As a BBC journalist, my experience of Islamaphobia reached boiling point last year over the Prophet Mohammed cartoons debate. But my frustration wasn’t about the publication of the pictures – I had come to expect the insensitivity that accompanied reproducing them in the media.
Nor was about the views of colleagues, many of whom defended the cartoons publication as a right in a free society. A motion even appeared on an internal BBC message board with a considerable number of signatories subscribing to this message: ”Bush House journalists express their solidarity with the newspapers and editors involved in the publication or re-publication of the Danish cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammed. Criticising or satirising religion in general and any religion in particular is a non-negotiable right in a free society and a vital prerogative of the media in Liberal democracies. We are appalled by the threats to European journalists and other citizens in parts of the Arab or Muslim world and unreservedly condemn political pandering to religious bigotry.”
What forced me to bow my head in disappointment was the NUJ’s statement in support of the BBC’s decision to broadcast the cartoons on Newsnight.
The NUJ applauded what they called “BBC journalists’ impartial and responsible reporting of the issues surrounding the publication of the cartoons” and “supported the decision to show the cartoons”, saying “they gave a legitimate news story proper context” – basically rolling out the perennial sacred cow of the right to free speech.
Over the years I thought I had developed a thick skin to the anti-Muslim bias in the media, but something stirred in my heart when I read the NUJ statement. To me it was like my best friend was not understanding me. And if your best friend doesn’t know you, then who does?
The cartoons debate provides a perfect example of how the treatment of Islam has become so neglectful and sloppy that it’s confusing and dividing even friends. Justifying this as ‘freedom of speech’ and the right to publish are lazy and convenient arguments. What happened to creative writing? What happened to respect? Why couldn’t journalists have described the pictures using words?
What is going on in the press these days is good old-fashioned racism. Muslim-baiting is not an expression of press freedom, its racism.
Those who want to fight for media freedom should ask what role the press played when the government put forward its arguments for invading Iraq, or during the Iran hostage crisis that never was? Or they should look at how a handful of businessmen own the British press.
You don’t need a background in religious affairs to understand Muslims, you don’t have to be religious – the criteria are better understanding and respect for others of different cultures and faiths.
Many journalists know this already but basically they just don’t care – they deliberately treat stories to do with Islam in a certain way.
For example, I produced an item for BBC2 about how some Muslim activists were trying to turn the turn the tide of bad press coverage and reclaim Islam from extremist elements. The activists said the press didn’t have time for their grass roots work and community projects. So we carried out a stunt: we invited the broadsheets to a “Muslim” charity event. The response? Journalists seemed only interested if there was going to be violence or flag burning afterwards. Shameless.
The use of the word Islamaphobia is doing us no favours. Having a ‘phobia’ is acceptable, but nobody wants to be a racist.
So how can we counter this bigotry? During my training at the Beeb I was told there are six principal questions to ask when writing a story; who, what, when, where, why and how. To encourage conscientious story telling, I’d like to add a seventh question to the list: ‘Am I being racist?’
Finally, I’d like to quote one of my colleagues who responded to those who supported publishing or broadcasting the Danish cartoons.
“People like Ghandi and Martin Luther King will give up their lives to uphold the basic values of respect and understanding, not because they’re cowards and not because they want to appease the extremists but because they know that nothing can replace understanding and respect.
“It is this which will prevail in history and not the Bin Ladens and Abu Hamzas, or the editors and weak journalists who want to provoke unnecessary reaction by inflicting insults on more than a billion-and-a-half people with a particular faith.”
You can’t argue with that. If you do then it’s like arguing with a drunk. Make mine a lime soda – I’m a Muslim.
By Uzma Hussain, a BBC staff member who has worked in a variety of journalism and other roles at the organisation for nearly 10 years. She gave this speech at an MWAW fringe meeting at NUJ national conference
