Competitividad

Media choices between news sources are a significant form of the media practice of power in news texts. It is argued that in media texts different voices are given the space to represent issues according to their views (Sigal 1986; Brown et al. 1987; Smith 1993). However, those who are giving this space set the frames for media consumers (Liebler and Bendix 1996). Richardson (2006) highlighted that the study of media sources is a matter of concern, especially when it comes to representations of minorities. As he explained:

“Simply put, who is allowed to speak and who is not; who is allowed to label others in the news and who is not, are important questions to ask” (Richardson 2006, p.103).

As far as “objectivity in journalism” (Sigal 1986, p.15) is concerned in media texts, it is important to note that a single discourse may contain different frames. Not only could several frames be embedded in a single discourse, but also in one news story. The production of news and media reporting, in general, is a collaborative work. The final product, which could be a news story or a report, is the outcome of the collaboration of editors, news sources, background information providers and so on. Given their diversity in perspectives, it is anticipated that different contested

90

frames will be found inside the one story. Professionalism in journalism production mandates that no fewer than two perspectives or interpretations are to be embedded in the text to sustain “the framework of objectivity” (Hall 2000, p.236). Therefore, it is not expected in a controversial issue to find only one unchallenged frame in the text (Hall 2000).

For instance, Liebler and Bendix (1996) studied the media framing of the Old-Growth forest debate. This debate involved two views: those who are pro-cut and those who are pro-save. Liebler and Bendix (1996) based their argument, partially, on the media imbalance of reporting one- sided sources of the argument, which would lead to the support of one argument over the other. They put an emphasis on the news sources' role of setting the frame for media journalists. They argued that journalists depend on news sources to provide them with content and explanation for environmental events. This is problematic because any salient or highlighted argument or view in media texts will affect media viewers or consumers’ decisions.

The study found support that media “source usage” (Liebler and Bendix 1996, p.61) played a noticeable role in media framing of the issue. The study concluded that media reporting tended to be more supportive of the pro-cut viewpoint. This was clear in view of the fact that the majority of sources reported were from those who had supported this viewpoint. In addition, the media had used a portrayal technique to obscure the expertise of sources from the other side.

This signifies the importance of addressing the role of news sources in the building of media frames; especially when it comes to minority

91

representations, such as Islam and Muslim representations in the British press.

Richardson (2006) studied the role of source quotations in the production and reproduction of inequity in Islam and Muslim representations in the British broadsheet press. He argued that not only those who are given the space to speak in the text matter, but also source usage or their influence on the discourse is important. Richardson (2006, p.115) found that Muslims were given, more or less, a space to speak about their actions and their religion. Though their voices were only included if the context of the reporting highlights a critique of their actions or is “critical of their religion.” This underlined, as he argued, an imbalance and inequity. Simply put, when the event is not critical of a Muslim action, Muslim voices are silenced in the text, while reporting Muslims only when they criticise their religion reflects a tendency to connect Islam to negativities. Richardson (2006, p.115) commented on the influence of this approach as follows:

“Such an approach not only contributes to a popular association between Islam and negativity, it also distances Muslims from non- Muslims (since ‘their opinions are often placed in opposition to ‘ours’) and symbolically implies that Muslims are only qualified to speak in response to certain (negative) events.”

The study also argued that reporters’ interpretations of Muslim news would lead to an imbalance and unfairness in the reporting of Muslim events. The study, therefore, suggested that fair reporting of Muslims requires journalists to provide source opinions without interfering, to show the importance of the story being dealt with. For example, using verbs such as ‘said’ instead of loaded verbs such as ‘claims’ would sustain a more balanced coverage. In addition, the study argued that such “factual

92

reportage” (ibid), as followed in the Financial Times, could reduce “Islamophobic reporting” of British Muslims (Richardson 2006).

Additionally, Abdel-Maksoud (2005) highlighted the relation between the choices of news sources and the bias in media coverage. He studied the news discourse of The New York Times and The Washington Post through examining their coverage of the building of the Israeli Separation Wall in the West Bank in Palestine. He found that the news stories in both newspapers tended to be negative in coverage of the Palestinian actors in general. The Times, specifically, was more negative in its coverage as it represented the Palestinian people in general as “potential extremist terrorists.” According to his explanation, this could be seen as the outcome of the bias in news sources, as around three quarters of The Times’ sources were brought from the Israeli side and the vast majority of them were officials. On the other side, less than one quarter of sources came from the Palestinian side. This highlights the neglect of the Palestinian viewpoint in the interpretation of this issue and a tendency to defend the Israeli accusations. This is a problematic situation when considering the role of the media in the formation of public opinion in accordance to its coverage, particularly in foreign policies and issues (Soroka 2003).

To summarise this chapter, studies argued that Islam and Muslims are represented through an Orientalist and Islamophobic way in the British and the Western media. However, a critique highlighted that these negative representations of Muslims and Islam in the British media are due to media routine and news values, instead of deliberate bias. Few studies highlighted Islam and Muslim representations in the Arab and Muslim media. In addition, a framing theory was applied successfully in the comparison of media coverage of national and international events, besides the

93

examination of Islam and Muslim representations in news media. The next section will highlight the main research question. Furthermore, the section will give a breakdown for this question into several sub-questions, based on the review of literature, as highlighted in this chapter.