On it shouldn't happen to a Muslim

I have just watched Peter Oborne's documentary It shouldn't happen to a Muslim which appeared on Channel 4 last night.

The first half of the show looked at Islamophobia in the national press and the usual suspects of the Express,Mail and Sun were heavily refer ed to.

One of the most remarkable pieces in it was a scene in a shopping mall when he showed some members of the public headlines that had appeared in the papers such as Muslims tell us how to make our laws and substituted "Jews" or Blacks.

Showing these provoked reactions of horror from the public saying that it was racist or it was reminiscent of the Holocaust.When he then showed the real headline putting in the word Muslim,the consensus changed,the horror was no longer there and it was felt that it was simply a sign of the times.

It was interesting that he read from a piece in a London newspaper in 1911 which refereed to the Jews being Eastern European and unable to inegrate into British society.

The programme drew on a study from Cardiff School of journalism which looked at the trends of Muslim reporting between 2000-2008 which showed that there had been a trend to more stories on Muslims off the back of 9/11 but that in recent years,there was an increasing importance on the stories focusing on cultural and religious differences between Muslims and Christians rather than terrorism or related stories.

Framing the news over Philips comments?

It is not very often that I take a look at the BBC Bias site but this morning's post takes a look at the websites traetment of the Lord Philips story which has been running in the media.

Why is the article about accepting a role for Sharia in UK law given more prominence (with picture) on the BBC World News page than on the BBC UK page (where there is no picture, and it appears in the "other top stories" section. Oh, and the main story is something or other about a badger cull)?

asks the site.

Another example of promoting the minority?

Well this is the story here which says that

Lord Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, said there was no reason sharia law's principles could not be used in mediation

.

It is being reported across the media and the Express featured it as front page lead

Anyway the charge seems to be that the Beeb is once again showing its "Islamic tendancies" with comments on the site refering to the Today programme which strongly featured the story and though interviewed 3 supporters of the move and the complaints are that the negative point of view was not heard.

Does anyone deserve this (2)?

The coverage given to the speech and interview that Rowen Williams gave on Thursday has been unprecendented across the media and especially in the papers.

If you listen to the interview and read the transcripts of the speech,he certainly doesn't advocate bringing full blown sharia law into the country.He recognised that the nature of sharia in some Islamic countries is not what he is talking about,speaking specifically that the law relating to women would not be appropriate.

He also says that any system would have to give the right of appeal,and that he is talking about the civil law with regard to divorce.

What certain parts of the media has read into the interview is that he wants to bring a parallel system into the country,that Muslims woyld be above the rule of British law and we would soon be subjected to viewings of stoning and floggings on our streets.

The usual supects have led the way,headlines in the Sun along the lines of Bash the Bish ,the Express reporting that sharia is alreadt with us,linking it to terrorism,

These have all fuelled what has turned into outright Islamaphobia.Even the qualities have jumped on the bangwagon and this morning's stories such as the Sunday Times,Minister warns of ‘inbred’ Muslims and the Independent's A question of honour on thess papers front pages only add more fuel to the fire.

I am also sure that it is more than mere coincidence that the Sunday Express chooses to lead with SUICIDE BOMBER, 12, AT UK SCHOOL and could even point a finger at the Observer which tells us Top judges in key ruling on sharia marriage

So what is the solution.It was interesting watching Amanda Platell and Martin Amis discussing the papers on Sunday AM this morning,with the later frankly mistified by the coverage and the former claiming the papers were only responding to what the public wanting debating.

Well is that the case? The arguments about newspaper ideology will run and run but do papers set the agenda or respond to it?