Xenophobia media racism daily mail

Race For Life: Chasing Racism Out of British Media

It is time for the British media to stop chasing immigrants out of this country; there is no running away from the ultimate truth that when life for humans began, we were all the same race.


Xenophobia media racism daily mail


Every individual is born in to this world a certain race, an identifiable race that will be attached to them for life.

Race may be defined as a group of humans who share the same ethnicity. Racism is intolerance of a certain ethnic group in the form of prejudice and discrimination, typically a result of one’s belief that their race is superior to another. The ultimate product of extreme race-hate is genocide, an unforgettable occurrence that has marked tragic scars in history. Merely acknowledging the immoral and damaging nature of racism however simply is not enough. What truly demands recognition is the root of racism that is so prominently embedded within British soil.

More than half a century after immigration was introduced to the United Kingdom, the nation remains insecure about the matter. Such insecurity can be justifiably argued to be the result of the media. To put it frankly, it is no secret that some aspects of the British media induce the idea that our nation is threatened by foreigners; the Daily Mail being perhaps the boldest of perpetrators, frequently splashing racist headlines on the front page such as labelling British Olympic gold medallist Mo Farah a ‘plastic Brit’. Most unfortunately, it is one of the most popular newspapers in Britain with nearly two million daily readers.

Whilst the purpose of media in theory is to broadcast and publish current affairs to the populace, what it chooses to shine light on inevitably influences public opinion. Researchers on behalf of the University of Cardiff examined 974 newspaper articles from 2000-2008, found that of all stories concerning British Muslims, 36 percent were with regard to terrorism, 26 percent considered Islam to be “dangerous” or “backward”, and “references to radical Muslims outnumber[ed] references to moderate Muslims by 17 to one”.

Furthermore, writing for The Guardian in late July of this year, Joseph Harker published a highly enlightening article  that explores the story of the ‘second big prosecution where men in Derby have preyed on teenage girls’, whilst highlighting the correlation between the race of those involved in the crime with the amount of media attention the case received:

‘Of the eight predators, seven were white, not Asian. And the story made barely a ripple in the national media’

The correlation is profoundly enhanced when Harker proceeds to note how the infamous Rochdale “Asian sex gang” ‘made the front page of every national newspaper’, which undeniably contributed to furthering the negative stereotype of the Asian community.

An unarguable conclusion can thus be made here, and it is that the British media is negatively and detrimentally dictating the definition of a Muslim to the general public. This is utmost signified by the evidence in the recent findings that, ‘75 per cent of non-Muslims now believe Islam is negative for Britain, and 63 per cent don’t disagree that “Muslims are terrorists.”’

The Leveson Inquiry did accentuate the fact that it is time for the British media to undergo change, with the most prominent outcome being the necessitation of efficacious scrutiny.  Change as such however, revolved chiefly around the media’s responsibility to respect privacy and not exploit illegitimate evidence. Writing in July of this year, Dr Nafeez Ahmed produced an article explaining why the Leveson Inquiry must also investigate anti-Muslim bigotry, and how racism within the media can be eradicated.

He first suggests the further involvement of bodies such as the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) and Equality and Human Rights Commission to participate in effectively regulating the media, for instance through ‘ensuring broader impartiality and fairness in media coverage’ and being able to ‘launch independent investigations and impose fines’.

Whilst an increase in regulation may physically disable media bodies from writing racist remarks, merely stifling the perpetrators won’t actually change their attitude. This is why further research by Dr Ahmed discovered there to be a general consensus on the ‘need to reform wider media culture in general’. Whilst the fact that there are only five weekly columnists from ethnic minorities within the British media justifies Dr Ahmed’s argument that ‘the biggest challenge of all is minority underrepresentation’ , the problem that demands confrontation is the ignorance of journalists and those behind the press; only with proper training and education does understanding arise. It is lack of understanding of other cultures that has created a nation insecure of immigrants. It is poor social integration measures that have limited people’s ability to overcome ethnic differences and realise that race is irrelevant.

It is time for the British media to stop chasing immigrants out of this country, because there is no running away from the ultimate truth that when life for humans began, we were all the same race.


Photo Credit: malias

3 thoughts on “Race For Life: Chasing Racism Out of British Media”

  1. 1. Why are you using race and religion interchangeably? They are not the same and should be treated as separate issues. A related point is that you aren’t clear where the issue is spawned, is it difference of race as you say in the beginning? is it difference of religion as you say in the middle? or is it difference of culture as you say at the end?2. Denying islam is a volatile and aggressive religion is to ignore a multitude of events. In recent history – ignoring the dozens upon dozens of holy wars that have been waged in the name of Islam over the long term history – 9/11, 7/7, violent riots and murders in response to Danish cartoons, violent riots and murders in response to recent anti-Islam film, suicide bombings all over the middle East in the name of jihad, continuing sunni-shi’ite conflict that is over a millennia old, Palestine-Israel conflict, violent riots and calls for assassination in response to Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, Saddam Hussein’s holy war against the British in Iraq, Hezbollah conflict with Israel, continued abusive, second class citizen treatment of women, continued abusive treatment and executions of homosexuals etc etc etc.That’s without leaving the past 25 years and that is by no means a complete list of the religion’s crimes. Islam, like the other main monotheisms, is a force to be feared, not one we should bend over backwards to accommodate, particularly when it makes no accommodations for England or England’s culture or beliefs – but that’s another point altogether. It’s bad enough we have christianity screaming its bigoted views at us about abortions, condoms, pre-marital sex, homosexuality etc. and fucking our kids without adding another force of hatred and segregation into the mix (let’s not forget the islamic prophet Muhammed married a 9 year old).3. ‘Whilst an increase in regulation may physically disable media bodies from writing racist remarks’ – that’s a call for censorship, you seem to think a violation of human rights is acceptable. People have the right to voice any opinion or view they like, whether it be Holocaust-denial, racism or something equally despicable. To object to that is very anti-modernism.4. Perhaps an interesting area of enquiry as a result of your findings would be why the newspapers tend towards anti-islamic and anti-non-English stories are published at a unquestionably high rate. Are we naturally disposed towards racism or is it a cultural phenomenon? Is multiculturalism actually working in the countries it’s occurring in?

  2. Thanks for your comments Cathal, I’ll try to answer everything as concisely as possible.1. Ethnicity is defined by the human characteristics race, religion, culture and language. This explains why anti-Semitism for instance, is classed as racism.2. It seems as if you have missed the entire point of the argument I have put forward here, and it is that no individual can choose what race they are born as. Now because we live in a world of believers, whether ones belief may be in a religion or in no religion, we tend to be brought up under the circumstances our parents/guardians choose to bring us up as.The point I am making here, is that many Muslim’s are believers of Islam because that is the ethnic background they have grown up amidst. Whilst religion as you have noted has undeniably led to extremist interpretations and subsequent immoral actions, what you must realise is that the majority of Muslim’s are not extremists or terrorists. The purpose of this article was to highlight the inaccurate and bias portrayal of certain races by the British media. Yes, Asian men raping girls is certainly relevant to the general public’s awareness, but English men raping girls is just as important to report. If the same crime’s are happening but we are only hearing about the ‘brown people’ committing them, then public opinion in this country is being implicitly distorted.3. The human right to freedom of speech is immediately undermined by the misuse of freedom of speech. To be verbally abusive (let’s not deny that racism is abusive) towards someone for belonging to a certain race, is to strip them of their right to be the human they were born as; it is inhumane to personally attack somebody for being something they cannot help being. It is a human right to be a certain race without having to undergo criticism for it. Racism is oppressive. The implementation of a racist system would lead to extreme censorship (as it would block out opinions of a certain race). 4. The enquiry I made was whether the British media was racist. My findings suggested yes. My exact findings were that the British media are shining lots of lights on naughty Muslims with not as many on naughty (white) Brits who are guilty of the same charges.Whether multiculturalism is working perfectly at the moment or not, it is imperative that we as humans strive towards good relations with each other regardless of race. The world has never revolved and never could exist without the social cohesion of different races. If the attitude you have presented here is your true conviction, then I really advise you not to go on a gap yar or travelling. No racist can survive in the wild…

  3. 1. The UN does include abuse of religion as a section of racism, but this is a bastardization of the word that still means thinking one race is superior to another in the dictionary. Who defines anti-semitism as racist aside from the UN?2. With this point I wasn’t trying to take on your argument, I think you make the argument that the British media appears to be anti-islamic and racist very well. I’m merely arguing against a certain aspect within this argument. While one’s religious views are indeed heavily influenced by a person’s upbringing it is a choice and muslims are choosing to adhere to a text that is extremely abusive towards non-muslims and which caused and propagated an unforgivable amount of war, oppression and death. If it is my objection to islam that makes you think I’m racist, let me be clear that I do not discriminate, christianity and judaism are just as appallingly harmful as will become evident with even the most superficial investigation of history.Agreed, highlighting Asian rapists over English rapists is racist and shameful practice.3. Interesting response. Is it based on offence? So if my comment pointing out all the abominable crimes of islam was offensive to a muslim should it be censored? That would mean academic interest in the crimes of religions would be disallowed. Where do we draw the line? Freedom of speech is an all or nothing question and those who do not allow veil the public’s eyes from the crimes of a certain group – the government in North Korea, the church during the Dark Ages, etc. The voicing of patently false and abhorrent views is the drawback of freedom of speech (e.g. holocaust denial, racism) but these views spawn further research and questioning of our views.  In fact a certain Holocaust-denier, who’s name escapes me, unveiled a huge amount of information about the Nazis with his objectionable views – I can find his name if you’re interested. To object to freedom of speech is to be arrogant about one’s views, assuming they cannot be improved. Is it misuse of freedom of speech if I point out that sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ 20 points below the average in England? If so, then I would also surely not be allowed to point out that blacks have a superior muscles than whites (the individual cells in their muscles produce more power and function at a higher efficiency to those in whites’ muscles). It is not one’s human right not to be criticized – your article here is assuming racists’ views are inferior to your own, which is verbal abuse by the same standard as the newspapers, is this misuse of freedom of speech?Perhaps some more consideration should be given to the recent film about islam that caused uproar – which is worse: to insult someone’s views, or to murder someone? Saying the film makers are at fault and not the islamic response is the same logic as ‘Well your honour, she was wearing a very short skirt…’4. Agreed, striving towards equality between the different races is a very prudent telos.I have done a lot of travelling, I assure you I see no race as superior. I see no culture as superior to another either, however I see no reason to respect the culture of abhorrent oppression and abuse of women in many (strongly islamic) areas in the Middle East – where a woman is executed for being raped while the man might get a few lashes. Only a misogynistic, inhumane pig would consider such cultures as deserving respect. And to consider religious objections, for which the supporting evidence is overwhelming (read God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, one of the New Atheists, if you are interested in the subject), to be racist is to bastardize the word.

Leave a Reply