For a number of years we have seen countless column inches reserved for what can only be described as ‘racist’ stories. It has become so common it actually feels normal now.

Just another day and just another mainstream newspaper printing another story about how Islam is in some way threatening Britain.

Newspapers have been comfortable printing stories that could only be described as ‘racist.’

Let us not try to mask this any other way – these are stories and features which have no other aim but to encourage readers to perceive Muslims as a danger. They aim to make the reader feel afraid of the growing threat posed by Muslims and Islam.

And before we get the familiar rants from readers stating that ‘printing about suicide bombings and Isis etc is not racist’…I know that, and so does the rest of the planet. And we use the term racist because that is what most people understand.

What we are talking about here is the 90 per cent of anti-Muslim stories that make their way on to the front pages of websites and newspapers.

 

Are readers to blame?

Newspaper editors will say they are simply giving readers what they want. People want to read about how Islam is a threat to the way of life and they want to believe that all Muslims are a danger.

Newspapers and websites are simply feeding the fear people already have about Islam and Muslims. If people did not fear Islam then many websites would not print such stories. But that is not entirely true, is it?

People can be oblivious to any supposed threat from Islam and Muslims but we can be encouraged to be fearful of it through the clever use of language.

And it is not the first time this has happened.

There has always been a supposed hypocrisy to the free press.

We clearly want the world to believe that we are able to print what we want and when we want.

But we don’t. We pick and choose specific points we want to highlight thus giving the reader our opinionated stance on the issues.

Free press with quite a lot of opinion is a better description.

By stating some things are a threat when they are not can encourage people to be fearful. Before you know it where there was never a problem there is a problem.

Are journalists to blame?

It is quite clear that some commentators in mainstream newspapers and websites will only gain a readership if they can write openly anti-Islamic sentiments.

But what about ordinary reporters? Are they racist? What you will find is that journalists are, like in any organisation, simply following orders or shall we call it ‘suggestions.’

A journalist will be told that a particular story is required and will then look to investigate that story.

Many a time he or she will realise that the only reason the story is being printed is because it has anti-Islamic sentiment within it. The idea being that Muslims in general are fair game and anything to do with Islam is more likely to get printed.

At what point does one think this is morally or ethically right to do so? 

But we should be able to blame the journalist shouldn’t we? It is after all his or her fault?

If, for example, the journalist is going back to the news editor with a positive story about Muslims every day and the story never ever makes it online then the journalist will soon realise the error of his ways.

 

Are senior editors in newspapers and websites racist?

If you were to walk into a newspaper office in some of the UK’s most popular media organisations, would you find people who are anti-Muslim?

I talk about news editors and those senior people who ensure what gets printed and what does not.

Now, most senior editors hate being told they are wrong about anything. They hate it because they feel they have a privileged position that allows them to dictate how other people should think.

But can you class them as racist? The answer is simply no. They are not racist. They are posting anti-Muslim stories which they think will ensure will get more people to read their stories.

Decisions as to the type of opinions a newspaper and website is dictated by a senior editors and the management team. If we want to print anti-Muslim stories then we shall do so, even if they are not entirely true.

We are promoting values…well the values we feel best fit our preferred way of life.

And to ‘suggest’ otherwise makes you someone who does not understand what these values are or someone who in some way is against these values.

What I would agree though is that particular newspapers are intent on printing anti-Muslim stories due to a specific agenda. One which in years to come will be no doubt be questioned.

But for now qualified journalists are quite comfortable printing blatantly anti-Muslim stories – and putting their names to them too.

 

Why was The Times comfortable thinking this was a suitable headline?

There was uproar about the time newspaper print the headline – ‘Imam beaten to death in sex grooming town’.

Asian Image:

 

There was condemnation from senior police officers and MP’s.

The headline was later amended but somehow the person managing the Twitter feed didn’t seem to have got the memo.

The question one should ask is why a genuinely intelligent newspaper with a history of great journalism feel comfortable enough to publish what are quite simply racist headlines.

Of course this wasn's the first time this had happened. 

The answer is due to the response it receives from doing so. You only have to look at some of the reactions to this headline. A growing number of people actually agreeing with the newspapers take on the story.

People were more than happy to state that there was in fact nothing wrong with the headline. Forget the fact that this was in fact the murder of an old man.

The business of anti-Muslim stories

When it comes down to it there is a business to everything. Simple economics is dictating that anti-Muslim stories continue to be printed or aired.

To ensure that your story gets read it needs to have one of two things. If you take a visit to any newspaper website, may that be a national one or a local one, and the highest read story will more than likely be one that in some way attacks Muslims, migrants and how Islam is changing traditional British life.

The more you write about these subjects the more likely you are going to encourage ‘debate.’ But we aren’t encouraging debate though are we? All we are doing is allowing those people who have feelings of hatred towards other races and religions to vent their anger.

This is what we call the business of anti-Muslim stories. The idea that we print and post articles that ensures more people read our product.

By encouraging anti-Muslim rants in pursuit of more clicks and comments we are simply making readers believe there is a threat when there is none.

We are making readers believe there is a problem when there is none. We encourage people to believe things about migrants and Muslims that are not entirely true.

And if you happen to be a Muslim person in the public eye you are no different from the violent Muslims who chop people’s heads off. You may think you are different but we would insist the reader makes the dubious links themselves thanks to our clever way with words.

Take this headline I spotted last week...EXCLUSIVE: Sadiq Khan, Labour candidate for London mayor, made a speech while the 'black flag of jihad' was flying and gave his support to groups linked to extremism.

One way or another we want to taint all of them with the same brush and this is likely to garner more interest in the story. More interest means more clicks and more comments.

The best trick was to get people to defend racist stories in a way that they think they are doing the rest of the population a huge favour.

We do this because we know it will encourage more people to return to our product.

When all is said and done and the new day dawns we begin the whole process again, oblivious to the effect this has on people and their perceptions of other people.

A most dangerous place to be in.