Are The Media Racist? Discuss using appropriate examples with particular reference to Pilger's concept of 'unpeople'.

This could of course work to the contrary, but in western society it seems that people are far more ready to accept negative images of others, and individuals have to work hard to be held in a good light no matter what their racial origin.  

Another form of racial prejudice also defined by Saeed, as Aversive Racism.  He suggests that there are people within society who are not overtly racist, but don’t want anything to do with ethnic minorities and aren’t willing to give a chance to the unfamiliar.  A lot of people who meet this description tend to be older members of society who have grown up in very ‘sanitised’ environments.

“Broadly speaking, the media exist in a very close, sympathetic relationship to power and established values.  They favour a consensus view of any problem: they reflect overwhelmingly middle class attitudes and experience.”

Stuart Hall, 1974; ‘Black Men, White Media’

It could be said that white British people are scared of ethnic minorities due to simple differences.  The colour of their skin, different lifestyle and religions could all act as a symbol for this difference.  People are scared of what they don’t know, that is a basic human premise, but unfortunately people take too much notice of ‘hear-say’ and don’t back things up with facts.  These facts should come from the media, but positive stories are few and far between, especially in national tabloid papers.

“Immigrants have sparked a heterosexual HIV explosion...”

                                                        The Sun, Feb 7th 2003.

        “Ungrateful Iraqi asylum seekers try to blow up free flat because it was cramping their love lives”

                                                        The Sun, Feb 13th 2003.

        “David Blunkett is to order judges to boot out asylum seekers and send straight back where they came from”

                                                                News of the World, Feb 16th 2003.

“Muslim Priest El-Faisal embraced many of the views held by Bin Laden”

                                                        The Sun, Feb 26th 2003.

Such stories create what Stuart Hall (1992) and Said (1985) refer to as ‘Out Groups’.  In this case the non-ethnic ‘British’ are the in-group.  Balibar describes the ‘in-group’ as the ‘True Nationals’ who never have to prove themselves whereas the ‘out-groups’ are constantly battling for their cause.  

“...black people encounter most problems in sensitive power-areas: employment... housing... local government... law and order...”    

This has never been so obvious as with the current problem the nation has with the perception of asylum seekers.  The majority of asylum seekers are genuine people fleeing persecution at the hands of oppressive regimes such as the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, or even the Chinese government.  In the press, all we hear about are bogus asylum seekers, which leads the public to believe the majority of these people are illegal immigrants ‘sponging off the state’, personified by such individuals as extremist cleric Abu Hamza and fanatic el-Faisal.  That’s like all British people being represented by ‘thugish’ football hooligans: it just isn’t justified.  This is reiterated in ‘A Question of Identity’ (Saeed, Gilroy) where the media try and use extremism, fanaticism and other negative issues to cloud the representation of minorities.

The British press went ballistic when the figures for asylum applications were published earlier this year.  In 2002 there were around 50,000 applications off people from war torn and politically unstable nations like Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, China and Iraq. At present it is estimated that there are currently 300,000 asylum seekers resident in the UK for one reason or another.  A drop in the ocean when you consider the population of Great Britain is approximately 58,564,000.  The above number looks big out of context but they were able to fuel a public outcry in doing so.  Those taking up residency (and indirectly second and third generation minorities who were born here) were seen as being a burden on the state as well as being in competition for housing, jobs and schools.  These social problems become redefined as race issues, which generates further ill feeling within the uninformed British public toward ethnic minorities on the whole.

“They not only set the agenda for public discussion but more importantly they strongly suggest how the readers should think and talk about ethnic affairs.”

                                                Van Dijk, Racism and the Press, 1991

I myself was approached by a reporter from the Daily Star on February 24th this year and was asked for my opinions on what she (the reporter) branded the immigration crisis.  I gave my views reinforcing the work of Saeed and van Dijk, saying that with the exception of Bogus Asylum seekers I had absolutely no-problem in allowing 50,000 people in to the country on a temporary basis.  Pointing out that I would hope they would look after me in the same way if I was running from an oppressive government.  The article was published three days later with none of my comments, just ones that happened to correspond with the Daily Star’s negative view of ethnic minorities.  

It seems we only take in what is written, and as van Dijk (above) believes the media tell us what to think about and how to think about it.  Take the situation of Europe.  It has been hammered home to us that to join the Euro would spell disaster for England and the English economy, but what information have the public ever been privy to, to reinforce this statement?  Becoming full members of Europe may well dilute British culture and make it more cosmopolitan, but is that such a bad thing.  ‘We’ are perfectly happy to enjoy the benefits of free trade and ‘hassle-free’ holidays but we don’t like the idea of giving up what we know and are familiar with.

Unfortunately this image of ‘un-people’ created by the British media is not confined to home affairs.  International events such as the attack on the World Trade Centre in New York and The Pentagon on September 11th 2001, and the present Iraqi crisis have seen entire nations symbolised by the acts of a handful of people.  Millions of people dehumanised by the pens of journalists whilst others who are no better are heralded.  

“...‘The moment young Omar Discovered the price of War’.  These cowardly words accompanied a photograph of an American Marine reaching out to comfort 15-year-old Omar, having just participated in the mass murder of his father, mother, two sisters and brother...”

                                                John Pilger, Guardian, Apr 10th 2003   

If the picture had have been of an Iraqi soldier, would the caption have been any different I wonder.  The atrocities of 9/11 left us with over two and a half thousand casualties.  The ensuing military action by Anglo-American and Coalition forces have resulted in the death of more than double that number during bombing, and ground attacks.  “We dropped a few civilians”

Why is it right that we should be able to kill so many people, whereas these eastern countries can’t?  Not that any of these deaths should be condoned, but it appears the West have a set of rules for themselves: Do as I say not as I do.  This dehumanises, and belittles the people of these nations who are on the whole as hardworking and proud as any member of the western society.  Yet British media coverage, shows them either as a direct threat to us or as poor paupers we should help so that we feel better about ourselves.  Is it any wonder therefor that people in this country have distorted views of ethnic minorities?

As it stands, people of Black and Ethnic origin, whether they were born in the country or not are starting to get more airtime on British television and radio.  Individuals such as Tony Gubba, Ian Wright (both BBC), Trevor McDonald (ITN News), Connie Huq (Blue Peter),  and June Sarpong(T4) are now familiar personalities in British homes and programmes like ‘Goodness Gracious Me’, ‘AliG’ and ‘Desmonds’ are all popular entertainment shows, but as Stuart Hall argues “Negative racial issues cannot be resolved by a few more black faces on the screen...” 

What it will take is for the British, and for that matter, the Western media as a whole, to really open themselves up and experience these minorities for themselves and give them accurate and fair standing.  Allow them to put their message across freely just as ‘we’ the public do and leave it to ‘us’ to make up our own minds.  Joe Bloggs in the street if asked would say we were being over run with immigrants, whereas in truth Iran and Pakistan have the largest immigration problem in the world.  If they could reveal information like this and why they come here, the nations attitude to ethnic minorities would vastly improve. Telling half the story can often be worse than not telling it at all.  

In conclusion, I don’t think it would be fair to brand the media as Racist.  A far more appropriate term would be Eurocentric; a way of thinking about ‘us’ and ‘them’ inherited from the days British colonialism and imperialism in a vain attempt to perpetuate some form of power relationship.  Within the field, there may well be media institutions that are racist but the majority of the main stream outlets fall in to the above category.  

That doesn’t mean to say that it is right. A bias to the national cause is only natural, and shouldn’t be discouraged but a serious investigation should be undertaken to look at how ethnic minorities and non-western countries are represented in the media and how they could be represented more accurately.  Not only does it insult those represented unfavourably but it also insults the intelligence of those who read and believe these ‘half-baked’ stories.  

Word Count; 2,366