3 ms·
So about 8 per day distributed across 5 media outlets. It's also important to highlight the article's last two paragraphs as it constrasts significantly with t
by manfredo 8y ago
So about 8 per day distributed across 5 media outlets.
It's also important to highlight the article's last two paragraphs as it constrasts significantly with the tone of the headline:
> Articles were regarded as “negative articles written about Islam”, if they “referred to Islam or Muslims alongside words like violence, extremism, terrorism or radical”. It should be noted – this is a pretty expansive definition. A story that accurately reported a noteworthy incident of Muslim violence, without being inflammatory or misrepresenting material facts, and which had the respectful cooperation of Muslims, would still be caught up under this definition.
> Indeed, the definition could go further. A report that noted Muslim women in a non-government organisation helping victims of domestic violence might also be caught up under this definition. It should also be noted – there is an implicit slippage, in the sense that a negative story about Muslims isn’t necessarily a story about Islam. Thus, I would argue that the definition may be overbroad.
Edit: Originally, I erroneously wrote that this was 8 per day across all Murdoch owned outlets. That is not the case, it is among 5 specific ones.
- zinckiwi 8y agoAbout 8 per day too many, no?
- zamadatix 8y agoPossibly, I think the noted downsides of the methodology prevent drawing any conclusions at all let alone decisively counted ones.
- bacondude3 8y agoNo. Islam, and its followers, are not perfect. Why should they be totally free from criticism? Edit: Would you say it's 8 too many per day if they were trashing Trump? (or Israel, or Hillary Clinton, or anything/anybody else with faults)
- manfredo 8y agoWhy should one make the blanket assumption that criticism of Islam bad? If a cleric says women should not have the right to vote, why is it a bad thing for me to criticize this Islamic cleric, and the broader trends such statements reflect? Let's be clear: there absolutely are valid reasons to be critical of Islam. It is entirely appropriate, for example, to "trash" the fact that in some regions of the word the majority of Muslims support executing those that leave the religion: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/ http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi... The undertone of the article seems to be implying that negative media coverage of Islam is reponsible for Islamaphobia. While I'm sure many people erroneous apply negative comments about trends in Islam asa whole with individual Muslims, the blanket assumption that criticism of Islam equates to Islamaphobia is also reductive and non-productive. (Deleted bit about the number of companies Murdoch owns, as it is not relevant to the study in question).
- hnuser123457 8y agoNo.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- bobthechef 8y agoWouldn't that depend on accuracy? You're assuming here that all negative press for Islam is necessarily evil, which is false. Negative press isn't the same as bigotry. Incidentally, I would be interested in the amount of negative coverage, say, the Catholic Church gets in the media as a point of comparison, perhaps especially in the left-leaning media.
- manicdee 8y agoJust because you present the facts doesn’t mean you aren’t biased. Note the focus of some of these articles on individual incidents in a civil war, for example a particular group of predominantly Muslims killing a lot of Christians on a particular day. The reporter neglects to cover the other six days of the week when many more Muslims were killed by this group. Is that fair coverage? Does it appear to be accurate? Is it negative about Islam?
- yakshaving_jgt 8y agoNo ideology should be protected from criticism. Real people are suffering and dying today at the hands of those with a more fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. By suggesting Islam should not be criticised, you are an apologist for that oppression.
- ceejayoz 8y ago> Distributed across all these entities No. Five newspapers. "The report investigates how five newspapers covered Islam in 2017... The newspapers were all Murdoch’s: the Australian, Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph, Courier Mail, and Adelaide Advertiser." There are presumably many thousands more in the other Murdoch properties around the world.
- manfredo 8y agoThanks for catching this inaccuracy, I'll update the original post.
- flukus 8y agoJust as important as the methodology is this: > The report investigates how five newspapers covered Islam in 2017 This was around the time of peak ISIS and peak Syrian civil war, the prefect time to be seeing those terms thrown around. Did they break down what section they appeared in too? 8 a day in the first couple of pages seems excessive, but if they include 3 line articles in the world news section then it's more than reasonable. Andrew Bolt though, no matter what your view on Islam, does it really deserve mentioning in 38% of his articles.
- smsm42 8y ago> Andrew Bolt though, no matter what your view on Islam, does it really deserve mentioning in 38% of his articles. Depends on what is his work area and interests. Journalists often work in specific segments. If somebody covers US White House, it'd be no wonder they mention Trump frequently. If somebody covers British politics, there would be tons of Brexit. If somebody covers Middle East and Syria, well, there would be a lot of ISIS and such. And if somebody is into crypto currencies, there would be a lot of Bitcoin mentions. I don't think its more fair to say it's obsession than saying a particular sports journalist is "obsessed with baseball" because 38% of his articles mention the sport. Yet less it means the particular person hates baseball and is "baseballphobic".
- flukus 8y agoThat might be the case with some of them, but he's the head columnist and is/was an editor for one of the countries largest papers and syndicated in most other major ones. He's a regular political commentator and has a daily TV show. You'd expect someone with that level of influence to be a generalist and cover a broad range of material relevant to society and not to focus on a single issue so consistently. > And if somebody is into crypto currencies, there would be a lot of Bitcoin mentions. And that would show a clear bias, which I think is also demonstrated for Bolt.
- cam_l 8y agoI would recommend you read some of Bolt's work for you to understand exactly how off base your comment (though perfectly reasonable in abstract) is, when applied to Bolt in particular. Though in truth, i would not wish such a fate on my worst enemy. Bolt is as bad at writing as he as a human being.
- smsm42 8y agoThe article itself mentions that even articles about Trump bombing Assad forces are counted as "negative on Islam". Also looking at the pictures of headlines they provided, only one says anything about Islam (at least in the headline, there could be more in the article but they specifically talk about headlines). I think this is a study which aimed at predetermined conclusion and was successful in reaching it.
- ceejayoz 8y agoYeah, there are major methodology issues here. A much more reputable study with actual controls: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/20/muslim-terror-attacks-press-coverage-study https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/20/muslim-terro...