An excellent article on tech whizz kid and campaigner, Aaron Swartz. Perfect reading before the Mest 3 exam.

Aaron Swartz, internet activist

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/02/aaron-swartz-hacker-genius-martyr-girlfriend-interview

May 27 2013

Mest 3: Deconstructing the Woolwich murder

Unsurprisingly, the news media has been full of the story of the incredibly shocking and brutal killing of the British soldier, Lee Rigby in south London. News values help us understand why the incident has gained continual coverage in the week following the attack – it is bad news, a surprise, it has relevance to continuing concerns about immigration, extremism etc. and importantly, the event allows newspapers to follow their agenda (Harcup and O Neil). Furthermore, due to the innocent victim, the story contains high levels of personalisation and meaningfulness to the largely UK audience. Of course, the event also contains conflict not just between the perpetrators and the victim, but also between the groups that they represent, in this case, disenfranchised British Muslims and the British army and government (Galtung and Ruge).

More interesting is the media and subsequent governmental reaction to the attack. Unfortunately but predictably, there has been a whole host of racist and Islamophobic responses on social media; Benjamin Flatters, of Lincoln, was arrested after police received complaints about allegedly racist or anti-religious messages; two men from Bristol have been been arrested after making alleged offensive comments on Twitter following Drummer Rigby’s death. The English Defence League has put these ideas into practice and has already clashed with police in Woolwich. Also, The Tell Mama hotline for recording Islamophobic crimes and incidents recorded 148 incidents since the Woolwich attacks took place, including eight attacks on mosques.

@anthony: I wish hitler had gone for the Muslims instead if the Jews #Woolwich #woolwichattack” –> cretin number 3, so far

22/05/2013 21:00 “This was an attack on everyone in the United Kingdom” – Home Secretary Theresa May condemns #Woolwich incident bbc.in/18592kM

A pro-EDL tweet posted this evening

The Conservative government have also responded to the attack with a series of measures designed to prevent radicalisation of British Muslims; of particular interest to us is the stricter censorship of internet sites. The Home Secretary is also arguing that the media regulator Ofcom should have greater powers: “There is no doubt that people are able to watch things through the internet which can lead to radicalisation.”

Thus, it appears that we can apply Stanley Cohen’s ideas of a moral panic to the media and societal responses to the murder. Although it would be easy to dismiss the actions of the two men as the incredibly misguided actions of two corrupted ‘Muslims’; too many view the attacks as a representation of the world’s largely peaceful 1 billion Muslims. Instead the attack has led to huge amounts of coverage of the threat of extremist Muslims and the government has already begun to respond to these ‘threats’. Surely these threats existed before the attack – does the government need an excuse in order to push through more draconian laws or is this simply an example of political opportunism? Tony Blair reacted similarly after the 9/11 attacks, implementing lots of measures to try and counter extremism.

Have Muslims become a folk devil? The EDL are trying to push this representation but do you think that other news sources are too?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Also, newspapers have been criticised for sensationalising the story and providing propaganda for the murderers. Suzanne Moore, a Guardian columnist, tweeted: “The oxygen of publicity … look at tomorrow’s front pages. Exactly why they did it. Harrowing for victim’s family too.”

Sunder Katwala, a director of Future, a thinktank argued that it was the Guardian’s newspaper which was the worst: “Perhaps surprisingly, it is the Guardian’s front page which comes uncomfortably close to being the poster front which the murderer might have designed for himself.”

Also, Baroness Warsi, and the shadow defence secretary, Jim Murphy, have criticised the media for giving too much airtime to the radical cleric Anjem Choudary. Warsi, , said she felt “angry” about the airtime given to “one appalling man who represents nobody”.

So…a complicated picture indeed!

May 26 2013

A2: Representation

Sorry to harp on, but Tabloid Watch is brilliant, look at the links down the side and they will help you find examples of moral panic etc.

For example, this article highlights some of the findings of the Leveson Report which were largely overlooked:

Leveson on the ‘discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced’ reporting of minority groups

One interesting but overlooked section of the Leveson Report has been about the representation of minorities.

On the treatment of the trans community, for example, Leveson writes (p.668):

On the basis of the evidence seen by the Inquiry, it is clear that there is a marked tendency in a section of the press to fail to treat members of the transgender and intersex communities with sufficient dignity and respect; and in instances where individuals are identified either expressly or by necessary implication perpetrate breaches of clause 12 of the Code. Parts of the tabloid press continue to seek to ‘out’ transgender people notwithstanding its prohibition in the Editors’ Code. And parts of the tabloid presscontinue to refer to the transgender community in derogatory terms, holding transgender people up for ridicule, or denying the legitimacy of their condition. Although the Inquiry heard evidence that parts of the tabloid press had “raised [its] game in terms of transgender reporting”,[393] the examples provided by TMW of stories from the last year demonstrate that the game needs to be raised significantly higher.

The section on ethnic minorities, asylum seekers and immigrants is also critical of parts of the press. Leveson states (p.668) that:

the identification of Muslims, migrants, asylum seekers and gypsies/travellers as the targets of press hostility and/or xenophobia in the press, was supported by the evidence seen by the Inquiry.

For example:

the following headlines, which appeared to have little factual basis but which may have contributed to a negative perception of Muslims in the UK: ‘Muslim Schools Ban Our Culture’; ‘BBC Puts Muslims Before You!’; ‘Christmas is Banned: It Offends Muslims’; ‘Brit Kids Forced to Eat Halal School Dinners!’; ‘Muslims Tell Us How To Run Our Schools’.

The report outlines several other examples (there are lots to choose from) such as ‘Muslim Only Public Loos‘, ‘Terror Target Sugar’, ‘Brave Heroes Hounded Out‘ and ‘Muslim Plot To Kill Pope‘.

Leveson concludes (p.671):

The evidence demonstrates that sections of the press betray a tendency, which is far from being universal or even preponderant, to portray Muslims in a negative light.

Moving on to reporting of immigration issues, Leveson begins by saying (p.671):

The tendency identified in the preceding paragraph is not limited to the representation of Muslims and applies in a similar way to some other minority ethnic groups.

He then outlines some examples of poor journalism, including ‘Swan Bake‘, ‘Asylum Seekers Eat Our Donkeys‘ and ‘Failed asylum seeker who has dodged deportation for a decade told he can stay…because he goes to the GYM‘ all of which were untrue.

Leveson found (p.673):

evidence suggested that, in relation to reporting on Muslims, immigrants and asylum seekers, there was a tendency for some titles to adopt a sensationalist mode of reporting intended to support a world-view rather than to report a story. The evidence given by the Irish Traveller Movement in Britain suggested a similar approach to gypsy and traveller issues.

And (p.672):

It is one thing for a newspaper to take the view that immigration should be reduced, or that the asylum and/or human rights system should be reformed, and to report on true stories which support those political views. It is another thing to misreport stories either wilfully or reckless as to their truth or accuracy, in order to ensure that they support those political views. And it does appear that certain parts of the press do, on occasion, prioritise the political stance of the title over the accuracy of the story.

His conclusion is damning (p.673):

Nonetheless, when assessed as a whole, the evidence of discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers, is concerning. The press can have significant influence over community relations and the way in which parts of society perceive other parts. While newspapers are entitled to express strong views on minority issues, immigration and asylum, it is important that stories on those issues are accurate, and are not calculated to exacerbate community divisions or increase resentment. Although the majority of the press appear to discharge this responsibility with care, there are enough examples of careless or reckless reporting to conclude that discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers is a feature of journalistic practice in parts of the press, rather than an aberration.

May 26 2013

Tabloid Watch

I have just come across an excellent blog named Tabloid Watch. The site keeps an eye on the discrepancies within the UK media and highlights any misreporting. For example: