Islam and the Western Media

The West has many stereotypes and prejudices against Islam and the Western media have played a significant role
in producing and promoting these prejudices and misunderstanding about Muslims. Stereotypes about Islam are not
new to Western culture and can be traced back 1400 years. Islam spread quickly to the West and started threatening
the position of the Christian Church and the ruling elite. As a reaction, the Western elites, mainly the governments
and the churches, became highly involved in negative propaganda against Islam. These kinds of actions and
feelings are still very common in the West today. The Christian religious establishment believes that Islamic beliefs
are impious and Muslims are nothing short of evil predecessor of the antichrist. The slaughter and looting during
the Crusades by Europeans expanded hostility and misunderstanding between Muslims and Christians. Crusades,
conquest of Spain, Ottoman Empire's colonization of some parts of the Europe, the oil price crises of 1973, the
Islamic revolution in Iran, the incident of 9/11 have developed anti feelings in the West against Islam. After the end
of the cold war, Islam was perceived as threat to the Western culture and the first Gulf War against Iraq was a show
of force to scare others to tow the line.
Writing of the Western historians is humiliating and lacking respect about Asia and Middle East. Racist politicians are
promoting hatred against Islam through their speeches in seminars and conferences. Contemporary Western, particularly
American politicians as well as some Christian fundamentalists often use inflammable rhetoric to defame Islam and
terrorize Muslims. They present Islam as a terrifying, deadly, and invisible threat to the world peace and view that Islam
has replaced communist ideology as the largest threat to the West. The inadequate, inaccurate, and sensational rhetoric
have added to the problem by painting a negative picture of Islam
Image of Islam in the Western Media
Increasing anti-Muslim sentiments in the Western media is a matter of grave concern for the Muslims. The media has
contributed heavily to the negative image of Islam. Naïve interpretation of Muslim laws and customs are reported out of
context. Media reports about Islam are incorrect due to ignorance which leads toward hatred for Islam in the West. West
has identified a new enemy in the form of “Radical Islam” by replacing communist ideology. Historians and professional
hate-mongers have waged a crusade against all things Islamic. What is said about Muslims cannot now be said in
mainstream discussion about Africans, Jews, Asians or other Orientals. The tone of the Western media is against Islam,
and portrays Islam as a violent and destructive religion for individuals and Western civilization.

The image of Iran in the U.S. media was portrayed as a threat to regional peace, security and the interest of U.S. and
Israel. The Western mainstream media generally portray Iran as a “terrorist”, or a “fundamentalist” country. They are
not only critical towards Islam but also help to promote stereotypes about Muslim world and Islamic values. Until the
past few years, ‘Muslim fundamentalists’ were ‘Shiites’ and geographically limited to Iran, Lebanon, and Pakistan.
Now, the West is facing the Sunni Islam that crosses all national and geographical boundaries. The U.S. media often
portray Christianity as a symbol of tolerance and free market economy, while Islam as a religion of non-tolerant people.

Muslims are perceived by the West as extremist, and Pakistan and Iran are in particular, portrayed as champions of
Islam and a great threat to the world peace. The British press is presenting Islam as a threat to British society and its
 2

values and Muslims as deviant, irrational, different and unable to fit in British society. Islam is an obsolete religion and
its beliefs are not workable in the modern age of technology. Islam is represented as a media villain and an immediate
danger to democratic norms of the Europe. Arabs are frequently presented as a menace, a terrorist figure that operate
outside the accepted international norms and is therefore to be feared and mistrusted. The British press believes that
Islamic ideology is more dangerous than communist ideology and an obvious threat to democratic culture of the West.

Several studies conducted in this regard conclude that the Western press portrays Islam as a threat to the Western
civilization. The press represented Islam as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist. Expressions like “Islamic bomb,”
“Muslim extremists,” “violent and radical Islam,” and “Muslin fanatics” are very frequently used by the Western press.
The use of such expressions in the Western media has become a fashion. The press believes that Muslims and Muslim
states are a potential threat the Western culture and religions and must be treated ruthlessly to protect the Western
nations and their religion. During the inaugural ceremony of the Sydney Olympic 2000, a commentator on the German
TV introduced delegations from Algeria, Sudan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan with remarks like Islam,
terrorism, fundamentalism or civil war.
Islam after the 9/11 incident
The Islamic Human Rights Commission monitored 344 Islamphobia attacks in the 12 months following 9/11. The
incident provided an opportunity to the racists in West to attack the Muslims, police to harass them, politicians and
journalists to insult their religion. Media are very hostile and often portray Muslim minorities as uncivilized, primitive
and a problem for the European culture. The anti-Islamic media propaganda badly affected the Muslim community in
the West and the USA. Damages to the property, harassment of Muslim women and girls on the streets and children in
the schools have been widely reported. Security agencies have killed dozens of Muslims working in Europe without any
proper investigation and court trial.

The Western media simultaneously declared a "Crusade" against Muslims at the pretext of war on terrorism. Eric
Margolis (2006) writes that four Protestant leaders preached a crusade against Iraq. Among American Christians, 87
percent supported invading Iraq and hoped to convert Iraqi Muslims to Christianity after occupation. Almost all Western
states made Islamic beliefs responsible for the 9/11 attacks and supported war on terror against the Muslims nations and
Muslim communities living in the Western countries. The incident created a great opportunity for media to freely blame
the Muslim world for these attacks and suggested a harsh revenge from them. The media suggested that every Muslim is
the legitimate target of revenge for these attacks. Almost all national newspapers and channels brought negative material
about Islam and Muslims. All Muslims, particularly Arabs were constantly portrayed as less than human. Muslims in
Europe and USA feel isolated, criminalized and neglected. They are subject to discrimination in the labor market,
located in socially poor areas and Muslims youth not given equal opportunities. There are evidences of attacks on
Muslims which resulted in many deaths of innocent people and damages to their property. The Muslim women and girls
are harassed on the streets and children in the schools.

Muslim Women and Western Media

 3

Western media usually bringing stories about political violence in Kashmir, Rawanda, Nigeria, Bosnia, West Bank,
Afghanistan, and Somalia where Muslim women frequently figured as victims of rape, torture, stoning and patriarchal
oppression. To unveil Muslim women has become a fashion in the West. The Western media are harboring hostility
against the veil often under the guise of humanism, feminism or human rights. Majority of the post-9/11 media coverage
led to the assumption that Muslim woman is submissive. The veil has become the typical hate against Muslims women
in the West. The Qur’an demands modesty of dress and an avoidance of sexual display for both man and woman in
public, however, limits of dress for both sexes were differently defined. The Western media has strongly changed the
minds of non-Muslims by negative exploitation of Islam, in particular of Muslim women and hijab. At present, Western
media associated hijab with terrorism.

The media is continuously giving the impression that hijab for woman is the symbol of suppression and subjugation in
Islam. Another misconception the media has established in the Western society is that Muslim women have no rights in
Islam. But the fact is that Islam has given women rights over 1400 years ago which is ignored by many Muslims and
non-Muslims today. In Islam, woman is protected from being portrayed as a sex symbol. The Western media use the
hijab as a means of exploiting Muslim women, and degrading them. The image of a Muslim woman wearing chador was
captioned as “like death out for a walk” in the Australian Magazine, 1995. The French parliament imposed ban on hijab
for women in France in June 2009. Throughout the Western society, the practice of Muslim women wearing hijab has
resulted in extreme points of view towards their so-called oppression and lack of freedom. Najma says it is funny to the
same veil worn by Catholic nuns for God is despised and presented as a symbol of subjugation when it is worn by
Muslim women for the intention to protect and devote themselves to God.
Media and Terrorism and media ethical issues
Soharwardy analyzed that terrorism in the Western media is much slanted towards Islam. He pointed out that the
biased reporting, stereotype stories and hidden hate towards Muslims of the world are facts of western journalism.
They are not honest when a news item or a story involves a practicing Muslim or religion of Islam. Soharwardy
documents that every time when an incident of terrorism happens anywhere in the world, the Muslims living in
Western World especially in North America gets terrorized by the horrors of the news media. He criticizes that why
the media would not tell about the religious affiliation of a terrorist if he would not be a Muslim? But when a
Muslim individual is involved in any terrorist incident, his name is identified later but his religion is identified first.

He added that when news comes from Algeria about a killing incident, the media is very quick in using the word
"Muslim Terrorists", "Muslim Extremists", "Muslim Fundamentalists", "Islamic Rebels" etc. When the similar
killings take place in Zimbabwe, Congo, Rwanda, media never identify anyone as Christians. When Serbs were
killing Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo, media never say that Serbs are killing Muslims in the name of Christianity.
Media never say that these Serbs are Christians Fundamentalist and Christian Terrorists. When Croats were killing
Muslims in Bosnia and Croatia, no media identified them as Christian Terrorists. When a Hindu in Kashmir dies,
the blame goes immediately on Islamic Militants but when a Muslim dies no one identifies his / killer as a Hindu.
 4

Soharwardy highlights that the Western media is creating a very wrong image of Islam and Muslims through their
own judgments making an image among the Westerners that Islamic teachings that its people are threat to them.
Such images, he added create misunderstanding among the various religious and ethnic groups and ultimately
leading towards animosity, hate and intolerance among each other.
Cartoon controversy: IPI supports editorial independence in cartoon: Vienna, 14 February 2006
Speaking as a global press freedom organisation representing editors from the print and broadcasting media, the
International Press Institute (IPI) affirms its support for the right of editors to have the final decision on content,
while also calling on politicians to accept this principle when appealing for calm. Originally printed on 30
September 2005 by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, the cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed (pbuh)
were later reprinted by several media organisations, both in Europe and around the world. The result has been
widespread protests by Muslims and more than ten people were killed. The pressure on the media has also been
severe. Staff at the Jyllands-Posten received threats, while the original cartoonists are now in hiding under the
protection of Danish police. In Western societies, some editors were dismissed for reprinting the cartoons, and
others have come under intense pressure to apologise, while editors in the Muslim world have been fired, detained
and arrested and their publications closed down.

Commenting on the controversy, IPI Director Johann P. Fritz said, "I can fully understand that many people have
been offended by the cartoons; however, there is an essential principle at stake, which goes to the core of press
freedom, and this is the principle that editors decide on content." "Of course, this does not mean that editors and
media organisations should not be mindful of religious sensitivities, the potential consequences of their decisions,
or the possible need to seek advice from key decision-makers," said Fritz. "While it is entirely appropriate for
politicians to call for tolerance and calm, I am disappointed that some politicians have chosen to frame their
responses in terms of the media responsibility without balancing such calls against the need for religious leaders
and the heads of Muslim countries to do likewise."

At present, IPI is deeply concerned about calls for further legal initiatives to curb freedom of the media; for
example, the apparent attempt by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to give United Nations Human Rights
Council the power to "prevent instances of intolerance, discrimination, incitement of hatred and violence arising
from any actions against religion." At the international level, there are already sufficient legal protections for
freedom of the press and religion. The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted in
1966 by the United Nations, sets out legal provisions safeguarding not only freedom of the press (Article 19), but
also religion (Article 18). However, there are important limitations on these rights.
Furthermore, the ICCPR contains restrictions, for example, "Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred
that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law." Incitement, by
general understanding, is defined as "a causal link between hate speech and a criminal act of violence that can be
proven," said Fritz. The cartoon controversy has unfortunately also led some representatives at the national and
European levels to call for additional self-regulatory codes, which encroach media independence.
 5

The cartoon controversy and possibility of cosmopolitanism: Thomas Hylland Eriksen, May 23, 2006.
The cartoon controversy, which erupted unexpectedly early in 2006, has a profound significance for any discussion
of cosmopolitanism. Some of the several thousand media commentators talking about and compared it to the
Rushdie affair from 1988 onwards, but the more recent drama was simultaneously less and more significant than
the Iranian fatwa on Salman Rushdie: This conflict reached its climax within weeks and closed afterwards; and it
involved governments and businesses in a much more comprehensive way than the Rushdie affair, which remained
focused on a single person for over a decade. The controversy showed that offensive messages are quickly and
easily globalised in the information era. Mere religious differences are not sufficient for igniting serious conflict. In
this article, the implications of the cartoon affair for anthropological theorising of cosmopolitanism are discussed.

In the summer of 2005, Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Denmark’s largest newspaper Jyllands-
Posten invited the leading newspaper cartoonists of the country to make cartoons depicting the Prophet of
Muhammad (pbuh). Twelve of the forty responded, and the twelve cartoons were published in the weekend edition.
The cartoons range from the harmless to the potentially deeply insulting (although the general ban on depicting the
Prophet in Islam must be kept in mind, meaning that any drawing of Muhammad (pbuh) might in principle be seen
as offensive). A demonstration in central Copenhagen was organised in October, led by the Danish imam Ahmed
Abu Laban. The demonstration was not, incidentally, all about the cartoons, but was directed against the perceived
growing Islamophobia in Danish society. With other Muslim leaders from Denmark, Abu Laban soon after
travelled to several Muslim countries, asking for support in protesting to the Danish state. The result of the trip to
the Muslim countries was a letter of protest sent by eleven Muslim governments to the Danish Prime Minister,
asking him to meet with their ambassadors to explain the situation. Rasmussen refused to do this, arguing that it
was not the government’s business to interfere with the press.

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League then called for a general boycott against
Denmark. The cartoonists received threats. In January, a truly obscure publication in Norway called “Magazinet”,
run by fundamentalist Christian group, re-published the cartoons. As a result of this, Norway was increasingly
perceived as being complicit with Denmark in the conspiracy against Islam. In the beginning, protests in many
countries had turned violent. Embassies were burnt down in Damascus and Beirut; Libya closed its embassy in
Copenhagen, armed men stormed the EU offices in the Gaza strip, and there were angry demonstrations in many
countries with substantial Muslim populations.

During the riots in early February, people were killed in Gaza, Libya, Pakistan and elsewhere – only in Nigeria, 38
people were reported killed during anti-cartoon riots. At the same time, the cartoons were reprinted as an act of
solidarity in several other European countries and even the BBC showed the cartoons on TV. Also at the same time,
however, Danish and Norwegian authorities were increasingly feeling uneasy. The Norwegian Prime Minister made
a public apology to Muslims on a trip to Palestine in January, saying that the freedom of expression was a strongly
held value in Norwegian society, but that this did not mean that one had the right to insult others. As things got out
 6

of hand, even Jyllands-Posten apologised “for having offended many Muslims”, the Danish Prime Minister
mumbled his apologies as he realised that Muslim countries were boycotting Dutch products. By this time,
however, the affair had gained momentum, and the rioters in the Muslim countries did not closely follow
developments in Northern Europe.

The public debates, the demonstrations, the accusations, the riots and anger flared up suddenly. There are
indications that Denmark’s international reputation has suffered (on 6 April, the Indian government announced that
it had cancelled a visit from the Danish Prime Minister, stating that he had become too controversial). It may also
be of some interest that Jyllands-Posten was offered some funny drawings of Jesus Christ in 2003, made by the
Danish artist Christoffer Zieler. The Sunday editor wrote, in his reply to Zieler: “As a matter of fact, I do not think
that the readers of Jyllands-Posten will enjoy the cartoons. Actually, I think they will lead to an outrage. Therefore,
I will not publish them.” One may moreover suspect that a few Danes, in spite of their suddenly vehement support
of the freedom of expression, would have been annoyed if a Muslim cartoonist had made a few such caricatures and
had them published in a leading newspaper – even if there is no ban on depicting Jesus in Christianity.

More complex positions are common, and several of them are relevant for a discussion about cosmopolitanism. We
may provisionally divide the positions on the caricature issue in two: The confrontational and the alternative. As
shown already, the caricatures were not published as a matter of principle: Jyllands-Posten had refused to print
caricatures of Jesus because the freedom of expression does not oblige one to print just anything. The newspaper is,
incidentally, supportive of the government. The editor of the Norwegian Magazinet is a staunch supporter of a law
against blasphemy which Norwegian authorities have to date not succeeded in getting rid of, but he thinks that it
should only protect Christians. In other words, a principled defence of the unlimited freedom of expression does
not, in this case, sound convincing. If we concentrate on Danish society, leaving the problems of the Arab and
Muslim worlds aside for a moment, it may be said that those who have defended the view that the controversy
proves the existence of an insurmountable gulf between “us” and “them” have limited faith in the possibility of a
society based on both shared values and different values. In other words, they reject the cosmopolitan ideal of
dialogue and mutual understanding which does not mechanically lead to agreement and similarity. A few examples
of this kind of attitude follow as illustrations.

The Norwegian Progress Party demanded that the government should cease to have contact with the Norwegian
Islamic council, since the latter was opposed to printing the cartoons. On 2 February, Mullah Krekar, a Kurdish
religious leader who has spent much time in Norway, said to a newspaper that the publication of the cartoons was
tantamount to “a declaration of war against Islam”. The famous social scientist Johan Galtung said a day later, to
another newspaper, that one must expect terrorist attacks in Norway and Denmark now. He saw the publication of
the cartoons as an insensitive use of freedom of expression, and compared it to publishing a cartoon which depicts
sex between the Virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost. The Danish government’s refusal to meet ambassadors from
Muslim countries could equally be seen as an indication of an attitude precluding the possibility of mutual
understanding. (Strangely, the Danish government at one point requested Arab governments to apologise for the
 7

burning of the Danish flag.). These views seem to deny the possibility of a middle ground. Alternative views are
even more diverse.

A Norwegian NGO organised a demonstration in favour of the freedom of expression. Their position, which did not
attract much attention from the media, was complex in that it argued that a condition for practising the freedom of
expression in a culturally diverse society would be mutual respect. It goes without saying that it is impossible to
legislate for or against respect. The famous Muslim academic Tariq Ramadan, writing in the International Herald
Tribune, elaborates on the same position: What we need now on both sides is an understanding that this is not a
legal issue, or an issue of rights. Free speech is a right in Europe and legally protected. No one should contest this.
At the same time, there should be an understanding that the complexion of European society has changed with
immigrants from diverse cultures. Because of that, there should be sensitivity to Muslims and others living in
Europe.

Hitchen concedes that synagogues and mosques may be a special kind of building for certain people, but that he is
not required to respect them any more than faithful believers can be expected to respect them. A Muslim writing in
a Norwegian newspaper pointed out that there exists a set of ethical guidelines for the Norwegian press, known as
the “Be Cautious poster”, where it says that one shall show respect for peoples personal peculiarities, private life,
race, nationality and religion. Within Islam, the writer adds, it is an absolute and incontestable sin to depict
Mohammad (pbuh). The liberal response to this view is that it may be a sin for you, but for me it is not.

Website has been set up by moderate Danish Muslims under the heading “It’s enough now!” with a mission
statement saying that the Muhammad (pbuh) cartoons were a provocation, but that one cannot prohibit such
statements in a liberal society. Substantial segments of the Danish and Norwegian populations believe that it was
unwise to publish the Muhammad (pbuh) cartoons, while others think that it is exactly for this kind of purpose the
freedom of the press exists. As I shall argue, the latter position is incompatible with cosmopolitanism.

The author has argued in a book about the new enemy image of Islam (Eriksen, 2001), in order to understand the
disappointment and occasional rage encountered in Muslim societies. It is necessary to look not at the relations of
production, but at the relations of communication. Humiliation, the result of disrespect, is a key term here. It is a
common view among Muslims that they are not taken seriously, not listened to, not treated as equals. That is
certainly a widespread perception in contemporary Denmark. Uneven relations of communication result in one
party feeling that it is not being heard. Thus Danes may say to the Muslims that you can say whatever you like
about our gods, and we say whatever we like about yours, and we then have equality. Quite apart from the fact that
Danes are generally secular and Muslims are generally religious, and that there is a religious ban on depicting the
Prophet in Islam, Muslims know that this is a bogus equality, for reasons that we do not need to go into them here.
This inequality partly accounts for the violence in the reactions of some, and the calls for moderation in the use of
the freedom of expression among others. But we must return to the cartoons.
 8

The kind of cosmopolitan attitude leading to restraint can be compared to the underlying reasoning behind the ban
on smoking in public, which is these days being implemented in many parts of the world – but not in Muslim
countries! A Swede who lives part of the year in Cairo, part of the year in Göteborg, told that in Göteborg he can
have his beer any time anywhere, but he has to go outside to smoke; in Cairo it’s the other way around. The point
is, however, that supposing I smoke and you do not, and we are in a room together, I might just tell you that if I
smoke and you don’t, we both enjoy our liberal freedom. This is the problem of the cartoon controversy and the
simplistic liberal responses to the offended reactions among Muslims.

Cosmopolitanism presupposes the acknowledgment of living in the same society, which confers not only rights but
also responsibilities. When Salman Rushdie’s Indian publishers were offered “The Satanic Verses”, they were
uncertain as to what to do, given the already controversial reputation of the book, and they asked Khushwant Singh
for advice. Singh is a liberal in Indian public life, having written a very great number of books, articles and columns
all over the country since just after the Second World War. He hates secterianism and enjoys his whisky in a very
public way. Surprisingly, Khushwant Singh recommended that Rushdie’s book should not be published. His
reasoning was that the few members of the Indian cultural elite who would really enjoy it could get it from England
anyway, and if it were to be published in India, the result was likely to be riots and unnecessary deaths. And so the
book was not published in India, which was a clear victory for a cosmopolitan attitude that transcends mere
liberalism and acknowledges that difference necessitates respect.

Journalism and Combating Intolerance: How the Cartoons Row is a Challenge to Free Expression and
Quality Media By Aidan White, General Secretary of the International Federation of Journalists

In a world of increasing anxiety where problems of religious intolerance, terrorism and ethnic conflict feature
strongly on the news agenda, the role and responsibility of news media came into sharp focus early this year when
the publication of a handful of cartoons sparked street protests, mob violence and the deaths of around 20 people.
The global firestorm over the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed revealed a chasm of
misunderstanding and ignorance in relations between Muslim and western communities and underlined why
journalists need to be more conscious then ever about the dangers of media manipulation by crooked politicians and
racists. Suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, media standards came under scrutiny as angry Muslims, many of them
not particularly religious, protested at the perceived casual disregard of cultural sensibilities over the publication of
images of the Prophet, which is traditionally forbidden. It confirmed the feeling among many that, for all the talk of
liberty, pluralism, and human rights, western media are narrowly-focused and inconsistent in their interpretation of
what constitutes freedom of expression. Media were also accused of displaying shocking ignorance about other
cultures, even when they form substantial minority communities within the local population. When this controversy
exploded across the globe, it touched off a political storm about attachment to democratic values, about relations
between media and government and the role of media in moderating the so-called “clash of civilizations.”

Within media and journalism, the controversy has served as something of a wake up call, initiating a round of
debate and analysis among journalists about how they do their job and what they need to do, if anything, to improve
 9

their performance. The reaction of many journalists to this controversy was, at first, defensive. Media are used to
criticism and wary of where it comes from. They have good reason to be suspicious. Journalists know that when
media are taken out of the hands of professionals they can become destructive weapons. In the 1990s conflict in the
Balkans and genocide in Rwanda in 1994 provided brutal reminders that human rights law, journalistic codes and
international goodwill count for little when unscrupulous politicians, exploiting public ignorance and insecurity,
use compliant media to encourage violence and hatred.

In the 2000s a new war in the Middle East, the manufacture of a clash of civilizations between Christianity and
Islam, and a resurgence of community conflict in Europe, dramatically exposed by violence in the urban centres of
France, the UK, the Netherlands and elsewhere, have all stirred centuries-old resentments about foreigners in our
midst. The problem of intolerance is a constant threat to good journalism everywhere. Urban violence in North
America and Europe, the rise in influence of extremist right-wing political parties, the re-emergence of anti-
Semitism, widespread religious intolerance in parts of Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and prejudice and
discrimination against national minorities on the basis of language and social status, are all part of the global
landscape of daily news reporting.

In this complex news environment journalists can become casual victims of prejudice and political manipulation.
Too often, ignorance and a lack of appreciation of different cultures, traditions and beliefs lead to media stereotypes
that reinforce racist attitudes and strengthen the appeal of political extremists. Certainly that’s how many people in
the Muslim world saw the row over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. They point to European media stereotypes
of the Arab world that seem to be greater and more dangerous than they have been for decades. They say that media
fail to distinguish between fundamentalism and mainstream Islam and appear to regard engagement with religious
communities as compromising progressive values rather than an opportunity for dialogue in order to win people
over. It is indisputable that the emphasis on terrorism and fanaticism in the Arab world has been made worse by the
war on terrorism launched by the U.S. after the September 11 attack on New York and Washington.

It is an obsession, fed by sensationalist and superficial reporting of conflict in the Middle East and nurtured by
extremist politicians. It has contributed to an increasingly fearful climate within previously stable metropolitan
communities in Europe. The cartoons controversy provides something of a case study on the positive and negative
roles media can play in turbulent times. What began as a legitimate journalistic exercise got out of control when it
became politicized. Some journalists and media became engaged in editorial activity which provided nourishment
for some deeply unpleasant politics. The argument of editorial legitimacy and relevance for publishing the cartoons,
not for reporting the argument, became more difficult the further the story traveled from its point of origin. It
became, for many in journalism a test case for basic democratic values and free expression.

No story in recent history has been discussed in so many newsrooms. In almost every daily newspaper, television
and online news business, not just in Europe, but around the world, the discussion raged – whether or not to publish
these cartoons. Arguments flowed back and forth about how to cover the story, with or without the cartoons?
There’s no doubt about the majority verdict. In the end only about two per cent of publications in Europe and many
 10

fewer across the world decided to publish. On television the numbers were even less. The vast majority of
journalists considered the issue and decided against publication. These were judgment calls freely made, in Europe
at least. It was a demonstration that freedom of expression is not just about the right to publish, it is equally about
the right not to publish, and that journalists can and do balance carefully the three cardinal principles of their trade –
to respect the truth, to be impartial and to minimize harm.

Regrettably, those who decided to publish in many parts of the Muslim world suffered most, illustrating what we all
know about the distance yet to be traveled by some countries along the road to democracy. This controversy raised
a number of serious questions about how media work. How do news media defend themselves from outside
pressure? What can journalists do to improve ethical standards, particularly when they are in the crossfire of social
conflict? What standards do media professionals need to set to bring balance and equality into the way media work
that will, in the process, improve the quality of reporting? Above all, the row has challenged media professional
groups – in both Europe and the Arab world – to establish a dialogue on how best to balance cultural and religious
sensitivity and the right to free expression. To start this process the International Federation of Journalists brought
together some leading professional groups, journalists and others, including the European Commission, Unesco and
the Council of Europe, to talk through some of the arguments in Brussels.

We emerged, predictably, with no magical or simple set of solutions, but at least with agreement on a rejection of
violence, a call for dialogue, a restatement of democratic values, and for journalists to be allowed to work freely
without interference. A joint declaration was signed by all professional groups present except newspaper
publishers. Another professional meeting was held at the end of March in Oslo bringing together journalists and
experts from the Arab world, Norway and Denmark. The conclusions were much the same – that the cartoons
dispute should set editorial alarm bells ringing, that media need to improve their performance and that journalists
need to rebuild confidence in the notion that media speak for everyone, not just for the settled majority. These
initial discussions also reveal that freedom of expression is not some inflexible, one-size-fits-all concept. It differs
from country to country. We all grow up with taboos, which vary from culture to culture, but when they are applied
with widespread and common consent, they do not compromise principles set out in Article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights which states that everyone has the right to receive and impart information.

In Europe many countries still have punitive laws on blasphemy and there are places where you can be prosecuted
for wearing Nazi insignia. As the historian David Irving discovered in Vienna earlier this year, there are also
countries where you can go to prison for five years for simply denying the Holocaust. No wonder some Muslims
are confused when their complaints over the cartoons are dismissed as an attack on European ideals of freedom of
expression. The meetings in Brussels and Oslo dealt with all of this in restrained, professional and balanced
discussion. There is agreement all round, at national and international level, that discrimination within media
should be wiped out and that journalism should put populist and dangerous ideas under proper scrutiny. We need
standards for reporting which ensure people get the information they need, without lashings of bias and prejudice.
As a modest start, the meeting in Oslo called for a new umbrella group within media to be established to co-
 11

ordinate actions at national level to bridge the gulf of misunderstanding between cultures that led to the cartoons
controversy in the first place. In Brussels the IFJ was asked to continue to bring groups together. The starting point
for this work must be to raise awareness within media about the issues and to promote changes that will strengthen
journalism by putting the focus on ethics and quality. Ethical codes will not solve all the problems of intolerance in
media, but they help journalists to take responsibility and they encourage journalists to act according to their
conscience.
Regulating ethics is the collective business of journalists, not principally of the corporations which commission and
carry their journalism, and especially not of governments. Governments have a legitimate role in regulating media
structures to try to ensure the diversity necessary for freedom of expression to flourish, but journalists' ethics are a
matter of content, and when it comes to what news media write or broadcast, governments have no role to play. If
the cartoons issue achieved nothing else, it united journalists – from both Europe and around the Muslim world – in
their opposition to new codes and supranational rules imposed by governments. The controversy was proof positive
that editorial judgment, exercised freely, is what works best. Ethics, therefore, have to be actively supported, and
particularly the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of religion, race or nationality which is one of the most
general features of professional codes agreed at national and international level.
But like all the other skills of journalism: it takes training, time and effort to become good at applying ethical codes
which direct thinking and permit conscious decision making. The Oslo meeting went further and adopted a range of
objectives for work at national and international level, in particular to campaign vigorously to recruit more people
from different ethnic and cultural groups into journalism. Journalism to be effective, must be inclusive, accountable
and a reflection of the whole community. Editors and journalists pledged to do something about this. The argument
for internal diversity is not about "do-gooder" journalism, but aims to improve efficiency, professionalism. If these
new initiatives gain support, they will provide some lasting benefits. The cartoon controversy has, at least, opened
the eyes of many in Western media to their own poor performance. It should reinforce efforts of journalists and
others to support movement for progressive change throughout the Middle East.

Cartoon controversy is bad press for free speech: The Jakarta Post, (2006) Endy M. Bayuni
The controversy over the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet of Muhammad in European newspapers has
unfortunately, but predictably, led us to a debate between free speech versus religious (Muslim) taboos. Some have
even, by way of extension and convenience, framed this debate in terms of Samuel Huntington's proposition of a
""Clash of Civilizations"" between the West and the Islamic world. Much as the defenders of the publication of the
cartoons in Europe try to advance the cause of free speech in this debate, they are actually doing a great disservice
to the cause, not only in the Islamic world, but also in many developing countries, and more especially in
democratizing countries like Indonesia. They have taken this battle to an arena where we least want it. This is
because the more they invoke free speech, as they are apt to do now, the more fuel they are giving to the opponents
of free speech in these developing countries. Sadly, there is never a shortage of such opponents.
 12

As the controversy intensifies, proponents of free speech in Indonesia, as no doubt in most other predominantly
Muslim countries will have to openly condemn the European media for publishing the provocative cartoons, and
probably condemn the European governments too for their inaction. The cartoons reflect poor taste, ignorance,
arrogance and very poor judgment on the part of the editors. If free speech means being associated with these
cartoons and the right to insult others, then many people, even the staunchest supporters of freedom, will want to
keep their distance. By doing this, they are inadvertently aligning themselves with the anti-free speech camp. As
with most debates, there is hardly any middle ground. It's one of those awkward ""with us or against us"" situations
all over again. Either you defend the cartoons or you condemn them. And either you are for free speech, or you are
against free speech. Why newspapers in Europe should want to publish these cartoons really baffles the mind. No
self-respecting editor, and one who is truly concerned with freedom of speech, should be associated with the
cartoons, much less publish them. One can only speculate about the motives behind their publication: business
considerations, or political or some other self-serving interests. It's hard to believe that free speech in Europe was
ever in danger in the wake of this cartoon controversy.
But neither free speech nor democracy for more than 1.2 billion people living in the Islamic world is foremost in
their minds. The cartoon controversy will subside sooner or later, but beyond giving a bad name to free speech, it
will leave a long lasting and detrimental impact on people in many countries, in terms of the struggle for their own
freedom of speech and democracy. Publication of the cartoons, and the way the European media has been up in
arms defending them and thus perpetuating the controversy, is the worst kind of publicity that the proponents of
free speech in the Islamic world could ask for. For now, and probably for the coming years, many of us might as
well bury our heads in the ground.

Muslims Claim West has Double Standard on Cartoon Controversy Mohamed Elshinnawi (2006)
Danish Prime Minister's refusal to criticize the newspaper that originally published the cartoons did not sit well
with the leaders of many Muslim nations, including King Abdullah of Jordan: "With all respect to press freedoms,
obviously, anything that vilifies the Prophet Muhammad -- peace be upon him -- or attacks Muslim sensibilities,
needs to be condemned." Dr. Parvez Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of Council on American-Islamic Relations
says Muslims do not see this is as a free speech issue but as an attack on religion. "Muslims have always
encouraged freedom of speech, even from the early days of the Islamic state, from the time of the Prophet
Muhammad. Freedom of speech was always encouraged; in the Quran itself. God gave Satan the right to speak. So
we understand that every entity has the right to say whatever they want to say, but along with this right comes
responsibility. The outpouring of anger in the Islamic World may also be a reaction to how Muslims perceive the
West has treated them, says Shireen Hunter, a professor at the Center for Christian Islamic Understanding at
Georgetown University. The feeling that the Muslim world, at least for the past 200 years, has been subject of
colonization and other pressures is very alive. And we have had other issues: Bosnia war, Chechnya war, and other
conflicts that have also made the Muslims feel that somehow their grievances are not taken into account.
 13

Some Muslims who live in the West are also offended by what they see as a double standard in the laws against
inciting hatred and violence that have sprung up in Europe. They ask why it is forbidden to challenge the actuality
of the mass murder of the Holocaust, or to support the Nazi's racist ideology, but not forbidden to criticize Islam.
Dr. Ahmed adds, "Things that are being said about Islam and Muslims today in Europe and America, where
mainstream religious leaders have said very derogatory things about the Prophet Muhammad, Islam and Allah in a
way that if it had been said for any other faith, or any other group there would have been a major backlash on it.
Unfortunately these important religious and political figures, made these hateful comments about Islam.

Professional Ethics by Mohammad A. Siddiqi

The mass media appear to be more practical than abstract and philosophical. However, both news and
entertainment convey, reinforce, and are based on certain beliefs and value system. The epistemological and the
ethical foundations of contemporary mass media practices are deeply rooted in the western ideologies and
philosophies. The major motive behind all mass media structures, practices and processes is based on sales values
and governed by the market mechanism. Media code of ethics and watchdog mechanism are ignored by the media
practitioners because they contradict the prevailing social order and hinder the pursuit of private good. The situation
in Muslim countries, or of Muslim media practitioners, is not different from that of the western media.

Various forms of mass media ethics pertaining to the rights, responsibilities, freedom, and regulation of the press
have been debated in European cultures since the introduction of the press in the 15th and early 16th centuries.
Most of these debates focused on two areas: professional ethics related to the training of media professionals; and
normative philosophical theories of public communication which bear on the professional obligations of media
practitioners. The new information technologies of our time have tremendously increased the power and function of
the mass media, and at the same time have put enormous pressure on media scholars to rethink and redefine the
parameters of ethics for journalists and media practitioners. On the one hand, these new technologies are
democratizing the process of communication by encouraging communication between individuals; on the other
hand, they also provide opportunities for the rich and elite to monopolize the information and manipulate it and thus
control others’ destinies without their consent or even against their will. This, as an eminent communication scholar
Everett Rogers notes, is an epistemological turning point in media analysis and the new communication
technologies are the driving force behind this revolution.

It is not likely that the tension between the forces of the free market place of ideas and those advocating the
responsible behaviour of media practitioners is going to be resolved. There are two main reasons: because the
forces of the free market place of ideas dominate the economic and consequently the political structures, and
because those who advocate responsible behaviour for journalists constitute a minority and have no or only an
insignificant role in the decision making process pertaining to media management and ownership. Merrill has
divided existing media codes of ethics and responsibility into three types: that which is legally defined or
determined by governments; that which is professionally defined or determined by the press itself; and that which is
pluralistically defined or determined by individual journalists themselves. Merrill sees the third theory as the only
 14

one that is valid, meaningful, and in harmony with the values and goals of western societies, especially American
society. In attempting to compare existing codes of ethics, Thomas W. Cooper has provided a national, ideational,
historical, and linguistic context. Placing these codes within a spectrum of emphasis, Cooper illustrated some of the
most important polarities by which most of the codes can be explained from ‘informal’ to ‘formal’, from ‘minimal’
to ‘ideal’, from ‘material’ to metaphysical’, the ‘inihibitive’ to the ‘inspirational’, etc.

While obviously there is no attempt, by western scholars, to compare these codes within the Islamic framework,
Claude-Jean Bertrand has noted that the West is more concerned with ethical issues in the context of a ‘free press’,
‘and the rest of the world is more interested in issues regarding ‘justice’. Herbert Altschull has used loose
categories of market oriented countries, Marxist, and advancing nations, and has described the articles of faith that
form the basis of media codes of ethics. There may be numerous contexts and methodological devices by which
codes may be classified. However, looking at the three perspectives, one may conclude that most western nations,
including the newly liberated nations of East Europe, are increasingly inclined towards a market based theory of
responsibility in mass media which is in fact a theory of individual pluralism. Or in clearer terms: the code of ethics
is what an individual journalist, or a particular media institution, or a particular society deems fit for the material
benefit of the journalist, or the press, or of the society as a whole. Thus the meaning and values assigned to
concepts such as news, truth, objectivity, freedom, people’s right to know, and facts, may change according to
particular circumstances or according to the needs of a particular society at a particular time.

This is the most that one can get from reviewing the existing literature on media ethics from western scholars’
theses on this issue. Individual codes of ethics may vary from nation to nation only with respect to national
priorities, linguistic constraints, cultural diversity, or the type of political structure. Despite efforts to draw up an
internationally agreed code of ethics, in practical terms there exist different codes of journalistic ethics in many
nations of the east, west, north and south. The process of mass communication is dictated by a journalist’s own
vision of what can be most readily sold to the public, and in what form. That is why there are ‘codes without
conduct, technology without humanity, theory without practice, global change without personal change, and
personal ethics, without world awareness.’

References
Agha Olfat Hassan (2002) Islamic Fundamentalism and its image in the Western,
http:/bertie.la.utexas.edu/research/acpass/English/ekuras/ek25
Ahmed (1992). Encyclopaedia of Women and Islamic Culture. Derived on March 26, 2008from http://www.google.co.uk/search?
hl=en&rlz=1T4ADBF_en- GBPK258PK258&q= Ahmed%
Akbar S. Ahmed. (1993). Living Islam, From Samarkand to Stornoway. BBC Books Limited, Woodlands, London.
Armour, R., Sr. (2002). Islam, Christianity, and the West: Atroubled history. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Quraishi, B. (2001). Islam in the Western Media After 9/11.
Eric, Gormly (2004). Journal of Media and Religion, 3(4), 219–238
Esposito, J. L. (1995). The Islamic threat: Myth or reality? New York: Oxford University Press.
Gibbs, N. (2002, July 1). Apocalypse now. Time, 160(1), 40–48.
 15

Haddad, & Haddad, (1995). Christian–Muslim encounters. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
Hanan, A. M. (2006). The media-foreign policy relationship: Pakistan’s media image and U.S. foreign policy. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, York University, Canada.
Hassan, Anser (2001). Invitation to Islam: Islamic Stereotypes in Western Mass Media.
http://psirus.sfsu.edu/IntRel/Rjournal/sp95/hassan.html.
Iqbal Sacranie (2003). Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain.
Michael, Devolin. (2008). Islam: The Real Culprit. The New Media Journal, vol.. 1
Mishra, S (2007). Saving" Muslim women and fighting Muslim men: Analysis of representations in The New York Times. Global
media journal-American Edition, fall Volume (6), Issue 11
Mughees-uddin. (1995). Image of Iran in the Western media, Iranshenasi Q. Journal, XXXVIII, 4, 32-48.
Noshina, Saleem (2006.) U.S. Media Framing of Foreign Countries Image: An Analytical Perspective. Canadian Journal of Media
Studies, Vol. 2(1)
Perlmutter, A. (1993 January 22). Islamic fundamentalist network, The Washington Times.
Poole, E. (2000). Framing Islam: An analysis of newspaper coverage of Islam in the British Press.
Siraj, Wahab (2007). Islamophobia Worst Form of Terrorism. Arab News, Islamabad,
Appiah, Kwame Anthony (2006) Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: Norton.
Gray, John (2006) Easier said than done.
Hitchens, Christopher (2006) The case for mocking religion.
Ramadan, Tariq (2006) Free speech and civic responsibility.
International Herald Tribune, 5 February 2006.
Poynter Podcast: Covering the Caricature Controversy.
RAND and RAND-St Andrews chronologies published by RAND Corporation, Santa Monica and, since 1995, in the academic
journal Terrorism and Political Violence (TPV) (7/4, 8/3).
Frank Cass, London Paul Wilkinson (1997) Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol.9, No.2 (Summer 1997), 51-64
Bernard Lewis (1967). The Assassins: A Radical Sect in 4. Islam. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Russian and Balkan terrorist movements of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are described in Waiter Laqueur,
Terrorism (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson 1977).
Alex Schmid and Janny de Graaf, Violence as Communication: Insurgent Terrorism and the Western News Media (Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage 1982), Richard Clutterbuck, The Media and Political Violence (London: Macmillan 1981) and Abraham
Miller (ed.), Terror, the Media and the Law (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Transaction 1982).
Michel Wieviorka, The Making of Terrorism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1988) P.43.
Alex P. Schmid, 'Terrorism and the Media: The Ethics of Publicity', TPV 1/4 (Oct. 1989) pp.539-65.
http://www.Soharwardy@Home.com Ethics and responsibility in journalism: An Islamic perspective