portfolio dissertation

Covering Muslim women:

An examination of journalism ethics in the reportage of Muslim women within

British online Press

by

Ismael Soliman

Covering Muslim Women Soliman, i

Contents

Acknowledgements… .................................................................................................................... iii

Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. iv

Tables ............................................................................................................................................. iv

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 1: Introduction: Historical construction of a victim ................................................... 3

Outline of report: Analysing media bias ............................................................................. 5

Why British newspapers? ................................................................................................... 6

Why Muslim women? ......................................................................................................... 6

Chapter 2: Literature review ....................................................................................................... 8

The eroticised veil: An application of Orientalist theory.................................................... 8

The Clash of Civilizations and Ignorance within feminist discourse ................................. 9

New methods, same racism............................................................................................... 10

The creation of a postmodern Muslim subject .................................................................. 10

Monopolized representational agency .............................................................................. 11

Code deficiency continuities ............................................................................................. 12

[No] changes in the code................................................................................................... 12

Obstacles to accurately reporting diversity call for legal balance .................................... 13

Chapter 3: Methodology............................................................................................................. 15

Research aims ................................................................................................................... 15

Application of discourse analysis ..................................................................................... 16

Critical Discourse Analysis............................................................................................... 17

Fairclough’s Three Dimensional Discourse Analysis framework .................................... 19

Data collection .................................................................................................................. 20

Interviews: A journalistic perspective .............................................................................. 21

Chapter 4: Article Analysis and Discussion ............................................................................. 22

Covering Muslim Women Soliman, ii

Article 1: ........................................................................................................................... 22

Article 2 ............................................................................................................................ 26

Article 3 ............................................................................................................................ 27

Article 4 ............................................................................................................................ 29

Article 5 ............................................................................................................................ 30

Article 6 ............................................................................................................................ 32

Article 7 ............................................................................................................................ 32

Article 8 ............................................................................................................................ 34

Article 9 ............................................................................................................................ 35

Article 10 .......................................................................................................................... 35

Article 11 .......................................................................................................................... 36

Chapter 5: Identity, oppression, integration failure, backwardness and Islamic

fundamentalism ........................................................................................................................... 38

Chapter 6: Methodology in action: Interviews and discussion ............................................... 40

Jasper Jackson ................................................................................................................... 40

Nahla-Al-Ageli ................................................................................................................. 43

Sunny Singh ...................................................................................................................... 45

Ahlam Akram.................................................................................................................... 47

Paul Macey........................................................................................................................ 48

Chapter 7: Conclusion and Discussion ..................................................................................... 53

Works Cited .................................................................................................................................. 55

Covering Muslim Women Soliman, iii

A special thanks to…

Doctor Roza Tsagarousianou for opening my eyes to the significant impact of media upon

cultural interactions across the globe.

Milica Pesic, Executive Director for the Media Diversity Institute of London, for her assistance

with expanding my dissertation research network.

The included interviewees – Paul Macey, Sunny Singh, Nahla-Al-Alegi, Jasper Jackson, Ahlam

Akram – for their invaluable contributions, insights, time and opinions upon this controversial

topic.

Senior lecturer Jacob Johannsen for his advising expertise and guidance throughout this journey.

Lastly, to my friends and family – particularly my girlfriend, Carolyn Hoffelt – for their patience,

advice and proofreading.

A research project as expansive and time-consuming as this would be impossible without the

assistance of a community. Thank you all for your willingness to be a part of mine.

I look forward to our future interactions and the day in which I can return the favour to each and

every one of you.

Covering Muslim Women Soliman, iv

Abbreviations

MW: Muslim Women/Muslim Woman DA: Discourse Analysis CDA: Critical Discourse Analysis

Tables

Table 1 UK population based on gender ...................................................................................... 51 Table 2 Gender news story authorship in U.K. national publications ............................................. 51 Table 3 Projection of religions in the U.K. in 2050 ....................................................................... 52 Table 4 Religious affiliation distribution within U.K. media ......................................................... 52

../Downloads/MA%20Dissertation%20-%20Complete%20-%20Ismael.doc#_Toc460416077








Covering Muslim Women Soliman, 1

Abstract

Despite an increased intellectual focus upon the Islamic tradition and Muslim representation in

British mainstream media, there is an insufficient examination of Muslim women, even though

they have the most identifiable characteristics of the religion; their headscarf otherwise known as

Hijab or Burqa. In a contemporary moment when many European countries propagate legislative

public prohibition against religious garments, such as the Hijab or Burqa with negligent attention

to cultural value, it would be careless to overlook the reports and debates surrounding this

particular social group. Therefore, the aim of this dissertation is to investigate obscure ideologies

and discursive biases within British print and online representation of MW and their religious

attire through the academic lens of Fairclough’s CDA of 1993 and Said (1997) notion of

Orientalism (1978).

This research analyses the construction of representational ideas which formulate racist

attitudes and ideologies through identification of symbiotic language, signs, and images within

eleven British newspaper online archives. The application of Postmodern Theory upon religious

norm perception alterations based on audience within the context of these works illustrates the

shift in conceptual and definitional Western discourse surrounding the veil. This reveals that the

British media often frames MW and their veiling methods as a threat to national values –

frequently drawing upon tropes of seclusion, oppression to women and assimilation failure

within British society.

Increased public attention upon veiling Controversial insufficiencies within the Independent

Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), and the recent Leveson press ethics inquiry positions this

research as a timely and beneficial addition to academia. Media attention has increased since 7/7

attacks and Jack Straw’s controversial comments, increasing the necessity for code application.

Although IPSO has replaced the former Press Complaints Commission (PCC), British press


regulatory measures remain insufficient compared to Lord Justice Leveson’s speculations. Roy

Greenslade, a Guardian journalist and a journalism professor at City University-London, who

argues that IPSO has made insufficient changes. To examine these inadequacies, this research

will examine a selection of diverse articles alongside five interviews, branching from PCC to

IPSO regulation, analysing whether or not news stories adhere to IPSO’s current discrimination

press standards and whether these standards are sufficient for cultural protection


Chapter 1: Introduction: Historical construction of a victim

On October 5, 2006, Jack Straw made the claim that “[he] felt uneasy talking to someone [he]

couldn't see…So [he] decided that [he] wouldn't just sit there the next time a lady turned up to

see [him] in a full veil, and [he has]n't.” Lancashire Telegraph frames this provocative statement

as a call to MW to remove religious garments for intercultural community revival (Bartlett,

2006). Following this statement and the 7/7 London attacks, the full Islamic headscarf has

become a central topic within the British media. Negative headlines surrounding MW and their

veils have increased, snowballing public attention and reaction. A school dismissed a teaching

assistant for wearing the niqab in school; Birmingham Metropolitan College barred Muslim

religious clothing; Blackfriars Crown Court asked a niqab wearer to unveil (Independent, 2006;

Harris & Clarke, 2013; Swinford & Evans, 2013).

The UK media continues this connection, forging the belief that Islamic religion partners

homogeneously with religious garments as a unit that is unfamiliar, extreme and an image of

menace, selecting events in which Muslims struggle to assimilate into dominant cultures because

of veiling (Khiabany, 70). Hamel elaborates, arguing that the “hijab has become a representation

of Islam through the media, designed to show religious inferiority and irrationality” (Hamel,

299). Petley and Richardson represent this belief construction, claiming that the hijab is a

“deliberate refusal to integrate into British way of life and…a threat to society” (Khiabany, 71).

Media also links the veil with victimhood and outdated religious practices (Khiabany, 70).

Therefore, religious coverings become associated with the other, fear, misogyny and

backwardness rather than religion.

With media involved, the freedom of practicing one’s identity becomes second fold to

public opinion. MW become silent victims of male patriarchy who threaten British tradition.

Martin Munoz asserts that the British press is “dominated by the cultural presentation and


interpretation of Islam”, arguing that subjective judgements about Muslims result in inadequate

understanding of Islam (85).

Media bias encourages this subjective assumption that veiling is a tyrannical act forced

upon MW. Jeremy Browne, among many other politicians, supported Jack Straw’s effort,

initiating a discourse around the protection of young veiled women (Swinford, 2013). “The

Biggest Lie You’ve Been Told about the Oppression of Muslim Women” argues that the press

inspires many Western perspectives upon veiling, allowing media to create religious

interpretations without interacting with Islamic actors (Rankin, 2013). These racial discursive

practices propagate imbalanced social power relations (Tileaga, 480). Political and media

statements which disperse negative views of MW reflect this sociological imbalance; neglecting

a valid understanding of rational, media voices ownership over veiling perspectives.

Through an application of CDA, the manner in which MW depiction contributes to the

imbalance of national power relations becomes apparent. This interdisciplinary discourse critique

and analysis, which examines written and spoken texts to expose social and political influence,

draws explicitly upon Post-Structuralism and critical linguistics; it is therefore harmonious with

the Postmodern paradigms of contextual and framing stimulus. Fairclough and Wodak explain

that within the media, “the discursive event is shaped by, and thereby continuously reconstructs,

real or material events, situations or structures…[producing] often obscured structures of power,

political control, and dominance, as well as strategies of discriminatory inclusion and exclusion

in language use.” (4-8). The media therefore has the power to act as a politically engaged

mechanism which produces skewed social realities.

These tactics continue a long history of influential symbiotic control and influence.

According to Greenslade, from the nineteenth and early twentieth century, a new wave of Jewish

and Irish immigrants where among the first to experience racist remarks from British

newspapers. Journalists and editors believed that negative immigrant views were representative

of parallel reader beliefs. Following the Second World War, the popular journalistic form – a


mass-market entity – contained noticeable signs of intolerance and irresponsibility. Although it is

difficult to identify a time period when subjectivity began to overtake the realm of reporting, the

1980s is a clear era of change in which politicians, editors and journalists instructed independent

owners and editors to start cleaning up their act up as reporters.

Following a history of interwoven fact and opinion alongside a controlled and influenced

media system, British law forced editors and owners of large newspaper organizations to agree to

the introduction of an ethical code of conduct. However, as Greenslade explains, a code does not

change a culture; it can restrain, but it cannot change the working ethos and mentality of editors

who encourage the prejudices of the majority. Even if the code changes dramatically, Greenslade

argues that the code would be blamed for interfering with Freedom of the Press, meddling with

freedom of the market (10). There has been a reform of the independent code formerly known as

the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) to Independent Press Standards Organization (IPSO);

nevertheless, because of the complex relationship between traditional national freedoms and

cultural protection, the code fails to address and evolve the discrimination clause.

Outline of report: Analysing media bias

This article will begin with a brief overview of literature, followed by a contextualisation within

existing research and outline of a personal research question and aims. I will then examine

mainstream British Press and online media distribution within recent years, accompanied by

quotes from interviews conducted with British journalists and a women’s rights activist from

Basira who have written about the veil, highlighting their opinions about IPSO, reportage in

relation to the code, the provisions enshrined in the code and if there should be more juridical

limitations upon stories addressing race and religion. Overall, the article aims to question

whether British press reports targeting MW present these women accurately or subjectively, the


media’s effect upon Islamophobia and whether the voluntary press code intentionally avoids

racist or discriminative confrontation.

Why British newspapers?

Drawing upon Lord Justice Leveson’s 2012 claim that there should be tougher procedures of

self-regulation upon unethical press backed by legislation is one of the reasons for focusing upon

British online and offline press. Lord Leveson recommends that IPSO should address issues of

race, religion, sexual orientation and gender in the press. He notes that “the identification of

Muslims, migrants, asylum seekers and gypsies/travellers as the targets of press hostility and/or

xenophobia in the press [is] supported by the evidence” (668). This hostility has increased

particularly since 2006.

Due to this heightened sensationalist and xenophobic reporting over the decade, along

with a deficient clause reformation effort cited in IPSO Press Standard Guidelines makes this

study necessary and relevant. Furthermore, looking at articles from the time of PCC to the

contemporary makes an examination of MW representation, identification transformation and

social constructions by the media possible. Serving as a prime voice within the global media

sphere, a reflection upon British news discourse will examine the capacity to spread

representations or misconceptions about MW and their practices, without many implications or

consequences to those who circulate information because they work under the rights of free press

which ignore ramifications upon employment and education.

Why Muslim women?

Generally, the British public associates MW with negative Muslim tropes. Sixty-nine percent of

respondents in Britain think that “Islam encourages the repression of women” and disrespect for


women is a negative trait associated with Muslims (YouGov, 2010; Pew, 2011). Reflecting upon

studies previously mentioned in relation to these statistics that the media often represents MW

and their dressing customs (hijab/niqab) as passive and backward, one cannot deny a connection

between media representation and public opinion (Khiabany, 70). One can then argue that British

Non-Muslim citizens associate women’s veiling with disrespect and maltreatment in reaction to

negative press.

The contextual effect upon veiling becomes apparent with historical reflection. Ironically,

according to Heath, veiling was a common practice among women in Europe until the twelfth

century. Jewish, Roman, Greek and Indian women veiled, and veiling was even considered an

honour for upper class women and an aspirational target for proletarians (27). The historical act

of veiling thus becomes more complex than an attempt for men to control women’s bodies. The

cultural connotations of veiling have shifted since it was first practiced. As Amer explains, it was

previously associated with the exotic, erotic, and seductive as well as a tool which encouraged

gender equality and women’s empowerment (126). According to Khiabany and Williamson, in

Britain today, contemporary Britain often associates covering with backwardness and refusal

towards acceptance of the Western way of life. Overall, this means that historical context

influences viewpoints upon the veil (Lentin, 93). The media has therefore influences the

Postmodern shift in meaning of MW and the veil within the public psyche. Due to the high

frequency of articles throughout time which focus upon MW, specifically in 2006, it is important

to question why that year in particular resulted in an increased concentration upon MW.


Chapter 2: Literature review

The eroticised veil: An application of Orientalist theory

The manner in which the West depicts Muslims as an unfamiliar entity, claiming ownership over

the Islamic voice rather than Muslims speaking about their religion themselves, serves as a

crucial example of Said’s scholarly studies of Orientalism. Said argues that societies

intentionally employ oriental mechanisms towards the audience, include the Orient (Muslims)

and talk on its behalf (Said, 86). Monopolising control over public literary content, the media

increases suspicion over Muslims through “demonization discourse in representing other

‘religions and ethnic groups as a phobic enemy’” (Ameli, 12). Control over public voice grants

the British Press depiction authority over Orientalised subjects.

Tabloid newspapers have a long history of Islamophobia construction, contributing to

distorted representations surrounding MW and their veil-wearing practices. According to Poole,

newspapers maintain agency through their ‘rhetorical and authoritative style’ (121). For instance,

Trevor Kavanagh, a former political editor of The Sun, uses his column “Beware the rise of

Muslim hardliners” to link Islam and the veil with violence and backwardness (Freedman,135).

Covering and the Muslim faith therefore become interchangeable with anti-Western tropes

because of media bias.

This journalistic form is not restricted to just tabloids; it is also prevalent in respectable

broadsheet press. Well-known columnist, Polly Toynbee, who writes for The Guardian,

regularly uses the feminist language in her article “Behind the Burka” to place Islam and Islamic

attire against Western secular values and Human Rights. Subjectively opinionated articles which

contain demonizing language intentionally target specific groups with persuasive Orientalist

techniques, constructing a public idea of the other.


The Clash of Civilizations and Ignorance within feminist discourse

Orientalist portrayals, according to Samuel Huntington, have created a split between Islam and

the West. In Clash of Civilizations, he recognises that religion is the most important part of

civilisation, therefore “people who share ethnicity and language but differ in religion may

slaughter each other” (Huntington, 42). Therefore, one cannot neglect the possible influence

religion may have upon these feminist and progressively focused writings.

Edward Said critically assesses Huntington’s theory and renames it The Clash of

Ignorance. He criticizes Huntington for being an ideologist “who wants to make civilizations and

identities into what they are not: shut-down, sealed-off entities that have been purged of the

myriad currents and counter currents that animate human history” (Said, 266). Although

Huntington correctly identifies the importance of religion in the battle between separate cultures,

he clearly falls short in analysing the complexities of these interactions.

These two opposing theories intersect in the aftermath of Jack Straw’s comments.

Feminist scholars argue orientalist discourse influences the press who began to compare the

normative body of Western female women to the barbaric and oppressed MW. Abu-Lughod

targets veils as barriers to comprehension and appreciation during an encounter. She believes that

religious clothing creates a clear us and them binary and prevents the Western majority from

considering diverse traditions from other parts of the world, creating a cultural divide (Lughod,

2006). In a similar manner to Huntington, these authors seek to construct an inaccurate identity

for the other while purging them of complexities, echoing the failures to which Said refers, while

neglecting Huntington’s valid attention upon religion. Veils become a mere enemy of Western

understanding and ideologies rather than a symbol of religion. Through this method, journalist’s

burry religion behind their own linguistic veil of progress.


New methods, same racism

Through juxtaposition methods of the West and the other, the British media creates forms of

racism towards a lesser social sect. Van Dijk believes that an in-group is portrayed as tolerant,

subtly constructing negative attitudes about the other (1992, 89). He explains that although old

racism was openly violent and lead to forceful isolation, new forms of racism which derive from

text and talking are now subtler due to modernism and the discursive nature of the 21st

century

(2000, 34). They may appear less violent, but in reality, they marginalize and segregate ethnic

groups in a manner similar to that of old racism.

Discursive racism may have a limited effect upon those who engage with and have

control over public discourse; nevertheless, it has a wide impact upon objectified groups. As Van

Dijk explains, employed racism surpasses mere discourse for the members of minority groups,

affecting immigration, housing and employment ability (2000, 35). Although the methods of

racism have shifts, its harsh influence remains constant; the other bears the impact of negative

statements while the Western majority watches from its pedestal.

The creation of a postmodern Muslim subject

Postmodernism – a term referring to the effect of contextualisation upon meaning – clarifies the

influence of media upon the public’s interpretation of the veil. As Hall explains, postmodernism

leaves no room for the truth since there are various ways of representing a subject alongside

relentless definitional fluctuation (Grossberg, 1996). Islamic Feminism, which seeks to understand

women’s role within Islam, obscures popular Western understanding of the Islamic culture

(Khan, 1). Hoodfar further complicates MW representation, claiming that young Canadians

decide to veil because “they want to be good Muslim women”, later telling a more nuanced story

which highlights the choice as centred around:


[M]itigating parental control and community gossip, symbolically communicating to

Muslim and non- Muslim men their unavailability for dating, resisting unwanted

marriage arrangements without alienating their parents, actively asserting an Islamic

identity in a context of exclusion and ostracism, making public their Islamic expectations

regarding their prospective husband… (Bilge, 20).

Through a subtly negative tone, the author paints veil-wearing rationale as a protection against

communal consequence. She amalgamates the motivation and outcome of wearing the veil,

shadowing decision origins with negativity. Such an instrumentalist interpretation diminishes

religious veil agency, casting MW as societal victims with a choice. Following Postmodernist

notions, these actors highly influence subject perception through framing techniques.

Monopolized representational agency

Applying Representational Agency, a calculated, nuanced veiling depiction becomes unsettling.

Kokelman’s 2007 theory of Representational Agency explores methods and meanings of

representations and the resultant societal impact (Khan, 6). Through the dissemination and

construction of public knowledge, Western bias creates metanarratives of MW through the

monopolisation of Representational Agency. Although MW choose their identity, it is “restricted

by the perceptions and representations of others” and “ideological

structures” (Bucholtz, 606). Since veil-wearers bear limited control over media, they have

inadequate influence over its interpretation.

The individual who wears the veil may positively associate it with her identity;

nonetheless, the media may create a contrary outlook, silencing the subject. Mahmood argues

that societal religious norms inspire these alternative depictions; since the practice of veiling is

incompatible with local Western customs, Western articles often contain viewpoints contrary to

those of the othered subject (Khan, 6). Although foreign locales adopt these customs for


rationales other than oppression, the West claims portrayal ownership, asserting biased

Representational Agency over public opinion while neglecting consideration of global cultural

complexities when representing the veil.

Code deficiency continuities

Because of this influential power and authority, IPSO exists to counter this influential power and

authority so that journalists instil caution when defining and distributing sensualised views and

derogatory remarks. The ethical rules preserved in clause twelve of IPSO’s

Editors’ Codes of Practice insists that “[t]he Press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference

to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental

illness or disability” (IPSO). The code calls for journalists to adhere to code rules, aiming to

protect individuals from prejudiced exposure. Unfortunately, the code does not protect groups or

categories of people (Portilla, 192).

Additionally, the code fails to expand the abstract terms. According to Petley, the lack of

code specificity towards news and editorial columns and inadequate treatment of commentary,

rumour and truth results in daily legal violations (59). He argues that the code chooses to avoid

confronting racist or discriminative journalism (55). The code thereby

allows the British press to produce subjective editorials which encourage islamophobic discourse

while limiting the opportunity for subjugated groups to complain.

[No] changes in the code

Despite a shift in title from PCC to IPSO, these insufficiencies persist (Portilla, 192). According

to Roy Greenslade, columnist for The Guardian, IPSO is merely the “PCC reborn with a few

extra bells and whistles”, explaining that IPSO “will work well enough until there is a real


crisis.” (2014). Failure to acknowledge group importance in terms of discrimination and the

continual use of abstract terms reveals the limited evolution of a code beyond a shallow level.

Obstacles to accurately reporting diversity call for legal balance

A clear code would encourage avoidance of offensive and inaccurate works despite restricted

timeframes, insufficient backgrounds and sensualisation. OSCE-ODIHR identify short deadlines

which limit research timeframes as one of the obstacles authors encounter when reporting

diversity (11). Ramadan extends this notion, explaining that “speed imposes standardization

because it is no longer possible to take time.” He argues that because of speed normalisation,

journalists must now “be quick, be the first to supply instant news, before anyone else” (284).

The Press has abandoned its political origins for a commercially-based industry which is less

interested in accurate education and more focused upon profit (Greenslade, 9). As a result,

monetary gain outweighs accurate population portrayal.

A general lack of knowledge accompanies this profit obsession which codes fail to

eliminate despite negative results. Ramadan suggests that some journalists lack a background in

Islamic studies or diversity reporting (4). The Leveson Report investigates the negative effect

that these media knowledge insufficiencies force upon Islamic reputation. The evidence and

eyewitness declarations gathered from the inquiry question media compliance with reporting

standards (2012). It is likely that this lack of compliance parallels knowledge insufficiencies of

authoritative media voices which the code could counter through legal clarity.

Market trends and public taste also influence biased journalistic works. Richard Peppiatt,

a Daily Star ex-journalist, focuses upon a number of untrue publications, blaming the continuous

pressure from editors to sensationalise and propagate stories to sell papers to the public masses

as the source of inadequacies (2011). Cross cultural communication agencies such as Engage,

Unitas Communications identified story fabrication within widespread publications, including


The Daily Star, Daily Mail and Daily Express, discovering an adequate proof that sections of the

Press were responsible for reporting inaccuracies (Bunglawala, 2011; Ahmed, 2012; Leveson

2012). Because the Press has an everlasting influence upon social perception through

manipulated depiction, it is thereby significant for the code to guide media through the

aforementioned obstacles.


Chapter 3: Methodology

Research aims

The British media deliberately uses discursive components to influence the audience, reawaken

orientalist tropes and attain vocal authority over subject matter (Said, 2001), affecting identity

construction and social divisions through application of their news discourse authority (Said,

2001; Khan, 6). By categorising societal members into separate groups, the Press creates unequal

and discriminative social relationships (Lughod, 2006). This subtle linguistic form of cultural

discrimination upon MW encourages Islamophobia and activates what Edward Said calls a

demonization discourse, depicting MW as the phobic enemy (Van Dijk, 2000; 2001).

Application of these theories onto British Press MW treatment highlights the existence of

an anti-Muslim sentiment which has a deep-rooted history branching upon colonial ideologies.

This form of discursive racism and discrimination towards Muslims is not a new issue. While

discursive racism upon this social group has historical influence, discourses surrounding

Muslims and MW in Britain today are connected to terrorist events, happenings in the Middle-

East and MW’s assimilation into the British Western way of life. Consequently, this study

expands existing research of MW, exploring MW and their religious coverings representations

within British news discourse, questioning whether:

i. discourses in regard to MW and veils in the British press employ strategies which

coincide with IPSO’s limited discrimination clauses;

ii. remarks in newspaper articles incite Islamophobic attitudes;

iii. IPSO favours of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press over protection

from discriminatory reporting;

iv. there should be expanded conceptual guidelines within the code to encourage


increased responsibility and decreased prejudice

v. there should be more boundaries upon media freedom in the British press

Application of discourse analysis

Discourse Analysis (DA) accompanies these questions as a method of analysis. DA is best

understood as a method through which scholars examine the ways in which actors

advantageously apply language as a tool to influence realities through “that [which] has

previously been interpreted by others” (Jager, 39). According to Given, DA often begins with the

introduction of a social issue which exhibits a discursive aspect (147). This relatively adaptable

framework displays methods of discursive deconstruction through “treating discourse as data”

(Kroger, 2000). Furthermore, Wood and Kroger believe that discursive research challenges

traditional approaches (3). Since MW representation continues historical tropes through

contemporary methods, DA stands as an ideal analytical tool for deconstruction of Western bias

within British Press.

A native understanding of these British communication symbols and methods increases

the ability to analyse the British Press. Adorno explains that awareness of language and media

literacy offers the ability to question and resist ideologies, meanings and discourses controlled by

the media while Williams frames DA as a tool which helps identify inaccuracies and uncover

“the power and meaning [which] lies in discourse” (Giroux, 13; 95). Coupling linguistic

expertise with DA thereby provides a prime research opportunity.

Inspecting discourse entails an examination of the way in which linguistic social practices

shape communal thoughts and views. As Parker explains, these practices include several types of

contemporary communication which form a diversified collection of mass media technologies

(MSM) which provide invented words and phrases with specific societal definitions to which a


cultural actor is automatically aware, as if they were “fixed and self-contained units of meaning.”

These actors employ and construct words and phrases in a manner which gives symbols a

meaning dependent upon contextualisation (2). The veil is thereby devoid of definition without

societal contextualisation.

Parallel to Parker’s viewpoint, symbols within Post-structuralist theory acquire their

meaning through juxtaposition with differential symbols, changing according to the context in

which they are used. According to Hall, “[i]t does not follow that all words are open to all

meanings, but it does have the consequence that words cannot be fixed with one or more

definitive meaning(s)” thereby creating diverse threads of discourse. Burr elaborates this idea,

explaining how these signs stand for or represent the concepts or thoughts which societal actors

possess, together representing the things which people say or write. These meanings transform

depending upon the discursive context (1995). Maintaining a monopoly over Western dialogues,

the British Press controls a shift in meaning for the veil; it becomes symbolic with oppression

and otherness within this Western context.

Critical Discourse Analysis

DA methods examine linguistic themes, deconstructing the many levels of communication.

Fairlough’s method of 1993, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), particularly focuses upon

communication’s societal issue construction. Fairclough’s CDA aims to explore impervious

connections between discursive practices, events, texts and social and cultural structures,

encouraging audiences to reach beyond linguistic abstraction to discover the historical, political

and social connotations of a text (Van Dijk, 252). Surpassing common studies of psychological

DA, CDA becomes the most suitable approach for this study through its attempt to explore “the

apparently neutral, purely informative discourses of newspaper reporting, government


publications, social science reports…[which] may in fact convey ideological attitudes”

(Farquharson, 2012; Anthonissen, 299). Application of CDA will thenceforth allow analysis of

British Press and IPSO discourse beyond abstraction into symbolic realms.

Another reason for selecting CDA as the primary method for this study is because power

affects discourses as the words from those who are in power are viewed as self-evident truths

while those from less influential actors are dismissed as irrelevant (McGregor, 2). As persuasive

social actors, journalists occupy a key role: providing a public service, a hallmark of

professionalism which legitimizes what they do and the truth which they construct (Deuze, 446).

Media actors thereby inhabit positions of authority, legitimising their words as unchallenged

public truths.

Educational and political systems serve to propagate these accepted certainties. Favell

and Modood maintain that teachers and politicians depend upon the “unchallenged reproduction

of anecdotal facts usually taken from newspapers” which often inaccurately depict the realities

and complexities, reinforcing the conflation between fact and fiction (493). Societal truths are

thus forth spread across a web of influential players to influence the general public.

The rapid distribution of societal truths has unavoidable influential consequences. Mill notes

that freedom of opinion needs to be constrained and carefully considered in respect to context and

consequences of those comments (Steel, 188). Within this specific context, Petley describes

“freedom of the press to be fundamental to our democracy, fundamental to our way of life, but that

freedom must be exercised with the right of others in mind” (1). Freedom of Expression – although

a basic human right – should not exist without limit since it may infringe upon other basic human

rights.


Fairclough’s Three Dimensional Discourse Analysis framework

This research study about the media representation of MW and the veil itself will make use of

Fairclough’s three-dimensional analytical framework as its main analytical method. As

Fairclough describes, discourses operate on several levels; consequently, “[l]anguage use is

always simultaneously constitutive of (i) social identities, (ii) social relations and (iii) systems of

knowledge and beliefs” (135). There are three defining principles required in the practise of

analysis which are interconnected with three dimensions of complexly layered discourse. The

three levels of analysis that he establishes in his study are best known as: the text, the discursive

practise, and the sociocultural practice. Rogers explains that the textual dimension of CDA

involves “an analysis of the mood (whether a sentence is a statement, question, or declaration)

and modality (the degree of assertiveness in the exchange)” (371). This study focuses

specifically upon this dimension which analyses linguistic characteristics and discourses

employed within the event.

Fairclough’s Dimensions of Discourse and DA as cited by Mirsee and Handi (2012).


Data collection

Text or article selection can become problematic as the researcher needs to justify rationale.

Documentary sources in newspaper article format are relevant for this study as they have an

“obviously constructed nature and are a means by which ideas and discourses are needed”

(Blanche, 316). These sources range in style in an attempt to analyse issues which tend to appear

across a wide variety of genres and text types (Cramer, 81). The presented research relies on a

selection of different online newspapers which influence public perception of MW and the veil

gathered from the Nexis UK database and an online collection of different British newspapers,

such as The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph. Since online news’ headlines are often located

in title tags, specific keyword manipulation in relation to my research question with particular

focus upon veil, hijab, niqab and veiling allowed for search engine optimisation. This

decontextualized search method prevented biased results.

Due to the prolonged debates surrounding veiled MW, analysed articles span from post

9/11 to 7/7. Through a vaster period reflection, one can explore the [inadequate] effect of the

code upon media discourse, confirming Portilla and Greenslade’s claims that ethical codes

preserved in IPSO were not replaced or revamped (192, 10). These selected articles exhibit an

informal writing style, particularly in the way the authors expressed opinion while reaching a

vast public audience in their published form. Referring back to Petley’s 2006 argument outlining

the ongoing public inability to distinguish between fact and opinion which results in daily

violation of press regulations, this difference is illuminated through a comparison of opinionated

articles and news stories in an attempt to locate these linguistic characteristics within two diverse

reportage styles.

Examination of broadsheet newspapers like The Guardian illustrates a more serious tone

through the use of formal language while tabloid newspapers like The Sun present informality.

The writing style incorporated by broadsheet newspapers tends to build upon accepted cultural


tropes which legitimise and echo social and cultural views, protecting the author from any

repercussions (Van Dijk, 1987). In terms of style, The Sun commonly writes in an informal

manner, utilising shorter sentences which generally include more quotations and frequent

pictorial elements which adhere with social situations, shared opinions, parallel attitudes and

accepted ideologies which thereby influences writing conventions and word choice. Authors

choose these distinct language styles; they are intentionally employed (Fowler, 4). The source

style will thus affect subject matter framing; a broad selection of media will therefore provide a

more nuanced reflection of veiling treatment.

Interviews: A journalistic perspective

Local interview practices enable expansion of discursive research in relation to faith and press

standards. After analysing the discourse of newspaper articles using Fairclough’s CDA of 1993

and Said’s 1997 theory of Orientalism to examine discursive strategies, findings resulted in

carefully constructed questions and handpicked interviewees, selecting relevant professionals

through journalisted.com, an online directory maintained by the Media Standards Trust. The

search once again employed use of keywords including: hijab, burqa, veils and IPSO, resulting

in more concise results. Selected journalists include: Jasper Jackson, Nahla-Al-Ageli, Sunny

Singh, Ahlam Akram and Paul Macey. Their diverse insights into press ethics allow me to

construct questions linked to both my previous analysis and recent press events, focusing upon

protection upon individuals rather than groups and evasion of IPSO punishment. This variety of

experts familiar with IPSO offers more nuanced knowledge of clause insufficiencies.


Chapter 4: Article Analysis and Discussion

As evident from the previous sections, media discourse surrounding the Islamic veil is prone to

widespread sensationalist reporting. The data collected intends to identify how the British print

and online press plays a fundamental role in shaping the identity of MW and the way in which

the British media has negatively framed the veil – outlining encouragement of islamophobia and

adherence to IPSO’s clauses on discrimination. Furthermore, lexical selection effects the social

perception of veiled MW. Since IPSO only considers attacks made on individuals and not

groups, the code often fails to acknowledge treatment of veils, which have become an ever-

changing signifier dependent on historical context, because of their common group association.

An analysis of recent articles which contain discursive elements surrounding MW’s identity and

the veil alongside similar media from the past decade illustrates the unending debate surrounding

the veil.

Article 1:

“Why banning the veil would only cover up the real problems for British Muslims”

Andrew Gilligan, The Telegraph, 2011 – Opinion Piece “Why banning the veil would only cover up the real problems for British Muslims” initially

appears to critique the French veiling ban, questioning Sarkozy’s attempt to eliminate a minority

of fundamentalists and offers a venue for victimised MW to speak to the public.

Gillian addresses France’s decision to ban the veil which prohibits public wearing of any

clothing which conceals the face, particularly the hijab or burqa worn by MW, initially

introduced on 11 April, 2011. According to Mazher Idriss, the full-body burqa in France has

sparked a fear that beneath the covered identity of the headscarf lies an organised Islamic

fundamentalist group, Islamic Insurgency (275). This deliberately creates associations


between veiling and fundamentalism, resulting in cultural connections between these entities.

Civilisation tends to view Muslims as enemy to progress, often linking veils with subjugation or

terrorism.

The author quotes Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, to demonstrate the negative

French views upon the concept of veiling. He negatively refers to the burqa as “a sign of

debasement and subservience” indicating that this backwardness symbolizes the confinement of

women and that it looks to position them as inferior to men in the public- sphere. One cannot

deny the harshness of these phrases, however, their adherence to culturally accepted notions

towards the veil make them acceptable discourse in the Western political discourse. This

underpins the deep-rooted fixation regarding the veil in politics.

Although on cannot help but agree with the author’s critiques of the French president’s

statements, it would be negligent to overlook the subtle bias present throughout

Gilligan’s own words, softened by a juxtaposition with French extremity. The author utilizes

lexical choices to describe veiled MW, subtly fortifying France’s decision. Applying

Hamel’s 2002 findings, the article subtly tends to depict veiled MW as culturally foreign to a

normative national culture. Beginning in narrative form, the introductory statement: “In some

ways, they were like any other young women” evokes a sensationalist binary between us and

them through the employment of the terms some and they. The author utilises subtle and indirect

linguistics which at first seem ordinary; nonetheless, a more complete application of CDA

reveals the effects of these word uses (Van Dijk, 2000). They within this context implies grouped

otherness while some insinuates that this they only relates to the normative populace in a limited

fashion. Although the combination of words might be simple, the mixture of words is powerfully

evocative.

As the text develops, Gilligan presents readers with a relatable narrative imagery. The

author skilfully structures the passage without referring to religion or background throughout the


first passage, instead the pictorial features and symbolic cultural associations provide adequate

context for the audience, casually identifying the “young women, waiting at the bus stop for the

25 to Ilford.” He quickly accompanies this informality with an acknowledgment of difference,

describing how one can only see the eyes of Muna Jama and her friend.

The problematic conjunction but quickly follows to introduce the way in which the veil

positions this populace as the other in relation to Europe, inciting the phrase “but thanks to

Europe…” Generally speaking, most people associate the thanks to phrase with implications of

gratitude, appreciation, or acknowledgement to a deed. Within this context, this meaning

remains, however, Gilligan also employs a satirical tone. According to LeBoeuf, satire is the

ability to critique some form of “human behaviour, vice, or folly” with the aim of manipulating

the minds of readers, thus provoking social change (3). The author therefore subtly inserts a call

for social change with the veil through use of satire, the othering effect and cultural superiority.

The veil becomes a symbol which creates a literal barrier between these others and us.

The author further frames veiling as problematic through addressing the subject as a

controversial matter which is either unacceptable or unsuitable for the British way of life. Through

the use of an extreme-case formulation (ECF), he describes veiling as “Europe’s most controversial

item.” According to Edwards, extreme case formulations such as this are means of focusing public

attention towards an “object or event that invokes its maximal or minimal properties” (264). She

explains that ECF’s exist in different grammatical categories; in this case, the author uses the

superlative adjective most to frame the headscarf controversy as central to British normative

concern placed at the top of the hierarchy of national problems.

Gilligan proceeds to further depreciate the veil through generalised devaluation as an item

of millinery. By diminishing the veil as a manufactured head-wear design of hats/head-wear

design, the author dismisses its religious and historical significance. This material generalisation

ignorantly neglects the veil’s value for the MW population, shifting public perception of a

culturally important entity.

MW, their role in Islam, and the issue of the dress again receives significant attention with


the author of the article referring to the niqab/hijab as a Saudi garment, veil, and headscarf,

performing a Postmodern transformation of meaning. These examples of different phrasing of the

niqab/hijab highlights Said’s 1997 theory of Orientalism. The Quran uses the words hijab, niqab, and

jilbab in reference to a modest dress. The editorial attempts simply modesty as clothing by

referencing a Saudi garment, decreasing the overall purpose and value. The words may seem natural,

but they are narrowly applied clothing rather than a concept of religiously modest dress. The words

Saudi garment and veil-wearing construct a tone of triviality, framing the items as nothing more than

a fabric, but if the author used words like hijab and niqab, the article would achieve a more religious

and respectful tone.

Instead, the press discourse may have deep-rooted connotations that the veil is a symbol

of a stubborn refusal to accept our culture or embrace change (Khiabany, 2009). Although this

admittedly non-Muslim author seeks to acknowledge evidence against developed judgments, his

saviour complex and surprise towards assimilated individuals remain indications of continued

bias. Although MW speak, the articles chooses to celebrate The Sunday Telegraph as the only

Press venue to “do something which virtually nobody…seems to be bothered with…” The West

thereby maintains agency over this voice while propagating the old trope of imperialism.

In a similar fashion, Gilligan juxtaposes progress with the evolution of MW, inciting

historical norms. The author expresses surprise, explaining how the MW he interviewed were

“not stereotypically repressed or un-Westernised, but young and articulate.” Although this

statement initially appears to be a positive judgment, it quickly becomes a hierarchal positioning

of societies; Western connotes a progress, youth and education which MW journey towards.

The article then identifies Tower Hamlets and Rochdale as a dangerous area overrun by

Muslim extremists, explaining that it “is headquarters to a particularly pernicious form of

Islamic radicalism.” This reinforces the idea British media often depicts these diasporic

communities as the oriental other through use of words like pernicious which associate Muslims


with cultural threat. Incited within a text about veiling, this cultural threat naturally becomes

linked with the veil.

Although the practice of veiling is subtly branded as a threat throughout the context of the

article, the author does not always connect the Islamic veil with Islamic radicalism. As the article

develops, it explains that veiling can be a personal choice. Although the author endeavours to

rebalance the article, he quickly shifts this balance through labelling veiling as a “symptom, not a

cause.” The term symptom often indicates the presence of disease or abnormality in society and

reinforces the dialectic of us and them.

Although Gilligan attempts to surpass Western cultural tropes through inclusion of the

others’ voice alongside extreme examples of French exclusion, he fails to eradicate all subtle

inclusion of bias. Word choice and framing presents a subject still subjugated to Western treatment.

The saviour speaks for the victimised and voiceless other, maintaining authority over those

portrayed.

Article 2

“David Cameron supports removal of Muslim veils in schools”

Sim, Independent, 2016 – News Piece

Sim utters statements which separate the veil from its roots in faith throughout this piece.

Although the news story adheres to journalistic regulations by reporting facts, the author utilises

young MW as political pawns to frame Muslim veiling in schools. Although David

Cameron’s opening remark that “[he] think[s] in our country people should be free to wear what

they like” initially suggests inclusion, the use of our use again insinuates grouping of cultures

along with normalised populations accepted the notions of the other.

This subtle othering continues as Cameron emphasises uniform policy over religious

practice. He regards his earlier statement, linking veiling with “people [who] want to flout that

uniform policy.” Cameron addresses school uniform procedures and the manner in which


Muslim girls are unintentionally disobeying them.

The article decreases statement effect through a juxtaposition similar to that of the

previously discussed article, highlighting the extreme French treatment upon MW. In this

fashion, although Cameron controversially propagates school policies over a crucial part of

MW’s identity in a proclamation that the UK should always come “down on the side of the

school”, his decisions seem reasonable in contrast to “the French approach of banning an item of

clothing…” which several political representatives repeatedly target as problematic. Still,

Cameron demeans veiling as a mere item of clothing while legitimising his oppressive

Western opinions of othering and employing homogeneous strategies which shelter students

from diverse reality. This proves how apathetic British society can be, particularly when they

encourage false homogeneity, in a country that claims to accept and maintain multiculturalism.

As a result, both stratagems collide with one another, rendering each of the policies as

insufficient and contradictory.

Through hierarchal positioning of rules and authorities of British institutions over Muslim

practices, the author frames facts around the British way of life and constructs the UK as a

multiculturalism country which is extremely accepting and tolerant despite these existing cultural

hierarchies. This instrumentalist interpretation of a public controversy lessens the religious value of

the veil in relation to British legal authority. By Cameron stating that clothing controversies “aren’t

really connected with religion”, he depletes the religious value of veiling, and instead focuses on the

importance of normative British authority.

Article 3

“Why Banning the religious dress in school is a lesson in common sense”

Child, Mail Online, 2007 – Opinion Piece Focusing upon the isolation of MW, The Mail Online draws upon tropes of oppression enforced

upon Muslim school girls’. The author highlights the consequences of veiling, stressing how this


practice removes individuality, claiming that veils “isolated them” and

“[took] away their individuality.” The article ignorantly neglects those MW’s who, as Akbar

explains, wear the veil for many reasons including piety, identity and completion of character

(2010). Child simplifies the complex practice of veiling as an oppressive tool of Muslim

extremism.

The article uses the verb fight to describe the schoolgirl who was denied the right to

attend lessons wearing the veil. The confrontation or struggle of a group or individual, and in this

case, the clash or war-like schema between British mainstream culture West and Islamic British

subculture becomes associated with a term with often negative and infantile connotations. The

author selects this linguistic expression to reference tropes of infancy and negativity associated

with the occident in contrast to the normalized British public.

The author further intensifies this distinction between cultures by describing the three

Muslim girls as “three shadows in the back” to which the normalised student body had never

been unpleasant. The MW become mere shadows in comparison to celebrated, accepting British

children. The use of shadow creates a disparaged representation of these oppressed girls, playing

upon Western ideas that Islam prevents feminine progress. This word use addresses the lack of

recognition and objectification of Muslim women, outlining their otherness. These antagonistic

discourses are veiled and packaged throughout the work to neglect complete acknowledgment of

the other.

Child connects the school ban of veils with positivity, explaining how veils serve as a

complexity to classroom unity. Prior to equalisation of clothing, the teacher in the article thought

that it was “easier not to include them” and as a result, she was delighted “that schools will be

able to ban pupils from wearing the full-face veils.” At the end of the article, the veil and Muslim

girls are linked to religious fundamentalism which the author implicitly contrasts with British

tolerance. The article celebrates the goodness of British society, veiling to acknowledge the


inherent failure to respect cultures which are dissimilar. In this way, ethnic minorities are

required to moderate their religious identity to be acknowledged and recognized.

Child closes the article with legitimisations of veil banning, connection the practice with

cultural insufficiencies within schools. He explains that “[w]hile most of the group waltzed off to

university with A grades, these young women gained just D and E passes.” While mass

education is the most effective medium for promoting integration of ethnic minorities, the

teacher in this passage clearly shows his negligence towards multiculturalism within the

classroom, highlighting a clear established barrier between these groups.

One can be sure that these students recycle content, knowledge, and schooling behaviours

from their teachers in a fashion similar to that in which an audience would this article. When

students are exposed to majority perspectives, and cultural diversity treatment within the context

of the classroom, they often accept the truth that certain ethnic groups are inferior to others. This

lack of cultural inclusiveness highlights the ways in which educational instructors do not

promote an ethos of fairness within schools. Through the publication of an article which

propagates assimilation through loss of cultural items, the interplay between the media and

educational systems becomes evident.

Article 4

“Debate over Muslim dress could trigger riots, race chief warns”

Evening Standard, 2006 – News Piece “Debate over Muslim dress could trigger riots, race chief warns” frames veiling as a threat to

Britain. Trevor Phillips, former race equality commissioner, warns “that the debate over Muslim

veils could deteriorate into ‘fire’ on the streets… [which] could become ‘the trigger for the grim

spiral’ that produced riots in the north of England five years ago.” Here, Trevor Philips distances

himself from the potential root of riots through scare quotes, a technique used to detach oneself

from content (Bednarek, 93). The fact that Trevor Phillips claims debates surrounding the veil


connect to past violence indicates a refusal to address real complexities in exchange for

inaccurate judgment to attain increased public attention.

By comparing the anticipated riots to disturbances which happened five years ago, he

links Muslims and their traditional dress to experienced pubic violence realistically disconnected

from contemporary events. According to Walton, analogies such as this are often extremely

powerful forms of persuasion to a particular audience because they compare a (particular) issue

to something the audience is very familiar with or has very positive (or negative) feelings about”

(163) Consequently, the statement creates a discourse of undeserved fear and moral panic of the

veil through connections to alternative, familiar violence. Therefore, the article inspires readers

to fear the veil as the root cause for violence rather than the schism between communities which

stands as the true inspiration for violence. These comments increase MW’s alienation and

separation rather than preventing future assaults upon Muslims and veiled MW. The veil

continues to be the source of public strife within Britain.

Article 5

“The Veil Stands for Social Divisions, Not Piety”

Janice Turner, The Times, 2014 - Opinion Piece As soon as the audience reads the headline of “The Veil Stands for Social Divisions, Not

Piety, Turner identifies veiling as a source of contemporary social divisions, overlooking the

piousness of MW. The narrator places authoritative opinion over the subject matter, framing her

subjectivity as truth. She claims ownership over a historically valued meaning within a mere

number of words, establishing the writer’s status as the individual who has control over news

discourse. This draws Said’s 2001 notions of Orientalism that the West has the unique ability to

monopolise representation over MW. Ultimately, the headline sets the tone for the entire article

and reveals the authoritative lens through which the rest of the story is seen.


Janice Turner expresses her biased cultural viewpoint upon veiling practices, comparing

the veil to black curtains. The intentional use of black becomes negatively linked with danger

and fear which in this specific setting connotes a barrier to light. The author therefore uses the

word black dysphemistically through a juxtaposition with the word curtain. The word is

associated with harmful effects with the author linking the veil to the “creation of social

divisions in British society”. Thenceforth, veiling serves as the barrier to progress and cultural

harmony between the West and the others. The metaphors “black curtain” and “black flag of Islam”

also have strong connections fear and masking associated with criminals in Western society. Turner

continues this parallel, specifically linking the veil to terrorism by asking readers the rhetorical

question: “Do you have a bomb under there?” This invokes a Western preconception of the

Middle-Eastern male terrorist, who has previously used the Burqa to conceal bombs (Mcshane,

2015). While a wide variety of cover-ups are used to define other illegal acts such as bank

burglaries or thefts, the cross-dressing male terrorist gains attention as it calls into question the

threatening hidden bodies underneath the veil. The media often constructs this one-sided,

restricted perception of the other (Bucholz, 2005). Connecting words like mask to a primal

source of fear builds upon the already present climate of anxiety towards what is concealed

beneath the burqa/Islamic dress – a bomb, a man – is a fear that society accepts as truth.

The editor distinctively generalises the veil with other religious symbols as “the cross,

yarmulke, turban or headscarf” and connects this grouping to the ways which “British wearers

live largely free from abuse.” This generalisation ignores imbalanced reaction to religious items.

Dating back to the year, 2014, suicide bombers disguised themselves as Jews to conceal their

weapons (Dvorin, 2014). Yet an anxiety over the Jewish orthodox garment is less evident than

that concerning the veil. The issue of veiling is thereby inaccurately simplified as one of many

publicly accepted religious entities. The British public becomes the superiorly accepting saviour

while the veil becomes an insignificant threat suppressed among many others.


Article 6

“Jihadi Janes: ISIS militants 'caught dressing in WOMEN'S clothes and wearing make-up in attempt to flee Iraq's battlefields’” Corey Charlton, Mail Online, 2015 – News Piece Applying the fixed colonialized image of the veiled MW as the passive victim to male cross-

dressing practices, it seems as though MW, “Jihadi Janes” includes MW’s as “reluctant, if not

victimized, participants” (Cunningham, 186). Although the article does not directly address

veiling, it implies inclusion when addressing the idea that ISIS militants were “caught dressing in

WOMENS clothes.” Through the capitalization and identification of WOMEN in the headline,

Charlton emphasises the strangeness of this masculine deviancy towards female attire to escape

Iraqi battlefields. This new orientalist discursive rendering of queer or strangeness frames this

feminine dress as bizarre and inspired by extreme events. Muslim men are thereby framed as

oppressive towards women in forcing them to wear these items and disrespectful towards its

reputation, donning the attire for violent ends.

Article 7

“Burka rage as female lawyer rips veil off MW in French clothes shop” Peter Allen, Mail Online, 2010 – News Piece This article instils the media-fuelled image of the Islamic headdress as a threat, employing what

Said calls demonization discourse (2007). The term Burqa rage stated in the title draws upon the

motif of violence as it exploits a sense of rage or discontent with those who wear the burqa. The

author generalises MW under broad titles while descriptively identifying the perpetrator as “the

lawyer, who was out with her daughter.” These lexical choices are crucial in texts which initially

appear inoffensive to the average reader who, according to O’Halloran, “only reads for leisure

and…do not exert effort in analysis of intricate and subtle meanings (69). Therefore, these


inclusions have subconscious effect upon the public which neglects to deconstruct or

acknowledge these impacts.

Most readers may not gather implicit meanings from words like Muslim women and

lawyer. If one reads closely enough to compare the two signifying terms, MW exists as a foreign

other existent in relation to the lawyer and her daughter. The fact that the text characterises them

as lawyer and daughter portrays a relatable social bond, also emphasising the solidarity amongst

French nationals. Through increased identification, the French receive superiority over the

inferior or irrational MW. The MW is completely overlooked by the author of the article as he

intentionally takes away her agency by not referring to her occupation in the same way that he

brings up the French nationalist’s job strips her of any contextualisation apart from Islam and

veiling.

Occupational description positions the lawyer as a polished and refined individual. The

article also presents this authority’s neglect of law through “allegedly ripping off the woman’s

burka” and accusing the MW of common assault. Cultural imbalances likely encourage this

maltreatment upon the other.

The author employs demonization discourse throughout the article, particularly through

likening MW and the burqa to Belphegor. The term Belphegor is metaphorical for a popular

satanic figure on French television. This media magnification of demonised MW and the burqa

through the use of an iconic cartoon character to French audiences strategically uses tropes

familiar to a vast audience, feeding upon consumer thirst for entertainment and creating hostility

rather than developing understanding of other cultures. In essence, by using noticeable negative

predications such as Belphegor, demon and vampire, British Press parallels the methods of

French discourse upon the veil. Media practices thus begin to reach international levels, creating

tropes which surpass national norms to create a large Western power.


Article 8

“The fact that Fatima can present news bulletin and also wears a headscarf shows how

great Britain is”. Baig, The Sun, 2016 – Opinion Piece The Sun employs a MW columnist as the communicator of veiling as oppressive and confirmer

over British tolerance towards all faiths. She explains to the reader that “[w]hen

[she] wore the headscarf [she] was asked daily: “Why have you got that thing on your head?”

And that was by [her] friends and members of [her] own family”. The newspaper article here

employs tokenism through the application of Anila as a narrative participant who expresses a

viewpoint parallel to that of The Sun. Including quotes which describe a personal experience

through first person pronouns like I, my and you is a personalisation strategy. The Sun often uses

this method, which Billig defines as a syntax of hegemony in which authorities use the rhetorical

device “for presenting sectional interests as if they were universal ones” (166). By presenting her

personal Muslim credentials, she is able to use rhetorical questions and compare the veil to just

another generic item by using the label thing – removing its religious agency and suggesting that

negative opinions of veil wearing exist in Islamic families like

Anila’s.

This kind of rhetorical treatment is perplexing, particularly because the writer used to

wear the veil. The reader therefore questions whether the first person rhetoric is truthful or

influenced by her publication and audience. Although this newspaper seeks increased inclusive

through employment of MW like Anila, the author is an example of a subject used as a

propagandistic tool to further spread an ideology surrounding the veil. This confirms that news

organizations like The Sun use tokenism, positioning such authors as a product of their

ideological structure.


Article 9

“French police detain woman with fake pregnant belly 'intended to hide bomb'”

Mulholland, The Telegraph, 2015 – News Piece This article depicts Western anxieties towards pregnant MW within airport contexts. Even though the

article commits to a journalistic norm that omits opinion from the news story, focusing upon

accuracy, the author in the headline uses inverted commas to emphasise the use of fake pregnant

bellies to hide bombs. Linguistic employment of condone terrorism evokes the idea that veiling

techniques facilitate concealment of hidden explosives and terroristic practices. This frames MW in a

way that suggests that they are terroristic players.

Article 10

“British Muslims must step outside this anti-war comfort zone”

Hasan, The Guardian, 2011 – Opinion Piece This work positions Muslims as foreign presences concerned only with affairs outside of UK

domestic politics and economy. The author reduces bodily characteristics of Muslims while

using metonyms – a method of replacing a word or idea with another narrowly related word. In

the passage “I was disappointed to see few beards or hijabs among the sea of faces in the crowd”,

Hasan uses the words beards and hijabs to show the connection between these two identifiable

features of Islam.

Though beards receive a nuanced public reaction, the generalization of Muslim bearded

males aligns with Western public veiling perceptions, equally viewed as backward and radical

threats to Western values and society. The author identifies these identities through physically

limited metonyms, continuing objective domestic profiling based on religious practices. Through

automatically associating Muslims with these features, the writer ignores the possibility that not

all Muslims men have beards and not all Muslim women wear veils. This generalisation frames


Muslims in their sameness, stereotyping the other as a simple entity.

Article 11

“Banning the burka is not racist- it’s a kindness”

Allison Pearson, The Telegraph, 2014 – Opinion Piece The author of “Banning the burka is not racist-it’s kindness” clearly supports disposal of the veil.

This type of article is often vocally monopolised by the “white elites who define the ethnic

situation” (Van Dijk, 288). By using terms like it’s a kindness, the author subverts the stereotype

of the veil as a representation of repression and argues that removal would

“liberate women by criminalising their clothing.” The effect of this statement reveals disregard

for the reasons of veiling and instead focuses on the consequences veils might have for those

who practise Islam.

The headline also affects readers through its implied sarcastic tone. This ironic

expression [it’s] not racist could be viewed as a less aggressive or indirect way of attacking MW

and demeaning their feelings. Many MW today assert the belief that wearing the veil is a choice

made freely by them and that they wear it to strengthen their Islamic beliefs so that they can be

closer to God. Despite this, the author of the article speaks on behalf of MW just because she has

control of the public discourse and can claim “that garments have nothing to do with religion.”

Ultimately, this shows how naïve the British media often is when it comes to understanding a

culture/religion that is not compatible with British social norms. Orientalist perspectives thus

create a feeling of hostility towards ethnic minority groups.

The author remains consistent in her incentive against the burqa, explaining “many of us

are offended and perturbed by the sight of a woman wandering around in a bin bag.” It is clear

that her editorial voice is aligned with colonialist rhetoric that British MW are intimidating us

with their veil-wearing. The personal pronoun us is a reference to herself and her immediate

audience who she normalises in comparison to British MW’s. The use of personal pronouns in


the political rhetoric serves to unite writer and the audience in a common purpose. By making

reference to the general public us through a culturally accepted subjugated other, Pearson

fortifies that negative depiction of the veil within the British psyche.

The article then portrays MW as self-isolated. Pearson enhances this otherness, stating that

the “burkas, like a flock of crows, will come home to roost.” The author uses a metaphor this

animalistic metaphor to position the subject as less than human, comparing the look of the veil to a

medium sized black bird. In most belief systems, crows represent bad omens, death and it is

tricksters. Therefore, when the British community no longer tolerates these foreign entities, they will

have to flock to a location of Islamic norms outside of Britain.


Chapter 5:

Identity, oppression, integration failure, backwardness and Islamic

fundamentalism

From the above analysis of diverse online newspaper articles, an abundance of media coverage

upon Islam and veiled MW becomes evident. Dependence upon historical archetypes and

present-day beliefs fills many pages, presenting a limited representational and resultant public

viewpoint upon the MW and the veil within both broadsheet and tabloid newspapers.

These veil discourses result in ideas of feminist oppression, religious fundamentalism and

integration failures, while glorifying British tolerance towards multiple faiths and traditions through

juxtaposition to extreme French banning decisions. The analysis also reveals that most of the writers

and the political representatives disregard complex reasons for veiling and instead focus on the

importance of institutionalized polices – such as school uniform guidelines and the impact

veiling may have upon Western civilization.

Although veiling is a cultural and religious phenomenon that exemplifies Islamic

acceptance and inclusion, it also excludes MW as others set apart from Western normative

society. For MW, wearing the veil often provides a sense of belonging; unfortunately, it also

results in British Press framing and maltreatments, denying MW agency or control over their

depiction within Western discourse. The analysis of opinionated and news stories illustrates that

the majority of studied reports are problematic and should inspire reaction from IPSO.

Unfortunately, general Western society appears content with these maltreatments.

Although it is understandable for the state to watch Muslims due to the past terrorist

events, this does not justify fabricated misrepresentations and sweeping assumptions about the

religious practice of others, particularly when the Press packages opinions as fact and subtly uses

linguistic to evade the eye of independent bodies like IPSO. Media can easily exploit code


flexibilities, particularly when IPSO produces the same provisions included in the extinct PCC

code regarding discriminatory content (Portilla, 2016). This reaffirms Petley’s argument that due

to the failed definitions of Press alongside blurred differentiation between comment, speculation

and fact, British journalistic breach the code daily (2006). This emphasises the notion that

IPSO’s accuracy and discrimination clauses remain insufficient.

Although studied authors employ an alarmist and controversial tone within the majority of

articles, it is difficult to define whether they are significant breaches of the code as offensive or

insulting. One must then question what is discriminative and what is offensive, particularly when

IPSO Chairman Sir Alan Moses agreed that the code needed to be “simplified in order to fulfil the

promises to be fair and independent”, resulting in limited, abstract simplification (Martinson,

2014). The code was also designed to prevent named individuals from subjugation to

discriminatory reference and not groups since it would restrict Freedom of Expression (Portilla,

193). Since there are no specific individuals mentioned in relation to all of the comments made

in the articles, they technically have not breached IPSO’s discrimination clause. However, as

Portilla noted in 2016, even though IPSO recognise pejorative statements to an individual’s race

as discrimination, they fail to understand the link between individuals and groups since

“individuals belong to a certain group and therefore the harm is done to the entire group” (192).

This further reiterates the weaknesses of code and shows that the code is more in favour of

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press than clauses of accuracy and anti-discriminatory

reporting.


Chapter 6: Methodology in action: Interviews and discussion

Whilst it is true that pejorative references to a specific individual’s ethnic or religious origin do

not appear in any of the mainstream articles reviewed, they emphasise the difference between us

and them, fuelling tensions around the religious customs of groups rather than individuals. It is

discouraging that these group concerns addressed by the PCC and then exposed by Leveson’s

recommendations have been overlooked during the development of IPSO’s Editors’ Code and its

complaint procedure. According to Portilla, obstacles that contradict these recommendations and

disregard most voices of representative groups are deliberately placed before complainants. She

continues to explain that it is challenging for groups to get their complaints across because there is no

given definition of what ‘significant’ means within IPSO’s clause (194). This is problematic as it

echoes what was mentioned earlier: abstract language use can lead to inadequate or diverse

interpretation. These clauses undoubtedly require clarification in terms of what is considered

significant.

Jasper Jackson

Jasper Jackson, an editor for the Guardian who recently wrote an article about Fatima Manji’s

religious discrimination complaint to IPSO against a columnist at the Sun – Kelvin Mckenzie –

addresses the insufficient and vague wording of the code in relation to Alison Pearson’s use of

bin bag, explaining that “there is a line between discriminatory and pejorative...while I think that

the bin bag comment is arguably offensive, [he is] not sure it is discriminatory. This is a very

difficult line, but I do think we should have the freedom to offend.” The use of sure within this

subjective statement highlights the lack of clarity within standards.

Although the author uses a derogatory tone towards MW, the Code leaves space for


nuanced interpretation. Discrimination can take many forms. As Marger identifies, a spectrum

of discrimination includes a broad difference in both its type and cruelty (Marger, 152).

Although the reference bin bag does not have apparent historical ties (e.g. Paki or Nigger), it is a

stereotypical and pejorative phrase in reference to the veil which some could call discriminatory.

In this sense, it becomes both pejorative and discriminatory as a religious dress becomes

synonymous to a garbage containment.

Attacking visual signifiers like the hijab or burqa increase the ease of discrimination

against a specific group. Even though race and religion differ, they are often inter-connected.

Although the bin bag remark does not have any apparent historical ties, it increases and inspires

continuation of negative Islamophobic discourses surrounding the veiled MW. Therefore, these

terminologies continue a historical tradition (Allen, 152). Just like anti-Semitism is a term used

to describe hatred towards Jews which actors increased through references to the Jewish nose or

the star of David, media terms such as bin bag create a negative viewpoint of MW.

Contemporary phrases therefore continue to inspire bias towards groups and can lead to dire

consequences – those as extreme as the Holocaust.

Historical consequences and extremes have resulted in an increased concern around

specific protections – ignoring parallel consequences to contemporary groups. Although there is

more done to protect the good name of groups such as Jews, an article published by Haaretz

indicates that UK publishers like The Guardian are attempting to avoid coming across as anti-

Semitic (2011). Without the Code outlining the importance of group respect and the effect of

word use upon their treatment, the Press can choose which groups to respect, creating a hierarchy

of respect which could lead to more violence and separation.

This abstract regulation of media connects to a tradition of written Western freedom.

Jackson explains that “[he does] think we should have the right to offend”, which reiterates that

having the right to freely express one’s opinion in the Code acts as a cover up to say things that


may offend people. Instead of encouraging understanding and promoting tolerance and

compassion, the news is more concerned with criticisms of groups. One of the reasons as

Greenslade illustrates that the news industry is more focused upon selling and circulating stories

(9). Therefore, a freedom to offend may lead to negative results in an attempt to sell an idea to

an already biased public prepared to receive offensive comments which propagate historical

narratives of hate.

The Code should have a natural responsibility to counter these popular biases which

serve to vend more than properly educate. Although Jasper subjectively frames Pearson as

offensive rather than discriminatory, his uncertainty becomes clear as he adds that:

However, it is probably weighted more towards Freedom of Speech/Press than towards

discrimination. I think the negative impact of racism - to which some of the Press

contributes - is horrendous and I think IPSO should do more to tackle clearly

discriminatory reporting and comment, including taking into account attacks of that

nature made on groups and not just individuals. But I do not think there should be more

limitations towards freedom in the British Press.

Here, through claiming that the Code is more “weighted towards Freedom of Speech than

towards discriminations”, Jackson reiterates that the code needs to look more into how it can

readjust clauses in the Code to make it more balanced and avoid favouritism.

A continuing imbalance of legal regulation couples with lack of media diversity to hinder

any such freedom. A lack of authoritative MW in the Press means a shortage of MW leading or

contributing to the debate around the veil. As a result, Orientalist-minded writing centres

women’s rights around Western and traditional ideologies, silencing alternative voices that are

not reflective of true society (Hall, 2015). Unequal cultural and gender domination consumes the

British media.

Although cultural domination through the media allows writers to use ideas of gender


equality to facilitate discrimination or prejudices, there would be difficulties if the Press was

restricted or constrained. As Jasper explains,

Restricting the Press risks making the truth harder to find and letting those who would

create societies far less tolerant than the flawed one we already have come to power

unopposed. Sure there are many problems with the Press, but restricting its freedom,

especially via government, is one of the routes to fascism.

He here illustrates that U.K. Press – already massively constrained by putative libel laws which

are in favour of the rich and disenfranchise the poor – buries the truth beneath a plethora of

biased laws. Although though he correctly references censorship as linked to a potentially fascist

result, a crafted censorship for balance with restriction in required areas such as discrimination or

prejudice may lead to more responsible and educated reporting which could tackle the issues

Jackson labels as racism. However, that is not to say freedom of speech cannot improve

harmony amongst groups in society.

Nahla-Al-Ageli

That is not to say that balanced Freedom of Speech cannot lead to truth and increased

communication which aids the voice of social diversity and political pluralism. Nevertheless,

these are unlikely to improve when the current editorial opinion atmosphere “tend[s] to hold

and endorse certain political persuasions” as freelance journalist, Nahla Al- Ageli, expresses,

presenting Rupert Murdoch’s news corporations as an example of the interplay between

politics and the media empire. Connections and biases hinder the freedom of media actors.

This relationship between media owners and the government is underlined by Lance

Bennett (1989), who asserts that public opinion is manipulated to ensure that the community

supports the policies of political representatives (Norrander, 265). For example, the recent


Brexit referendum highlights how the media can manipulate people's insecurities to reinforce

a political end, showing how these powers interact to strengthen political interests rather than

addressing societal issues.

Nahla addresses the failure of media to focus upon these issues when covering Allison

Pearson’s bin bag comment, explaining – in contrast to Jackson’s defence – that there is “no

justification for saying bin bag…Was it offensive or discriminatory? [She] would say it was

both.” This difference in opinion concerning discrimination between Jackson and Nahla

highlight the subjectivity of the term displaying the inadequacy of IPSO’s current wording.

What some may term as offensive may be viewed as violently inspirational for others.

Nahla argues that the statement avoided persecution because it is a “part of an opinion column. If

[she] were the editor, [she] would have not allowed the publication, as in [her] view she was

inciting the blind emotional aggression that can only lead to more aggression.” As the Code fails

in adequate regulation, the editor is here left to decide what to publish without consequence. Full

freedom does not result and editors monopolise the stereotypes or discourse that the Occident

imposes onto the Other, presenting a view of reality in which those who hold the power over

discourse formulate the truth. Many journalists act on blind emotional aggression inspired by

cultural background with a lack of communication between the Press and the groups they are

writing about without a legal power balance.

Similarly to Jackson, Nahla argues that the code should have limitations, as it would

make journalists “more responsible and use clear ethical concepts for guidance before they

publish commentary and opinions.” Abstract Code wording results in inadequate regulations

which inspire breaches defending with the catchphrase of press freedom which propagate

unacceptable concentrations of power bias.


Sunny Singh

Indian born journalist, author and lecturer Sunny Singh similarly expresses how the British

media uses lapses in the code to talk freely about certain minority groups. She mentions how

various journalists have come to exploit this expanding loophole, specifically referencing well-

known British columnist Katie Hopkins as a prime example. She claims that “Katie Hopkins has

pushed this line further and IPSO’s response has been less than adequate.” She adds that:

The latest figures on diversity - racial, religious, ethnic, class and more - in UK media

are dismal. We have a structurally privileged segment of society producing divisive,

hateful, and yes potentially violence inciting discourse and any criticism of it is shut

down by derailment tactics around 'offensive' (as opposed to harmful) or shouts of

political correctness.

Singh here echoes Nahla’s explanation that media is monopolised and affected by background

and power connections. The privileged create the social truth while avoiding legal consequence

through abstract technicalities.

Both interviewees touch upon the social impact and violent results of these constructed

truths neglected by these media actors. As Lambert and Githens-Mayer argue, this negative

media representation of Muslims in the British press is generally responsible for the extreme

dislike and violence that has been inflicted on Muslims in British society. Their study highlights

how the majority of anti-Muslim hate crimes have not been committed by conservatives but by

manipulated people who believe that the media have constituted to the negative depiction of

Muslims as terrorists and pose a threat to British security (11). An example of this hatred was

when Michael Ayode left a 16-year-old school girl - who was wearing a hijab – unconscious

(McDermott, 2012). Even though the language such as bin bag does not directly incite violence,

it certainly develops a negative idea of veiled MW which may lead to violent results.


Singh notes that the “structurally privileged segment of society” use their authoritarian

position to apply their supremacy over the here and now of specific discursive events. This

exercise of colonial control can be viewed as way of attempting to unveil and seize control over

MW bodies. In a deeper sense, the idea of unveiling also reiterates Frederick and Roberts (1997)

Objectification theory and suggests that Western society’s superficiality and aesthetical

obsession with the Western female body has become hyper sexualized and over sexualized by

many sources of media (television, films, journalism, magazines) to the point that aestheticism

has become a norm for the traditional Western woman. The veiled MW then becomes an enemy

of a constructed Western norm which is easily targeted as a problem.

Singh concludes on a note similar to that of Jackson, explaining that although she

disagrees with governmental control over media, certain situations call for regulation. She

explains that:

[she does]'t think this is necessarily about more legal limitations, although that may well

be needed given where we seem to be headed. I believe a code of ethics is required. I

think we all should revisit the findings of the Leveson Inquiry. I am not in favour - as a

principle - of government intervention in media. However, the industry will not or

cannot act to set up a code of ethics and practice, there will be huge and damaging

consequences for the polity and society in UK, as well as (we know this from post

referendum skyrocketing of racism) on individuals.

Sunny Singh counters a “government[al] intervention in the media” but argues that legal

limitations seem to be the route towards which society is heading. Given that there are so many

defects in the Press, she argues that there is a call for ethics in the media. Nevertheless, the

failure of editors, such as that addressed by Nahla, to censor according to ethics reveals the

necessity for IPSO to be revisited and readjusted.


Ahlam Akram

Ahlam Akram, women rights’ activist and Ambassador for Palestine, presents an alternate view,

emphasising the importance of freedom of speech and expression. During the discourse

addressing women’s veiling, she argues that:

These beliefs should be subject to research, creating awareness, finding whether she

would wear it like this or not, giving her a choice...when you find an educated,

empowered woman, she knows her situation in society...freedom of speech is protected

in this country, but freedom of how you think is up to us... our responsibility [is] to

create positive change if we want to live in peace, in this country or anywhere...

While the interviewee correctly recognizes the need for an open dialogue concerning women’s

rights, specifically based upon the hot-topic subject of veiling, she emphasises the general

population’s mind-set rather than this old-age tradition or set-backs of legal codes while handing

responsibility of feminine empowerment to the public rather than the media – overlooking the

influence this imbalanced industry often has upon outlooks.

Rooted in tradition, one cannot deny the value of Freedom of Speech; nevertheless, it is

important to recognise the effect of human error. Branching from the 1689 Bill of Rights within

Parliamentary Privilege, this right has a long esteemed presence within British society. As

Akram explains, even if a statement is insulting and offensive a journalist is “within her own

right [and] is entitled to her opinion.” Regardless of this national right, she also importantly

states that “[w]e are humans and we try to follow our feelings.” Feelings will therefore influence

a journalist’s works and her opinions are justified by Freedom of Speech. Although these

emotionally influenced opinions happen to invade journalistic works, group damage is an

expected consequence for conserving a historical privilege.


Paul Macey

Contemporarily, our humanness cannot stand as reason for insults and the establishment of increased

precariousness; there must be a balance between Freedom of Expression and protection of societal

populations. Paul Macey – founder and managing director of The Creative Collective and freelancer

for newspaper publications such as The Guardian, Evening Standard and Local Government

Chronicle – contrarily highlights the power of the Press in the United Kingdom influencing public

opinion concerning the Islamic headscarf controversy over the significance of feelings. Continuing

the arguments of Jasper Jackson, Nahla Al- Ageli and Sunny Singh, Macey reflects specifically upon

Allison Pearson’s bin bag comments, arguing that “she knows full well what she is doing…she is

playing to those which wish to hurt particularly Muslims at this time…the idea that they are on the

side of...MW is just a fallacy. She does it to get a headline, she does it to capture and gain

attention…” This deliberate targeting of a particular group in search of public attention and influence

counters Akram’s argument that several journalists are heavily affected by their feelings and

reiterates the impact that these comments hidden under the blanket of humanness often have

implications upon sects of society. While one cannot neglect the existence of human error,

journalistic comments affect the public on a level that does not allow for inaccuracy and bias.

Journalists like Allison Pearson (“Banning the Burqa is not racist-it’s a kindness”) use

their feelings towards veiling to initiate debate while neglecting balanced perspectives. Although

Pearson includes quotes from a MW’s solicitor, who argued that the “outlawing of the full-face

veils was contrary to European conventions” (Pearson, 2014). Pearson does not consider

communicating with MW directly, and instead prioritises her opinions (as well as other who are

in support of the ban) to counter other opposing outlooks (Liberty director Shami Haakrabarti).

Consequently, she chooses to ignore the alternative voice, by not speaking directly with those

who are affected by the issue emphasising that although journalists have the national right to


choose stories and interviewees, they often present sources that reflect their own personal view

or feelings towards the subject matter, resulting in a bias which underlines the necessity for more

balanced background professional representation or ethical code influence which encourages

responsible decisions in the pursuit of more objective news.

Influence, although not always intentional, occurs through journalists selecting, writing

and massaging information based upon background and personality rather than offering a

plethora of impartial information, in turn affecting the public mind-set. Media agenda is outlined

by Walter Lippmann (1922) who notes that the mass media is the main source for creating

“pictures in our head” about public affairs (Lippmann, 9). With this responsibility in mind, it is

important that individuals within this industry recognise that through exercise of their national

right, they also hold an incredibly nuanced liability through what Deuze describes as the

occupational ideology that journalists hold the highest ethical ground, which legitimizes what

they do (Deuze, 446). It thenceforth becomes undeniable that journalistic numbers will influence

the empowerment of women and their situation in society; an imbalanced representation will

result in skewed ethical authority leadership.

Once again contrasting Akram, Macey emphasises the monopolisation of the British

press and the lost voice of the general population. He stresses the influence of biased news,

calling for the United Kingdom to:

[G]ive the code back to the people, and not allow the press [as an industry] who are

owned by few – the likes of Murdoch and others – to define it…that way we see the

damage that’s been done... I don’t think those which wish to discriminate and be

offensive...are actually held to account enough…what people should be forced to do is

listen to those on a daily basis who are humiliated, bullied, harassed, name called,

excluded...

While Freedom of Speech has a recognised value for U.K. society, an unequal journalistic


gender and religion representation results in a media which is far from free and becomes “like a

mirror [which] states facts” for only a select community. Based upon statistics, an accurate

representation of society would include feminine media authority reaching 50.9% (Table 1)

rather than the current 22% (Table 2) while Muslim journalistic presence will need to increase

from 0.4% (Table 3) to 11% by 2050 (Table 4). Within an industry limited of female and

religious presence in relation to society, one cannot expect a realistic or balanced empowerment

of women or a proper and evolving educational influence upon the public, forfeiting the

opportunity to become a more complete counterpart to society. If the public allows a population

unparalleled to the true population to appropriate its voice, it creates a biased mirror only

reflective of select truths. Because the human nature of journalists will naturally impact their

writings, it is important to either equalise the authoritative representation within this industry or

to edit information through a skilfully constructed code so that the voice of the effected populace

is heard by the select few.

Given the complexities of quickly restructuring the media employment realm, it

would be much more efficient to reform clauses of the code. Macey voices his concerns

surrounding the code, by suggesting that the code “should be specific, and they put significant in

there so no one [could] ever pin it down and people can always get away with it…on a daily

basis.” Terms as abstract as significant within the code result in insufficient legal action. Overall,

interviewees share the same consensus that the code requires clarification.


Table 1. Courtesy of the Office for National Statistics, 2011.

Table 2. Courtesy of the Office for National Statistics, 2011.

UK News Authorship Imbalance Based on Gender

men women

UK Population Based on Gender

men women


Table 3. Courtesy of Thurman (2016).Journalists in the UK.

Table 4. Courtesy of Williams(2016).

Religious Affiliation within UK Media

Christians (32%) Muslims (0.4%) Other (3%)

Jews (3%) Budhists (0.4%) None (62%)

UK Religious Projections, 2050

Christians (45%) Muslims (11%) Folk (.3%) Jews (2%)

Buddhists (0.9%) None (39%) Hindu (0.3%)


Chapter 7: Conclusion and Discussion

As demonstrated in this research, the British Press contributes to the negative portrayal of veiled

MW by deploying linguistic strategies around the four dominant archetypes:

foreign othering

societal threats

extremist symbols

victims of Muslim patriarchal control

[s]tealing agency from voiceless subjects. As observed in the study, articles deploy a binary

opposition paradigm like us and them and Orientalism to reproduce and reaffirm the notion of

otherness. Although such binary categorization remains vital for generating meanings in

language and culture, stereotyping and prejudices have contributed to the negative depiction of

veiled MW in UK national newspapers.

This is achieved through processes of discursive strategies like scare quotes to create

anxieties around the veil and figurative language to compare the phenomenon of veiling to

millinery garments and plastic bags. Newspaper articles use metonyms to identify Muslim-ness

by referring to bodily characteristics such as the hijab and beards in a reductive way. The use of

these predications creates a post-modern shift in meaning by rendering the veil a mere cloth

rather than a religious item.

Such limiting discursive strategies tend to focus on Britain’s good characteristics whilst

suppressing flaws. The negative depiction of veiled MW suggests how processes of identity

production are closely tied to concentrated powers that have control over news discourses. This

technique of reporting reproduces Orientalist patterns of representation, displaying the power the

orient has over the occident.

These linguistic strategies which monopolised media powers employ to create the


negative depiction of MW create an atmosphere where it is difficult to distinguish between

comment and fact in the Press, manipulating public viewpoint and playing upon ever-present

bias. This calls for legal action. Whilst it is true that none of the articles examined contained

pejorative or discriminative statements towards an individual’s religion, they did contain

comments and opinions made towards religious groups. IPSO has cited they do not cover

sweeping assumptions made about groups; journalists and editors take advantage of this

expanding loophole to freely express their opinions without consideration of the effect upon

others. The Code’s negligence towards groups demonstrates how it values press freedom over

group protection.

This calls for a re-evaluation of the code and the development of concise and clear

journalistic rules to eliminate the regularity of biased and unethical reporting while at the same

time encouraging Freedom of the Press. An expertly devised glossary is crucial to define what is

a significant code breach and what is not. Additionally, alternative voices are required to

promote a heterogeneous social order in which authority is returned to the diverse public.

If current patterns progress, the chances of code reformation are unlikely. There has been no

recent apparent effort to modify the Code. No alternations to the Code’s conflicting clauses has

meant that voluntary self-regulators have been insufficient to prevent harmful and unethical

practices. For this reason, education on diversity is the key. Journalists should attend classes

which address respect of diversity, ethics and religion to further develop their understanding so

that when they write an article, they are not blinded by unrecognised bias. A more democratic

and peaceful society will result only with more emphasis on education which aims to eradicate

the ideologies presented by media and politics. Through a coupling of regulation and education,

British Press can potentially pair Freedom of Speech with cultural respect to encourage true

freedom. Without these changes, British society stands in danger of continued biased ideologies

which treasure ideological hierarchies and ignore the true fabric of its population.


Works Cited

Ahmed, N. M., 2012. Race and Reform: Islam and Muslims in the British Media, A

Submission to the Leveson Inquiry: The Culture, Practice, and Ethics of the

Press, Unitas Communications, London: Unitas Communications.

Akbar, A., 2010. The many faces behind the veil. [Online]

Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-many-faces-

behind-the-veil-1865772.html [Accessed 09 08 2016].

Allen, C., 2010. Islamophobia. Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press.

Allen, P., 2010. Burka rage as female lawyer rips veil off Muslim woman in French clothes shop.

[Online] Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279349/Burka-rage-

female-lawyer-rips-veil-Muslim-woman-French-clothes-store.html

[Accessed 28 07 2016].

Ameli, S. R. et al., 2007. British Muslims Expectations of the Government: The British

Media and Muslim Representation: The ideology of Demonization. pp. 110-6.

Amer, S., 2014. What is Veiling? USA: The University of Carolina Press.

Anon., 2006. Debate Over Muslims dress could trigger riots, race chief warns. [Online]

Available at: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/debate-over-muslim-dress-could-

trigger-riots-race-chief-warns-7260355.html [Accessed 20 07 2016].

Anthonissen, C., 2003. Interacting between Visual and Verbal Communications: Changing

Patterns in the Printed Media. In: G. Weiss & R. Wodak, eds. Critical Discourse

Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinary. Vienna: University of Vienna, pp. 297-313.

Baig, A., 2016. Hijab Debate Anila Baig: "The fact that Fatima can present a new bulletin

and also wears a headscarf shows great Britain "is". [Online] Available at:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1463714/anila-baig-the-fact-that-fatima-can-

present-a-news-bulletin-and-also-wears-a-headscarf-shows-how-great-britain-is/


[Accessed 01 08 2016].

Bartlett, D., 2006. Straw in plea to Muslim Women: Take off your veils. [Online]

Availableat:http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/954145.straw_in_plea_to_mu

slim_women_take_off_your_veils/ [Accessed 02 04 2016].

Bednarek, M. & Caple, H., 2012. News Discourse (continuum discourse). New York:

Continuum International Publishing Group.

Bilge, S., 2010. Beyond subordination vs. resistance: An intersectional approach to the

agency of veiled Muslims women. Journal of Intercultural Studies, Volume 1, pp.

9-28.

Billig, M., 1995. Banal nationalism. London: Sage.

Blanche, M. T., K. D. & Painter, D., 1999. Research in Practice: Applied Methods for the

Social Sciences. 2nd ed. Cape Town: UCT Press.

Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K., 2005. Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach.

Discourse Studies, 7(4-5), pp. 585-614.

Bunglawala, I., 2011. ENGAGE submission to the Leveson Inquiry, London: Engage.

Burr, V., 1995. An introduction to social constructionism. Charlton, C., 2015. Jihadi Jane: ISIS militants caught dressing in women’s clothes

and wearing make up in attempt to flee Iraq's battlefields. [Online]

Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995737/Islamic-State-

militants-caught-cross-dressing-attempt-flee-battlefield-unhindered.html

[Accessed 23 07 2016].

Child, F., 2007. Why banning the veil is a lesson in common sense. [Online]

Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-443919/Why-banning-

religious-dress-schools-lesson-common-sense.html [Accessed 19 07 2016].

Cramer, P. A., 2011. Controversy as News Discourse. New York: Springer. Cunningham, K., 2003. Cross-regional trends in female terrorism. Issue 26, p. 171–195.


Deuze, M., 2005. What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of

journalists reconsidered. Volume 6(4), pp. 442-464.

Deuze, M., 2005. What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of

journalists reconsidered. 6(4), pp. 442-464.

Dvorin, T., 2014. Hamas Encourages Suicide Bombers to Dress as Orthodox Jews. [Online]

Available at: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/183790 [Accessed

20 08 2016].

Edwards, D., 2000. Extreme Case Formulation (ECF)In Silviera, B: The Role of

"Extreme Case Formulations" as Face work at Procon. Volume 1, pp. 261-287.

Fairclough, N., 1995. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. New York:

Longman.

Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R., 1997. FPDA: the theoretical approach. In Baxter:

Feminist Post-Structuralist Discourse Analysis - A New Theoretical and

Methodological Approach? pp. 8-1. pp. 1-8.

Favell, A. & Modood, T., 2003. Multiculturalism and the Theory and Practice of Normative

Political Theory. In: A. Finlayson, ed. Contemporary Political Thought: A Reader

and Guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Fowler, R., 1991. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London:

Rougtledge.

Frank, S., 2013. Women and Journalism, London: Reuters Institute for the Study of

Journalism.

Freedman, D. & Thussu, D. K., 2012. Media and Terrorism: Global Perspectives. London:

Sage.

Gans, H. J., 1979. Deciding what's News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News.

USA: North-western University Press.

Gilligan, A., 2011. Why banning the veil would only cover up the real problems for British

Muslims. [Online] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/andrew-


gilligan/8455884/Why-banning-the-veil-would-only-cover-up-the-real-problems-

for-British-Muslims.html [Accessed 19 08 2016].

Giroux, H. A., 2004. What Might Education Mean After Abu Ghraib: Revisiting Adorno

Politics of Education, pp. 1-24. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the

Middle East, pp. 1-24.

Given, L. M., 2008. The SAGE Encyclopaedia of Qualitative Research Methods.

Australia: Sage.

Greenslade, R., 2005. Seeking Scapegoats. The coverage of asylum in the UK Press. Asylum

and Migration Working Paper 5, pp. 1-38.

Greenslade, R., 2014. Ipso, the new press regulator, is just the PCC with extra bells and whistles.

[Online] Available at:https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/08/ipso-press-

regulator-pcc-bells-whistles [Accessed 10 05 2016].

Grossberg, L., 1996. Identity and cultural studies - Is that all there is? In: S. Hall & P. G.

Gay, eds. Questions of cultural identity. London: Sage, pp. 87-107.

Haaretz, 2011. U. K’s Guardian Owns Up to Inadvertent Case of anti-Semitism. [Online]

Available at: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/u-k-s-guardian-owns-up-to-inadvertent-

cases-of-anti-semitism-1.394851 [Accessed 02 08 2016].

Hall, Julie, 2015. Here's What's Really Happening When White Saviours Try to Save

Muslim women. [Online] Available at:http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/03/white-

saviors-muslim-women/ [Accessed 14 08 2016].

Hall, S., 1997. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London:

Sage.

Hall, S., n.d. The Field of Discourse Analysis. pp. 23-1. Hamel, C. E., 2002. Muslim Diaspora in Western Europe: The Islamic Headscarf (Hijab),

The Media and Muslims’ Integration in France. Journal of Citizenship Studies,

6(3), pp. 293 - 308.


Harris, S. & Clarke, N., 2013. College caves in over ban on students wearing veils.

[Online]Availableat:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article2419835/Birmingham

-Metropolitan-College-scrap-ban-Muslim-students-wearing-religious-veils-public-

outcry.html [Accessed 02 04 2016].

Hasan, M., 2012. British Muslims must step outside this anti-war comfort zone. [Online]

Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/02/muslims-step-

outside-antiwar-comfort-zone [Accessed 05 08 2016].

Heath, J., 2008. The Veil: Women Writers on its History, Lore, and Politics.

California: University of California Press.

Huntington, S., 1997. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. New

York: Touchstone Book.

Idris, M. M., 2005. ‘Laïcité and the Banning of the “Hijab” in France’. Legal Studies,

25(2), pp. 260-90.

Jager, S. & Maier, F., 2009. Theoretical and methodological aspects of Foucauldian critical

discourse analysis and dispositive analysis. In: R. Wodak & M. Meyer, eds. Methods

for Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage, pp. 34-62.

Khan, M., 2014. The Muslim Veiling: A Symbol of Oppression or a Tool of "liberation".

Journal of the Manitoba Anthropology Students Association, Volume 32, pp. 11-1.

Khiabany, G. & Williamson, M., 2009. Veiled bodies- naked racism: culture, politics and

race in the Sun. Institute of Race Relations, Volume Vol 50 (2), pp. 69-88.

Knudson, D. J. W., 2000. In the news: American Journalists View their Craft. USA: s.n.

Kohut, A. et al., 2011. Muslim–Western Tensions Persist, s.l.: Pew Research Centre. LeBoeuf, M., 2007. The Power of Ridicule: An Analysis of Satire. Senior Honour

Projects, pp. 48-1.

Lentin, A. & Titley, G., 2011. The Crises of Multiculturalism: Racism in a Neoliberal Age.

London: Zed Books.

Leveson, 2012. The Leveson Inquiry: An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of


the Press, London: s.n.

Lippmann, W., 1922. Public Opinion. California: Sage. Lughod, L. A., 2006. The Muslim woman: the power of images and the danger of pity.

[Online] Available at: http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2006-09-01-abulughod-

en.html[Accessed 04 05 2016].

Marger, M., 2000. Distanciation and Disembedding. In: G. Ritzer & J. Ryan, eds. The

Concise Encyclopaedia of Sociology. London: Blackwell, pp. 151-152.

Mazer, J. G. & Lambert, R., 2010. Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate Crime, London:

European Muslim Research Centre.

McDermott, K., 2012. Thug, 34, admits punching 16-year-old girl unconscious in shocking

random street attack which was caught on CCTV. [Online] Available at:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2237501/Thug-Michael-Ayoade-36-admits-

punching-Tasneem-Kabir-16-unconscious-shocking-random-street-attack.html

[Accessed 18 08 2016].

McGregor, S. L., 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis: A Primer. 15(1). McShane, L., 2015. Man disguised as woman wearing burqa kills 15 in Chad capital bomb

attack. [Online] Available at: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/man-

disguised-woman-wearing-burqa-kills-14-chad-attack-article-1.2288989 [Accessed

19 07 2016].

Meehan, T. & Farquharson, K., 2012. Community as outsider witness: Utilising community

members in the reconstitution of problem - saturated identities. 4(22), pp. 567-774.

Mulholland, R. P., 2015. French police detain woman with fake pregnant belly 'intended to

hide bomb'. [Online] Available at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/12067328/French-police-

detain-woman-with-fake-pregnant-belly-intended-to-hide-bomb.html [Accessed 02

08 2016].


Munoz, M., 2005. Predominance of culturalist perceptions. In: S. A. Mirhosseini & H.

Rouzbeh, eds. Instances of Islamophobia: Demonizing the Muslim "other".

London: Lexington. London: Lexington.

Norrander, B. & Wilcox, C., 2002. Understanding the Public Opinion. 2nd ed. Arizona: CQ

Press.

O'Halloran, K., 2003. Vatican II and the Church's Teaching on Social Communication. In: W.

A. Kappeler, ed. Communication Habits for the Pilgrim Church: Vatican Teaching on

Media and Society. New York: Lang, pp. 41-71.

OSCE-ODIHR, 2006. The Representation of Muslims in the Public Discourse, Warsaw:

Report of the OSCE-ODIHR Roundtable., s.l.: s.n.

Parker, I., 1999. Introduction: Varieties of discourse and analysis. In: I. Parker, ed. Critical

text work: An introduction to varieties of discourse and analysis. Buckingham,

England: Open University Press, pp. 1-12.

Pearson, A., 2014. Banning the Burka is not racist - it’s a kindness. [Online]

Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10940882/Banning-the-

burka-is-not-racist-its-a-kindness.html [Accessed 26 07 2016].

Petley, J., 2006. Still no redress from the PCC. In: E. Poole & J. E. Richardson, eds. Muslims

in the News Media. New York: I.B. Tauris, pp. 53-63.

Petley, J., n.d. Press Freedom: A Democratic Rubric. pp. 23-1.

Pew, 2011. Muslim Western Tension Persist, Washington, DC: Pew Research Centre.

Poole, E., 2002. Reporting Islam: media representations of British Muslims. London:

I.B. Tauris.

Portilla, K. P., 2016. Redressing Everyday Discrimination. The Weakness and Potential of

Anti-Discrimination Law. New York: Routledge.

Rainey, S., 2011. Leveson Inquiry: as it happened November 29. [Online]

Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-


inquiry/8924958/Leveson-Inquiry-as-it-happened-November-29.html

[Accessed 10 06 2016].

Ramadan, T., 2009. Radical Reform: Islamic Ethics and Liberation. London: Oxford

University Press.

Rankin, L., 2013. The Biggest Lie You’ve Been Told About the Oppression of

Muslim Women. [Online] Available at: https://mic.com/articles/53783/the-

biggest-lie-you-ve-been-told-about-the-oppression-of-muslim-

women#.a9htL5dOx [Accessed 02 04 2016].

Richardson, J. E., 2006. Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from Critical Discourse

Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rogers, R. et al., 2005. Critical Discourse Analysis in education: A Review of the

literature. Review of Educational Research, 3(75), pp. 356-416.

Said, E. W., 2001. Dialogue of Civilizations. In: J. Jones & N. Ridout, eds. Oman, Culture

and Diplomacy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Said, E. W., 2001. Part II: Orientalism and After. In: M. Bayoumi & A. Rubin, eds.

The Edward Said Reader. London: Granta, pp. 63-291.

Sim, A., 2016. David Cameron supports removal of Muslim veils in schools. [Online]

Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-will-back-

uk-muslim-veil-bans-as-he-announces-new-measures-to-tackle-segregation-

a6820491.html [Accessed 18 07 2016].

Steel, J., 2012. Journalism and Free Speech. New York: Routledge.

Swinford, S., 2013. Britain needs “national debate” about banning Muslim girls from

wearing veils in public... [Online] Available at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10311469/Britain-needs-national-debate-

about-banning-Muslim-girls-from-wearing-veils-in-public.html [Accessed 02 04

2016].

Swinford, S. & Evans, M., 2013. Muslim woman Rebekah Dawson must remove niqab


while giving evidence, judge rules. [Online] Available at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10312604/Muslim-woman-

Rebekah-Dawson-must-remove-niqab-while-giving-evidence-judge-rules.html

[Accessed 02 04 2016].

Tileaga, C., 2006. Discourse, dominance and power relations. Inequality as a social and

interactional object. Journal of Ethnic Studies, 6(4), pp. 476-497.

Turner, J., 2014. The veil stands for social divisions, not piety. [Online]

Available at: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4139405.ece

[Accessed 22 07 2016].

Van Dijk, T. A., 1987. Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. USA:

Sage.

Van Dijk, T. A., 1992. Discourse and the denial of racism. Journal of Discourse & Society,

3(1), pp. 87- 118.

Van Dijk, T. A., 1993. Elite Discourse and Racism. London: Sage.

Van Dijk, T. A., 2000. New(s) racism: A discourse analytical approach. pp. 33-49.

Van Dijk, T. A., 2006. Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Journal of Discourse and

Society, 4(2), pp. 250-281.

Walton, D., 1989. Applying Discourse Analysis: Argumentation and Letters to Editors. In:

J. E. Richardson, ed. Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from Critical

Discourse Analysis. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 149-178.

Williams, G., 1999. French Discourse Analysis: The method of post-structuralism. 2nd ed.

New York: Routledge.

Wodak, R., Cillia, R. d., Reisigl, M. & Liebhart, K., 1999. The Discursive Construction of

National Identity. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Wood, L. A. & Kroger, R. O., 2000. Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action

in Talk and Text. California: Sage.


YouGov, 2010. Exploring Islam Foundation Survey Results. [Online]

Available at: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/today_uk_import/YG-Archives-

Pol-ApexCommunicationsExploringIslamFoundation2-100520.pdf [Accessed 21 07

2016].

Office for National Statistics, 2011. 2011Census: Population Estimates for the United

Kingdom, March 2011. [Online] Available at:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/popu

lationestimates/bulletins/2011censuspopulationestimatesfortheunitedkingdom/2012-

12-17[Accessed 28 08 2016].

Thurman, N., 2016. Journalists in the UK, London: Reuters Institute for the Study of

Journalism.

portfolio dissertation

Documents