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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment