Manchester Evening News (City Edition)Unfortunately no copy of today's city edition was available hence no report can be presented for the M.E.NMetroArticle 1Headline: 20 days to save kidnap Briton
Section: NewsWritten by: ?Page: Front Page BriefOutline: This brief acts as an introduction to a more detailed article on page 9. It mentions that a British Hostage is at risk from "militants" in Mali unless Britain releases Abu Qatada. The Militants are described as an "al-Qaeda group".There is no mention of religion in this article but given the widespread coverage of Al Qaeda in the media along with it being associated with Islam then this will no doubt cast a negative light on Islam and Muslims hence this brief is given a 'negative' rating.Artice Verdict: NegativeArticle 2Headline: 'free hate cleric or hostage dies'
Section: NewsWritten by: Ross McGuinnessPage: Front Page BriefOutline: This article follows on from the brief on the front page. It is written by
Ross McGuinness who wrote a poor article on 8th April where he failed to mention the number of Iraqi civilians killed but quantified the number of US soliders killes and tried to make the 2 comparable, that last article was marked as 'negative'.
Unfortunately McGuinness doesn't start this article well. The opening line of this article starts with "Islamic militants have threatened to kill a British hostage..."
It carries on with the report about a British man being held hostage by a group demanding the release of Abu Qatada. The 2nd paragraph describes the group as an "...African group..."
McGuinness then prints the following statement allegedly made by the group online "We demand that Britain release Sheikh Abu Qatada, who is unjustly (held), for the release of its British citizen. We give it 20 days as of the issuance of this statement. When this period expires the Mujahideen will kill the hostage"
There is a description of Abu Qatada who is described as "Radical preacher", it's explaines how he was arrested, released and re-arrested and his current legal status i.e. awaiting deportation to Jordan.
McGuinness then mentions that 4 hostages were released earlier in the month by Al-Qaeda in what he describes as "The Islamic Maghreb". The Maghreb is the term used to refer to North Africa, particularly when talking about Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. The choice of words is interesting as McGuinness could have easily said 'the maghreb' or to make it painfully clear to all readers he could have kept it simple and just said "North Africa". There was no need to use the term 'Islamic' when referring to this region and associating it with kidnapping, which creates a link in the readers' minds between the 2.
Interestingly McGuinness finishes the article with a statement by Omar Bakri and describes him as "exiled cleric". This is factually incorrect, to be an exile one must be absent from their home country, McGuinness is using the term in reference to Bakri because he was
excluded from the UK in 2005. Bakri was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK under political asylum, but this wasn't his home country.
Bakri is described as neither condoning or condemning the actions of the kidnappers but the article finishes with the following closing statement from him "I always call for the release of any Muslims who never committed a crime in Britain".
Overall this article is poorly written and the choice of words used in some sections of the article is inappropriate and unnecessary. This isn't a great follow up to McGuinness article on Iraq from 8th April and once again a 'negative' rating is called for.
Artice Verdict: NegativeArticle 3Headline: Jesus v Muhammad game 'fuels hatred'
Section: NewsWritten by: Miles ErwinPage: 12Outline: This article is about an online game called Faith Fighter that's been created where holy figures fight each other to death including Jesus and Muhammad (Peace be upon them both).
The article starts by saying that "religious groups" have criticised the game and are calling for it to be banned.
The 3rd paragraph of this article is particularly interesting as Erwin writes that "Muslims are particularly outraged as Islamic tradition prohibits drawings of Allah". Whilst factually correct the over emphasis on the point that Muslims will be "particularly" outraged is perhaps designed to make readers think that the opposition from Muslims will be stronger and more forecful than other groups i.e. more extreme perhaps?
The article also mentions that Hindus and Buddhists are upset at the game as it also features Ganesha and Buddha. Statements condemming the game are presented by Douglas Miller, pastor of the Link Church in Birmingham, Brian Appleyard, former chairman of the Buddhist Society. Erwin also mentions that "spokesman" for the Federation of Muslim Organisations has made a comment but fails to provide a name for this "spokesman" like he has for the Christian and Buddhist groups.
Towards the end of the article Erwin provides a quote from the makers of the game "molleindustria" which allegedly shows the 'purpose' behind the creation of the game as being "to push gamers to reflect on how sacred representations are often used to fuel or justify conflicts between people'.
This is of course complete rubbish as the premise of game is to offend not to cause reflection. By printing this statement Erwin may claim to be giving the makers the opportunity to give their side of the story, however by conveniently placing it as the closing statement of the article he may also be trying to leave readers with a positive view of the makers of the game by making them think that they weren't really trying to cause offence.
Not surprisingly this is a 'negative' article as Erwin singles out Muslims by saying that they will be "particularly outraged", he also fails to provide the name of the spokesman for the Federation of Muslim Organisations whereas he does so for other groups.
Artice Verdict: NegativeArticle 4 Headline: It's one conspiracy too far
Section: Metro Mail Written by: ? Page: 30
Outline: This section of the Metro features letters sent in by readers, the topic featured today are the botched anti-terror operation carried out by the Police against 12 innocent men,
Two comments are posted & both are by male readers. The first is in response to a previous reader's comment where a woman accused the Police and Govt using the anti-terror raids as a means of 'scaremongering'. The commenter responding to this attacks the woman's arguments and backs up the Police by saying that there must be evidence hence why the 11 Pakistani nationals are being deported. He also attacks the woman by saying that she would be the first to blame the Police for incompetence if there actually had been a terrorist attack. He finishes his comment by asking for conspiracy theories to stop, which is the inspiration for the headline of this section.
The second comment is significantly shorter, just 7 lines in response the first which is almost 30 lines long. The other difference between the 2 is that the second comment is crticising rather than praising the anti-terror raid. I feel it's necessary to reprint the full comment here considering its short length;
"Now that the 12 terror suspects have been released without charge, will there be an investigation into why police were told to storm a university and terrorise innocent students, or will the whole thing be brushed under the carpet?"
Both comments are left by people who don't have Muslim names. There is a photo which accompanies this section which shows 2 policeman with one of the students on the ground, he caption accompanying it reads "Arrests: Police rounded up 12 terror suspects across the north-west of England". The use of the words "terror suspects" in reference to the men is wrong considering that all have been released without charge, would a suspected thief who was found to be innocent still be tagged as a suspected thief for the rest of their life? One would hope not!
This Metro Mail section clearly gives more prominence to the pro-Police angle with the lengthy pro-Police raid reader comment, the photo with the caption and the headline which implies that any anti-Police rhetoric is a "conspiracy". No attempt is made to hide the bias and there is no balance in the comments presented. There should have been 2 comments of similar length with opposing views in order to maintain objectivity.
Artice Verdict: Negative