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?
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!
The Saville revelations definitely are shocking and are more newsworthy because the narrative centers around a celebrity brand/elite person and one of the highest profile institutions in the UK, the BBC, who have been accused of not “calling Savile’s behaviour into question and flagging up any abuse allegations during his long career at the corporation, during which he presented several television shows including Jim’ll Fix It. And the BBC has also been criticised by MPs over the scandal, with Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman saying the claims about Savile “cast a stain” on the corporation” (BBC News, OCt 27th).
The Saville controversy has seemingly “hit the nerve of the zeitgeist” and created an “appetite for more” and because Paeodophilia is nothing new, there are plenty of stories to help continue to sustain the longevity of the narrative (Jones Nov. 12th). As often with moral panics, the establishment often have a key role in stoking the panic. In this instance, the MP, Tom Watson “stood up at Prime Minister’s Questions on 24 October and claimed to be in possession of “clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to parliament and No 10”. Furthermore, Watson claimed that he had access to an old police file which proved that alleged that a Tory was a paedophile. Yet, Watson’s evidence appears tenuous and his unsubstantiated comments have had an explosive effect on a public already primed for such ideas.
Lord McAlpine is the man many believed to be the Tory politician at the centre of the scandal and he has had to issue a public statement defending himself.
Doha College Media Studies 
