Thursday November 19th - Part 2

Manchester Evening News (City Edition)

Article 1
Headline: Family's fury as terror cops quiz preacher
Sub Headline 1: Mosque petition calls for 'immediate release'
Sub Headline2: Community rocked by 'respected' man's arrest
Section: News
Written by: Dan Thompson
Page: 16

Outline: This story is about the detention of a man described as a "...spiritual leader...", the opening paragraph features comments from his family denouncing his arrest.

The 2nd paragraph provides his name, Shaykh Asif Farooqui, as well as details of the allegation against him which is described as "...recruting young British Muslims for terror training camps in Afghanistan..."

Within the first 2 paragraphs Shaykh Farooqui's religious background is not mentioned although details of the allegation does make it clear to the reader that he is Muslim.

The next 6 paragraphs describe how the arrest has shocked the community and features comments backing Shaykh Farooqui and re-inforcing his past work in the community including the Police.

Whilst the article will probably leave readers thinking about Muslims negatively, Dan Thompson's article does devote a lot of column inches to comments from Shaykh Farooqui's family and describes his respected status in the community. It doesn't start off by describing him as a Muslim Preacher and importantly his religious identity isn't revealed in the headline.

This is a tough one to rate because, whilst readers will think negatively about Muslims after reading the report this is more to do with the general prejudice that has been created by the wider media when reporting such cases as opposed to Dan Thompson's coverage which is actually balanced and refrains from using tabloid tactics such as hysteria and sensationalism.

For that reason this particular piece by Dan Thompson is given a Neutral rating.

Share on facebook

Article Verdict: Neutral

Thursday November 19th - Part 1

Metro

Article 1
Headline: Back off, Israel tells 'bully' US
Section: News
Written by: Fred Attewill
Page: 25

Outline: This article is a bit of a mix of some accurate reporting of facts but the overriding theme is one of bias towards Israel.

It reports on the Israeli Government's decision to build an extra 900 housing units on Illegally Occupied Palestinian land.

Firstly the headline is interesting, the use of the word bully (even if taken from a Israeli Govt quote) convey Israel as the victim, which immediately sets a sympathetic tone for the article towards Israel.

However at the end of the 1st paragraph Attewill does mention that the contruction of the settlements will be on "...occupied Palestinian territory...",which is an accurate description for the West Bank.

However in the subsequent paragraph Attewill mentions that the Israeli are voicing their protest against the US over what he described as plans for building "...another 900 homes for Israelis built in the West Bank..."

This is a use of Unspeak e.g. the word 'home' is used when describing a dwelling for a family, it's a very personal description and as such it has personal dimension in the readers minds by making them immediately think about people linked to these 'homes'. It makes them question why anyone would oppose the construction of 900 homes for these people, this is another subtle tactic to generate sympathy for the Israeli position.

The following paragraph talks about the expansion of this particular settlement which is described as being "...built on Palestinian land conquered in the 1967 war..."

There's a good and bad with statement, the good part is the acknowledgmentof the fact that this is 'Palestinian land', the bad part is that it's described as being 'conquered', the factually correct terminology should have been "illegally occupied"

In the 2nd to last paragraph Attewill writes that "...More than 30 Palestinians were left homeless this week after Israeli authorities demolished two family homes in east Jerusalem. Officals said the homes were built without Israeli permission..."

This is another example of a good and bad paragraph. The good part is the mention of at least some Palestinian suffering, even if it is buried towards the end of the article, and the personalisation of the plight through the use of the words "family homes". The bad part however is the omission of any statement which clarifies for the reader the fact that East Jerusalem is also considered illegally occupied under International Law. This would have made it clear that the Israelis have no jurisdiction and therefore have no moral or legal authority to grant or deny permission to Palestinians to build homes.

The final paragraph mentions the Geneva convention by stating "...While the fourth Geneva convention outlaws population transfer into occupied territory, more than 500,000 Israelis live in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem - under military occupation for more than 40 years - among 2.7 million Palestinians..."

Once again this is a mixed bag of an article. It correctly highlights that Israel's actions are in violation of the fourth Geneva convention even if Attewill shies away from using the words "contravene" or "violation". The blatantly inaccurate statement is to claim that the 500,000 Israelis in the West Bank live under Military Occupation. This statement could not be further from the truth.

The fact on the ground is that it is the Palestinians not Israelis that live under Israeli Military Occupation. The 500,000 Israeli Settlers live in gated communities in mansions with manicured lawns and swimming pools where no non-jewish person is allowed to live whilst the Palestinians live under a system that restricts their every movement and have little access to clean drinking water.

Whilst there are a very few number of accurate words used here and there this is an overwhelmingly biased piece in favour of Israel right from the Headline through to the final few words of the last paragraph. For this reason Attewill's article is given a negative rating.

Share on Facebook

Article Verdict: Negative

Friday 6th November

BBC News Online

Article 1
Headline: US Gunman faced Afghan Posting
Section: News - Americas and also front page major news story
URL: Link

Outline: This news story received extensive coverage across most of the British electronic media.

The first of today's featired stories about fatal shooting incident at Fort Hood, Texas is taken from the BBC site.

The 2nd paragraph actually opens with the name of the gunman Major Nidal Malik Hasan, followed by his age and then by his religious background, he is described as "...a US-born Muslim..."

This is interesting because, unfortunately, a shooting of this nature i.e. no apparent motive with victims gunned down at random is tragically common across the United States and includes many high profile instances most notably the Columbine Massacre. The religious or ethnic background of the attackers in such cases is rarely highlighted. Therefore one questions the motive behind highlighting Maj Hasan's religious background unless of course it's to plant a seed in the mind of the reader?

In paragraph 5 the commander of the Fort Hood base is quoted as telling a US news network that "...eyewitnesses..." reported Maj Hasan shouting "...Allahu Akbar!..." which is described as an "...Arabic phrase...before opening fire..."

Towards the end of the article, 21st paragraph to be precise, there is reference to a message posted on the Washington Post website by the family of Maj Hassan which sends a message of condolence to the victims families.

However subsequent paragraphs also reveal some important details which help to shed some light on possible motives e.g. the 23rd paragraph states the cousin of Maj Hasan as saying that "...Major Hasan has been battling racial harassment because of his Middle Eastern ethnicity...". The previous paragraph states that Maj Hasan described an imminent deployment oversease as "...his worst nightmare..."

These 2 details are significant considering the tragedy that unfolded at Fort Hood. It highlights that Maj Hasan faced racial discrimination in an establishment as large as the US Army and despite him holding the grade of a Major. It also highlights that Maj Hasan could easily have been described as a Conscientious Objector i.e. opposing deployment to a conflict zone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.

The 24th paragraph mentions that CCTV footage from early on in the day showed Maj Hasan wearing "...religious attire..." There are 2 problems with this, firstly one needs to question why the item of clothing is significant? The answer is that is isn't. Secondly the clothing referred to as religious is actually a cultural dress traditionally worn by people from the Middle East irrespective of their religious background i.e. one could come across a Christian, Jewish or Muslim person from the Middle East wearing the same attire or indeed someone from another part of the World may choose to wear it based on personal taste.

This is a further attempt to plant more seeds into the minds of readers which along with earlier references to Maj Hasan's Muslim faith, the arabic phrase and allegedly "religious" attire should leave the reader in no doubt as to the motivation behind this tragedy.

Towards the end of the article there's 1 paragraph wihch features a comment from a soldier at Fort Hood with regards to the pressure likely to be placed on Muslim Soldiers in the US Army "...It kind of puts a negative light on them and makes people distrust them because everybody is going to look at them [and think]: 'Well, you're probably going to pull something like this...and it's a sad fact that that will happen..."

The penultimate paragraph refers to a New York Times report according to which the FBI are investigating a link between web postings by a man sharing Major Hasan's name that backs suicide bombings but it states that there is no clear link between the 2. If that is the case then surely it must be premature to include this bit of information in the story, that is unless the intention is to make readers think that there is a link......specualtive journalism at its best!

Considering that this article is from the day of the shooting the BBC published a lot of information that was purely speculative in nature and assigned a motive to the actions of Major Hassan even before the truth is known. In addition to this many important bits of information like the alleged racial discrimination and Major Hasan's objections to deployment are not given the attention they deserve.

This is not a balanced article and prematurely assigns this tragic shooting a religious motive, albeit subliminally, whilst having read the details it could well be that there were psychological problems involved. Therefore it's no suprise that this article from the BBC is given a negative rating.

Article Verdict: Negative

Channel 4 News Online

Article 1
Headline: Army major held for US gun attack
Section: World - Americas
URL: Link

Outline: This article is in stark contrast to the BBC article above. It states the gunman's name in the 2nd paragraph but doesn't mention his ethnic or religious background.

The next few paragraphs focus more on the events of the day and feature comments from the base commander.

The 14th paragraph (out of 16 in total) mentions the cousin of Major Hasan who is quoted as saying that Major Hasan was a "...US-born Muslim who had joined the military from High School...". This is the first and only reference to Major Hasan's religious background but also mentions his profession as a pshychiatrist in the US Army.

It also repeats the concerns stated in the BBC article about Major Hasan's deployment abroad.

The article ends with some facts about Fort Hood as a military base.

Unlike the BBC News article there are no loaded messages in this article nor are there any premature assumptions planted into the readers minds about what the possible motives could have been behind Major Hasan's actions.

This is a well balanced article and presents it from an objective viewpoint thus it's given a neutral rating.

Article Verdict: Neutral

Share on Facebook

Tuesday 3rd November

Manchester Evening News (City Edition)

Article 1
Headline: Mum of six: I will turn my kids into suicide bombers
Secondary Headline: Fanatic kept terror manual hidden inside her burkha
Section: News
Written by: Chris Osuh
Page: Front page and page 2
URL: Link

Outline: This extensive spanning the front 2 pages of the M.E.N as well as Channel M news relates to a Dutch Woman called Houria Chahed Chentouf who was convicted of posessing documents for terrorist purposes.

There are several key words used in the article and the video clip, namely "violent jihad" and "burkha".

In the video clip both words are used in the first 11 sentences of the clip whereas in the print edition her intention to "...kill and maim in the name of Islam..." and the evidence of this intent being attached to her "...burkha..." are mentioned in the 1st two paragraphs.

As we've included a video clip this time round I won't go into depth about the content of the article as it is summed concisely in the video.

The main question to ask is what is the rationale for telling people that the memory stick containing the evidence against her was attached to her burkha? It would have been sufficient to state that it was attached to her clothing but my guess is that by specifying that it was a burkha the intention is to smuggle in the wider debate about burkhas into this story. And by doing so to add weight to the argument for banning this item of clothing.

Watching the video clip also reveals one key detail which is not mentioned until almost the very end of the 2 minute clip, at 1:59 to be precise. That is the fact that Ms Chentouf has a history of mental illness.

This is significant because it can be considered more likely for someone who suffers from mental health issues to act irrationally and even dangerously.

This story should have been reported from the angle that a mental health patient has been convicted of the crime. In its current state the article and video clip only reinforce prejudices against Islam and Muslims, especially Muslim women because those who prefer to dress in Islamic clothing are likely to come under more scrutiny maybe under threat from some Islamophobic individuals.

Article Verdict: Negative