Defusing explosive language
I’ve been growing increasingly frustrated with the coverage of the war on terrorism in the British media.
Not because I feel it is in any way intrinsically biased, in fact, I think the British press has operated with an uncharacteristic degree of restraint. Even the tabloids seem to have recognised that this cannot be an ‘us and them’ issue, because we are them and they are us.
What annoys me though, is something I am sure has developed on a subconscious level but is extremely damaging, namely the juxtaposition of the word ‘Islamic’ with the word ‘terrorist’. On a basic level, the mere conjunction of the two ideas is enough to associate them with each other in people’s minds.
But how else are you to describe terrorists who claim adherence to Islam? There are, after all, very few Hindus, Catholics or atheists planting bombs on the Underground. Very true, but if there were, would we be linking their faith to their actions?
I’m not so sure. Take the IRA for example: at the height of its activities, it was a terrorist organisation which used religion as a front for actions that were, primarily, political. Sounds pretty similar to al-Qaeda.
But 20 years ago, can you imagine the headline ‘Catholic extremist sentenced to life in prison’. I think not. The emphasis would have been on his affiliation to the IRA, not on his faith.
And yet, within the last 6 months I have seen countless headlines in which the idea of ‘Islam’ and the idea of ‘terrorism’ are directly associated. The only effect this can have is to create mistrust on both sides. It has to be time to change policy on this in the media.
What about using the phrase ‘pseudo-Islamic’. Or even biting the bullet and simply adding caveats like ‘…terrorist, who claims his beliefs have a basis in Islam.’ At least then we would be openly acknowledging the fact that Islam does not, per se, advocate terrorism.
It seems a minor point, but it’s easy to underestimate the power that words, when they are not used with caution, have to plant seeds in people’s minds. And no, this is not, as the Daily Express might have it, political correctness gone maaaad, but a legitimate factor in the division of our society.
It must be the responsibility of the media to recognise the impact a misjudged phrase can have without automatically assuming the responsibility of the reader to read around to attain a balanced viewpoint.
This can only start with a concerted and cooperative effort on the part of Britain’s editors. So please write to your local rag. If it achieves nothing, at least you’ll give the letters editor something to think about.
I’ve been growing increasingly frustrated with the coverage of the war on terrorism in the British media.
Not because I feel it is in any way intrinsically biased, in fact, I think the British press has operated with an uncharacteristic degree of restraint. Even the tabloids seem to have recognised that this cannot be an ‘us and them’ issue, because we are them and they are us.
What annoys me though, is something I am sure has developed on a subconscious level but is extremely damaging, namely the juxtaposition of the word ‘Islamic’ with the word ‘terrorist’. On a basic level, the mere conjunction of the two ideas is enough to associate them with each other in people’s minds.
But how else are you to describe terrorists who claim adherence to Islam? There are, after all, very few Hindus, Catholics or atheists planting bombs on the Underground. Very true, but if there were, would we be linking their faith to their actions?
I’m not so sure. Take the IRA for example: at the height of its activities, it was a terrorist organisation which used religion as a front for actions that were, primarily, political. Sounds pretty similar to al-Qaeda.
But 20 years ago, can you imagine the headline ‘Catholic extremist sentenced to life in prison’. I think not. The emphasis would have been on his affiliation to the IRA, not on his faith.
And yet, within the last 6 months I have seen countless headlines in which the idea of ‘Islam’ and the idea of ‘terrorism’ are directly associated. The only effect this can have is to create mistrust on both sides. It has to be time to change policy on this in the media.
What about using the phrase ‘pseudo-Islamic’. Or even biting the bullet and simply adding caveats like ‘…terrorist, who claims his beliefs have a basis in Islam.’ At least then we would be openly acknowledging the fact that Islam does not, per se, advocate terrorism.
It seems a minor point, but it’s easy to underestimate the power that words, when they are not used with caution, have to plant seeds in people’s minds. And no, this is not, as the Daily Express might have it, political correctness gone maaaad, but a legitimate factor in the division of our society.
It must be the responsibility of the media to recognise the impact a misjudged phrase can have without automatically assuming the responsibility of the reader to read around to attain a balanced viewpoint.
This can only start with a concerted and cooperative effort on the part of Britain’s editors. So please write to your local rag. If it achieves nothing, at least you’ll give the letters editor something to think about.
posted by Rob Davies at 1:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home