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

Friday 30th October

Metro

Article 1
Headline: Islam-obsessed girl disappears
Section: Home Digest
Written by: ?
Page: 4

Outline: This brief is just under 60 words long and features a photo of 14 year old Sarah Dunn. It describes that Ms Dunn "...vanished after becoming obsessed with Islam...". This statement is attributed to the Police, in an extended version of the story in the Metro's sister publication the Daily Mail, the Police are quoted as saying that Ms Dunn had "...gone missing after developing a 'keen interest' in Islam...". The Daily Mail version attributes the "...increasingly obsessed..." statement to friends (3rd paragraph).

There's a clear discrepancy here between the story appearing in the 2 papers both of which belong to Associated Newspapers.

The Metro brief mentions that Ms Dunn was last seen after an argument with her parents about studying the Koran, it states that "...she may have been brainwashed by hardline Muslims..."

Overall the news brief paints a very negative view of Islam and the use of language such as brainwashing almost portrays the religion as a cult.

In short this is a tragic story about a teenage girl with a freewill having a conflict of interest with those around her. It has nothing to do with Islam and to present the article with words such as "Islam-obsessed" or "brainwashed by hardline Muslims" only serves to fuel Islamophobia particularly amongst parents of teenagers.

Article Verdict: Negative

Article 2
Headline: Bibles are seized in Malaysia
Section: News
Written by: ?

Page: 20

Outline: This article is roughly 70 words long and reports on the confiscation of 15,000 "...inflammatory..." bibles in Malaysia by authorities this year because they "...referred to 'God' as 'Allah'...", this is described in the article as "...a banned translation in the Muslim-majority country..."

There is no description about who has decribed the Bibles as "inflammatory" which is the word used in the opening sentence. This may imply that the authorities have deemed them to be inflammatory or it may be the case that this is a word selected by the journalist writing this story.

If it's the latter then it injects a subjective and unfounded viewpoint into what is otherwise a factual story. It's inclusion may make readers think there is hostility towards Christians in Malaysia when it is in fact a prosperous & peaceful multi-ethnic/multi-religious society.

Considering that the source of the word "inflammatory" is not provided it can be assumed that its been inserted into the article by the journalist in which case this article has to be given a negative rating.

Article Verdict: Negative

Share on Facebook

Tuesday 27th October

Manchester Evening News (City Edition)

Article 1
Headline: Islamic scholar jailed for trying to kill father-in-law
Section: News
Written by: Chris Osuh
Page/URL: Link
Accompanying Photos:

Outline: This article from the online edition of the M.E.N reports on the sentencing of a man who tried to murder his father-in-law.

As is evidently clear from the headline the readers are left in no doubt as to the religious background of the man as well as his profession, he is described as an "Islamic Scholar". By its definition the word "scholar" is used to denote someone with mastery in a particular field of study.

The 2nd paragraph of the article states that the man, Mohammed Saghir "...dedicated his life to studying the Koran and aspired to become an imam". If someone is aspiring to become something then clearly it would be premature to say the least to describe them as a "scholar" or master of a particular discipline.

The significance of using this word in the context of the article is that it wrongly gives readers the view that a person fully versed in Islamic law went on to try and kill one of his own family members. If the person was indeed a "scholar" of Islamic law then he would have found very clear and explicit rulings within Islamic law condemning murder.

However readers will no doubt think that if someone who's meant to uphold the values and act as a role model for the islamic faith can commit such an act what does that say about the faith?

The rest of the article describes how the man planned and carried out the attack and at one point it states that he felt remorse at his actions and asked his father-in-law to write a letter forgiving him.

In the second to last paragraph it states that the victim "...was urged to write a statement saying he forgave his son-in-law by family and religious elders who did not want to see the case go to court". This implies that "religious elders" wanted to cover up the crime when in fact if the elders were truly "religious" as Osuh states they would have pushed for the opposite i.e. for the case to go to court as Islam does not condone such acts.

The article along with a very unflattering photo of Mohammed Saghir does no favours to the image of Islam nor to that of Imaams and Muslim community leaders. Chris Osuh inaccurately describes Saghir as a "Scholar" when clearly by his own comments at the beginning of the article he is most definitely not. In summary this is another article that will further help to propogate a negative view of Islam and Muslims thanks to classic tabloid reporting by Osuh.

Article Verdict: Negative

Friday 9th October - Part 2

Manchester Evening News (City Edition)

Article 1
Headline: Keep out of city centre, rugby fans are warned
Section: North West Today
Written by: ?
Page: 2

Outline: This brief appears towards the top of page 2 and refers to the planned anti-Islam rally in Manchester City Centre by the extremist group the English Defence League (EDL) on Saturday 10th October.

The article reports that rugby fans travelling to Old Trafford have been warned to stay away from the city centre to avoid what's described as a "protest" by the EDL which it describes as a "...right wing group..."

The article goes on to describe how the EDL plans to hold a "...demonstration..." against "...Islamic Extremism..." and that there will be a counter protest by "...the Unite Against Fascism Group..."

The article ends with a reference to Manchester Central MP Tony Lloyd and his message to people to stay away and also with a message in bold on the last line which reads ">> See Potsbag page 10".

There is one big glaring error in this news brief, the planned rally by the EDL is incorrectly described as a protest against Islamic Extremism. Now usually journalists are the inquisitive type and one would normally expect them to do their job properly and investigate exactly what type of group the EDL is? Of course the EDL's self professed aim is to 'protest against Islamic Extremism" but the truth is more sinister as their real aim is to protest against Islam and the presence of Muslims in the UK.

This is not the first rally planned by the EDL, they have staged similar marches in Birmingham which have been violent and high profile. For journalists this fact should not be difficult to find out.

At no point in the brief does it describe that the EDL have staged a similar rally and that it descended into violence, it doesn't describe that the group is largely made of up football hooligans out to cause trouble, it doesn't describe that at previous rallies their members have brandished hate messages on placards like "No More Mosques" and chanted slogans like "Muslims Out!".

These messages show that this group isn't interested in protesting against extremism but rather it is a fascist group targeting a group of people based solely on their faith. That, Ladies and Gentlemen is what is commonly known as an Extremist group. However all these facts are 'hidden' from the reader in this news brief so as to deprive them of the facts.

It also seeks to malign the image of the Unite Against Fascism (UAF) Group which has decided to stand up for Muslims. The news brief has successfully painted the picture of the EDL as protesting against "Islamic Extremism" and Unite Against Fascism are presented as planning to stage a "counter-protest" i.e. a protest against the EDL's stance in other words the readers will think why is this group trying to stop a group protesting against extremism? Does the paper want people to think that UAF supports extremism?

This is yet another example of clever 'Unspeak' i.e. smuggling in a hidden argument to influence readers.

It's not hard to forget the high profile that the media decided to give to the small number of members belonging to the Al Ghuraaba group when they protested by brandishing violent placards in response to the Danish Cartoons. We were reminded over & over again about the messages and made to think that maybe Muslims at large supported this tiny fringe group.

Unfortunately this time round the EDL is getting nowhere near as much exposure to highlight their extremist intent.

This news brief actualy supports their attempts to deceive the wider public into thinking that they're stance is just and noble when this couldn't be further from the truth.

For this reason this news brief is given a "Negative" rating.

Article Verdict: Negative


Article 2
Headline: Racist League
Section: Postbag
Written by: John Leech, MP, Manchester Withington
Page: 10

Outline: This isn't really an article but a letter sent into the M.E.N by the MP for Manchester Withington the Rt Hon John Leech.

In complete contrast to the news brief above John Leech's letter is an attempt to tell readers about the true intent of the EDL which he accurately describes in the opening words of his letter as "A RACIST group..." and how they are planning to hold an "...anti-Muslim rally aimed at inciting hatred and stirring up fear on our streets"

He speaks favourable about a petition organised by the Unite Against Fascism Group and encourages all readers to sign it by even providing the web address which is www.manchesteruaf.org

Unlike the M.E.N news brief above Mr Leech does refer to the previous rallies held by the EDL and how these have displayed the groups' "...Xenophobia and racially motivated thuggery..."

He also explains his very reasoned argument for banning the protest which he explains is "...not about gagging a legitimate group - it's about standing up for what is right and not letting our tolerance and free speech be hijacked by fascists who...would do away with this freedom in an instant.

Having read the letter by Mr Leech my first question was 'why did the M.E.N not use extracts from the letter in its earlier news brief, expecially considering that it did refer to another Manchester based MP and conveyed his message?' How did Mr Lloyd make the cut but not Mr Leech?

Mr Leech's letter could well have been used as a press release by the paper and used to bring a bit of balance to the M.E.N's atrocious news brief which all but stops short of publicly endorsing the EDL through its shameful mis-reporting.

A reference at the bottom of the News Brief telling people to go to the Postbag isn't enough, Mr Leech's comments should have been used in the main body of the M.E.N article. Perhaps the decision was taken not to use his comments because they contrasted very starkly with the M.E.N's take on the EDL protest i.e. the M.E.N blindly believed what the EDL said it would be protesting about rather than doing their job properly and actually investigating what the EDL were all about.

It could be argued that the M.E.N published Mr Leech's letter and there is a reference at the end of the news brief thus the readers would have got to see his comments. However by publshing his letter in the Postbag quite clearly shows that these are Mr Leech's opinions and thus personal to him, this could influence how receptive people are to Mr Leech's message.

Whilst Mr Leech's letter is positive my rating will be based on the M.E.N's conduct instead which deserves a "Negative" rating.

Article Verdict: Negative