only through a highly consistent negative framework: “That Muslims were continually associated with the issue of freedom of speech illustrated the considered threat from irrational, antiquated Muslims to British Liberal values and democracy.” (Poole, 2002: 79) I believe that the British press failed in its duty to the public to report the Rushdie affair with any authority. Press response was slow and when it did arrive it offered a mixed message. The legacy of the Rushdie affair lives on. For this issue to be resolved the press must continue to raise the debate and bring issues such as this to conclusion. The habit of sitting on issues or considering them too sensitive only serves to detract from the steps made towards improving the portrayal of Muslims in the British press.


Research and Analysis

See separate document. 'Research and Analysis'.


Conclusion.

The British press has come a long way towards an acceptable portrayal of Muslims. After studying a dizzying amount of theories, books, research and analyses, what are the practical issues that can be improved? Both Keeble and The Runnymede Trust argue for a need that mainstream journalists extend their range of contacts to incorporate ethnic minority groups. In addition to this, the journalistic workplace should reflect the multi-cultural nature of the country. Keeble argues that: “All newspapers should develop strategies for recruiting, retaining and promoting ethnic staff and consider the appointment of a race relations specialist.” (Keeble 2002: 33)

In relation to the title, I strongly rebut the argument that the press ‘demonizes’ Islam. To ‘demonize’ is to cause somebody or something to appear evil or wicked in the eyes of others. I argue that the criticisms made against the press have caused opinion to swing full circle. Islam has become a topic of ‘fear’ not ‘demonization.’ George Orwell was a master of journalism, and someone who challenged the established press in his book ‘Animal Farm’. The preface to ‘Animal Farm’ deals with the freedom of the press in 1945 and, even though we are sixty years on, just as Orwell challenges the press’s attitudes towards Russia, so we can see the difficulties of portraying Islam in the 21st century. Orwell argues that because the British press is extremely centralized anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing.
“If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face”. (Orwell, 1945: Preface)

The British press must find a fair and balanced level of reporting news in relation to Islam whilst still putting the topics in the public forum. Offence caused to Muslims due to the very nature of freedom of speech/freedom of the press is often unavoidable. But it is crucial that the press stands firm. Progress is only made when the established norm is challenged. Dante challenged Islam hundreds of years ago in ‘The Divine comedy.’ We now have the Danish cartoons incident to resolve. In my opinion freedom of the press is an integral part of our individual rights and in turn necessary to any democratic society. Therefore, even if we disagree with the specific journalism, freedom for it to be published must remain. In the famous words of Voltaire: “I detest what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it.” (Orwell, 1945: Preface)

Ends.
Word count: 10829










BIBLIOGRAPHY


Edgar, A. (2000) ‘The fourth estate and moral responsibilities’ In: Berry, D. (ed) Ethics and Media Culture – Practices and Representations. Oxford: Focal Press

Herman, E.S. and Chomsky, N. (1994) Manufacturing Consent. London: Vintage Press

Huntington, S.P. (2002) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. London: Free Press

Keeble, R. (2001) The Newspapers Handbook,Third Edition. London: Routledge

Kovach, B. and Rosenstiel, T. (2003) The Elements of Journalism. London: The Guardian Atlantic Books

Pipes, D. (2004) The Rushdie Affair – The Novel, The Ayatollah, and the West. New Jersey: Daniel Transaction Publishers (also http://www.danielpipes.org/)

Poole, E. (2002) Reporting Islam Media Representations of British Muslims. London New York: I.B Tauris

Retief, J. (2002) Media ethics – introduction to responsible journalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Runnymede Trust (1997) Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All. June. London: Central Books

Runnymede Trust (2001) The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain – The Parekh Report. June. London: Profile Books

Said, E.W. (1997) Covering Islam. London: Vintage Press

Media Panel Debate. http://policyandlegal.gateway.bbc.co.uk/editorialpolicymeetings.html

Orwell, G. The Preface to Animal Farm. http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/Orwell.html