|
Introduction
Since the 1979 Islamic revolution
in Iran and later since Communism's decline, the fad of opposing "Islamic
Fundamentalism" (Islam to be precise) has been utilized as an effective
substitute for the "national religion" of the US and an ideological substitute
for anti-communism (Siddiqi, D.A., 1992). Many a scholarly political analysis
has posed Islam as a threat to Western culture, providing a base for agenda-setting
in the media for "ever bigger and better things" (Nixon, 1988; Lewis, 1990
and Brewda, 1990). Hackett (1991) speculates that after the end of the
Cold War, Islam might become the future potential threat candidate on the
Western media agenda (1990). He cites Galung (1967) and Wright (1989) to
note that Third World debt, war against drugs, environmental issues and
Islamic fundamentalism will be the most probable "Threat Candidates" for
the West after the end of the Cold War. Said (1987) also feels that the
Western media has fostered the belief that Islam is a violent and destructive
religion for individuals and civilizations.
This textual analysis of the US elite
press (The New York Times, the Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times)
is based on the mix of theoretical positions suggested by Gitlin (1984),
Said (1981) and Hackett (1984). Gitlin defines "Media Frames" as `persistent
patterns of cognition, interpretation, presentation, selection, emphasis,
and exclusion, by which symbol-handlers routinely organize discourse, whether
verbal or visual' (P 7). The notion of the media frame has been used loosely
and often undefined. It is frequently used in a vague way, or as a metaphor
(Tankard et al, 1992).
This article intends to discuss how
the US elite press portrayed the image of Islam and Islamists from the
reference point of the victory of FIS1
in the Algerian election. The New York times (NYT), The Washington Post
(Post) and The Los Angeles Times (LAT) have been selected for the purpose
of this study as representatives of the US elite press. The main goal of
this study is to examine the editorial policy of the elite press towards
the Islamic Movement of FIS in Algeria.
Brief Background of FIS
After the fall of Communism and the
establishment of a new world order, political pluralism is now recognized
as an efficient guarding path against tyranny, despotism and dictatorship.
After three decades of an authoritarian socialist regime, on December 26,
1991, Algerian voters went to the ballot boxes to choose their parliamentary
representatives. Out of 231 seats (first round), the ruling FLN for Salvation
(FIS) obtained 188, FFS received 25, the ruling FLN got 15 seats and 3
went to independent candidates. The FIS led in about 144 our of the 199
districts that remained to be decided. The FIS practically secured itself
the 98 additional seats required to attain a two-third majority.
However, the FIS, the victorious party
which emerged as an expression of the identity and aspirations of the identity
and aspirations of the people of Algeria, was denied its victory at the
polls. On January 11, 1992, the military/security establishment seized
power allegedly for the sake of "saving democracy" and announced the cancellation
of the second round of elections, which were to take place five days later.
Algerians were denied their inalienable right to freely elect their government,
merely because they preferred an Islamic state over dictatorship and puppet
regimes (Haddam, January, 1993).
This study will examine the differences
and similarities between the editorials (signed and unsigned) of "The York
Times" (NYT), "The Washington Post" (Post) and "The Los Angeles Times"
(LAT) on the issue of portrayal of FIS in Algeria.
To determine how the elite press of
a "Democratic Society" perceives an undemocratic army action against a
democratically elected Islamic party in Algeria, the following questions
have been posed for examination in this research: (1) How did the US elite
press frame the Islamic Movement (the FIS)? (2) Were there any similarities
and differences of approach found between the elite papers' editorials
while framing the FIS?
A mix of qualitative method of content
analysis and a method suggested by Tankard et al (1991) was used to interpret
the latent meaning of the text2.
The NEXIS data base information was used as the main source of this study.
All editorials relating to the above mentioned Islamic Movements and to
Islam (in general), published in all three US elite newspapers between
January 1st to March 23rd 1990, were included in this study. Purposive
samples were drawn for coding to reflect qualitative aspects of the sources
which were deemed important (Holsti, 1969:13). These purposive samples
were different segments of the contents on the subject of FIS since the
time frames for these samples were different according to the historical
development of this particular event.
In order to avoid the bias of the
qualitative approach, the researcher re-read the material as many times
as necessary to satisfy himself that the inference favoured was consonant
with all the relevant portions and characteristics of the original communication
material. Qualitative analysis was used by taking notes through preliminary
readings of communication material for the purpose of research, making
observations, writing impressions about content characteristics, and finally
by developing the frames (themes, ideologies, portrayals, metaphors, phrases,
key words) and identifying their directions.
"Framing" is the term researchers
use to refer to how an event is portrayed in a particular news story. Hackett
(1984) pointed out that the conflict in El Salvador was framed as a "National
Security" issue and that other frames were possible, such as a "Rich-versus-Poor
Frame". Media analysts have also used the term "Frame". Chomsky used this
term in an interview (Szykowny 1990) to refer to the way "The New York
Times" introduced a news story. Chomsky argued that the NYT's story marginalized
the Iraqi offer by opening its story with a statement from the US government
which discredited the Iraqi offer (Tankard et al, 1991:1).
Islam is a misunderstood and misinterpreted
religion in the West. According to Kamal Husain, `usually Muslim groups
are labelled as "Terrorists", "Aggressors", "Insurgents" or "Separatists"
and not as "Freedom Fighters" and the phrase of "Militant Islam" is more
often used instead of the "Reawakening of Islam" which is more neutral.'
(Adnan, 1989:67)
The literature on Islam and the Western
media concludes that the Western media was not only critical towards Islam,
but also helped promote stereotypes about the Muslim World and Islamic
values (Said, 1961, Kamal cited in Mohd. Hamdan, 1989; G H Jansen, 1979;
Richter, 1988 and Shaheen, 1990.
Textual Analysis
The NYT took a critical stance on
the silence of the US administration and the West regarding the military
coup in Algeria which demolished the electoral mandate of the FIS. It (NYT)
further suggests: `If the Bush Administration is sincere about encouraging
democracy in the Arab world, it has a responsibility to press Algeria's
army to reverse its reckless course before the damage gets worse.'3
The NYT very cautiously condemned
the military coup and called it a "Clumsy" one. It warned that repressive
action by the military against "Fundamentalists" would radicalize an already
aggrieved people and promote Islamic extremism.4
The NYT recognized that the Islamic
Salvation Front (FIS) was being denied a fair chance at the polls based
on the assumption about its intentions, not its deeds. Those intentions
might well be undemocratic, but it was not the Islamic opposition that
brazenly avoided the elections and pushed the nation towards extremism.5
The editorial reads: `...Repression
and hysteria offer no remedy to the obvious discontent of jobless and hungry
Algerians. Fear of fundamentalism does not justify reversing the gradual
democratizing moves that since 1988 have given Algerians their first taste
of political freedom. An ambivalent Washington and a worried France have
hesitated to make plain their discomfort; the year-long state of emergency
should finally untie tongues.'6
However, it showed its skepticism
about FIS future agenda louder than its criticism of US silence. It reinforced
the view of the apologists that the "FIS Fundamentalism" would cause isolation
and the emigration of the moderates to France and other European countries,
radicalize its foreign policy, dilute market reforms, cause the human rights
of non-Muslims to be abused, and would exclude women from work. The NYT
portrayed the attitude of the West as remarkably shortsighted7
and framed the Bush administration's attitude as "shamefully reluctant"8
to condemn an illegitimate and unwise move to demolish democracy in Algeria.
In its two editorials9,
the NYT clearly voiced its concerns and skepticism of FIS for following
the path of Iranian-style fundamentalism in Algeria. It (NYT) advised the
FIS leadership not to repeat the barbaric actions of Iranian "mullahs"
against their political adversaries. It also advised US officials and Westerners
to treat Algeria's democratically elected Islamic government on the basis
of its performance in office, not the deeds of fundamentalists elsewhere.10
"The Washington Post" (Post) condemned the military coup
in Algeria while it expressed its skepticism about the future agenda of
the victorious FIS. It took a position against "Extremism" of any kind,
whether religious or secular.11
The Post tried to portray army action
against Islamists as a legitimate one and framed this action of the army
as "Constitutional".12 It
justified the action of the army and anticipated that the "Islamic Fundamentalists"
would stop the democratic process after coming into the power.
The Post's column writers adopted
an aggressive tone against Islamic Movements. Jim Hoagland in one of his
editorials did not even accept the fairness in Algeria's first democratic
election. He feared that anti-democratic forces would come up through democratic
practices, although he portrayed Islam as the "New Global Enemy" of America.
Like Jim Hoagland, Richard Cohen also seemed reluctant to respect the democratic
process in Algeria and stated that it was just mindless to insist that
any result, democratically arrived at, had to be accepted like some change
in the weather.13
Amos Perlmutter warned the West not
to make any mistake:`... The FIS in Algeria would not become democratic
any more than the fundamentalists of Jordan and Gaza would become democratic
should they reach that stage. Lenin had not become a democrat when he came
to power.'14
Graham E. Fuller's article was one
of the few which gave a balanced analysis and took a supportive position
for the victorious FIS and advised the West to come to terms with Islamic
politics, whether they like it or not. He portrayed the phenomenon of "Islamic
Fundamentalist" as politically tamable. He further advised that an Islamic
victory should not be grounds for panic and the election must not be annulled.
He suggested that it was time to demystify the phenomenon of "Islamic Fundamentalism"
and to see it for what it was: a movement that is both historically inevitable
and politically tamable. Over the longer run it even represented ultimate
political progress towards greater democracy and popular government.15
He further asked for concessions for the fundamentalists and opined that
only second and third elections would inform us whether Islam really had
the "Right Stuff" to operate on the political scene for long.16
Like the NYT and the Post, the LAT
also criticized the military coup, but showed its optimism towards the
co-existence of Islam and democracy.17
However, the LAT published a few editorials (signed and unsigned both)
on this topic and distinctively focused on growing "Iranian Islamic Fundamentalism"
in Central Asian Muslim States after the fall of the Soviet Union. The
LAT drew the attention of the US administration to keep an eye on the anticipated
influence of Iranian fundamentalism on these States and advised it to reinforce
the influence of moderate Muslim countries like Turkey and Egypt.18
Discussion and Conclusion
It is surprising that the US elite
press did not fairly analyze the question of democracy in Algeria. On one
side, they expressed their fears about FIS but on the other hand, they
did not give deserving recognition to the choice of the people of Algeria.
Zaidi (1992) raises the question that if the Algerians are the citizens
in their own country and if the majority of these citizens decide to adopt
a certain course of action at a given point in time, should they not have
the right to do so? Why have only the elected leaders of Algeria been portrayed
as "Fundamentalists" and FIS as a "Threat to Democracy" and why not as
human rights activists or freedom lovers or pro-democracy Islamists. During
those days, the Post ran a story under the headline "Christian Knights
Claim Key Role in Georgia". The president of that former soviet State,
Ziyad Gamsakhurdia, had been democratically elected and had played a leading
role in the human rights movement in the Soviet Union by associating himself
with the Helsinki Group. He was toppled by an armed group of 1,000 people
who saw themselves as `defending a Christian fortress nation'. Nowhere
in the news story were these people called terrorists, militants or even
Christian fundamentalists. Their leader is not a "Terrorist" but a self-styled
"Knight" who simply `helped overthrow the elected president of Georgia'
for, as he put it, his people and Christianity. Why? Because he thought
that the democratically elected government was corrupt. Apparently these
"Knights" are acceptable, but the Algerians who took the peaceful, civilized
course of an electoral process to demonstrate their majority are to be
given no opportunity to prove that their critics are wrong.19
The Post suggested that a moderate
form of Islam could help Algeria shape the contacts with the West essential
to its modernization. The question was whether its cultural tradition and
its current polarization, the latter as reflected by the assassination
and the reprisals that would no doubt follow, would enable Algeria to find
that moderate form.20
In several signed editorials, the
Post took a negative position against the democratic process in Algeria.
Jim Hoagland portrayed the democratically elected FIS as a danger to the
welfare and livelihood of millions of middle class and secularized Algerians.
The fact of the matter is that, at the time of the election, the Algerian
economy was suffering badly and fourteen million people were living under
the poverty line (Abdullah, 1993). As a result, there was growing dissatisfaction
amongst the Algerian youth about the economic and political policies of
the ruling party. These factors tremendously helped FIS to achieve a landslide
victory. Moreover, no evidence was found that any of the FIS leaders made
anti-Western statements. Instead, after the victory of FIS, its leaders
issued statements explaining their views of the West. They assured, in
their statements, that the West should have nothing to fear, that the FIS
would work closely with Algeria's Western neighbours and would pose no
threat to Western culture. It is incomprehensible that a party (FIS) which
came up with a welfare programme and won the election could go against
the welfare of their own people.21
Surprisingly, all the papers neglected this aspect of the story. This discussion
supports the thesis of Said (1981) that the West has its stereotypes and
bias against Islam as anti-Western.
Cohen recommended in the Post's editorial
that the US had an obligation to assert its own fundamental beliefs in
democracy, but also in "Unalienable Rights" that no majority could
abrogate.22
It seems as if that editorial advises US officials to recognize and collaborate
only with "Safe Democracies" which will work for the interests of the US.
Several column writers of the elite
press expressed their fears about the status of women in Algeria and anticipated
that, if the FIS came to power, women's emancipation would be jeopardized.
None of the editorials paid any attention to the choices of Algerian women.
Scores of women would be "brought down" -- one million women to prove their
solidarity and support for their Islamic leadership. If this is not proof
of the women of Algeria's solidarity with Islam, what does it take to convince
the world?23 The US press
totally ignored this aspect of the Algerian society. Further, none of the
editorials exposed the atrocities and human rights violations of the military
and authoritarian rulers. The elite press did not mention the brutal killings
of young people by Algerian security forces and the shooting of hundreds
of innocent civilians in January 1991 and February 1992 (Nait-Ameur, 1993).
The fears about the FIS's future agenda
expressed by the editorials of the US elite press clearly indicate a lack
of depth in their analyses. The editorials lacked any cultural and historical
background on the issue. They were negligent not to inform their readers
about the welfare programme and the manifesto of the FIS which reads in
part: `The FIS has come into existence in a part of the world where people
have been through different frustrating experiences at all levels of human
life. The political programme of FIS aims at institutionalizing a stable
governing system. A system which ought to be representative of the fabric
of the Algerian society. The means to achieve this is through political
pluralism which fully guarantees, implements, and preserves minority rights.
The economic programme is based on the principle of growth. The FIS aims
at building a balanced society where the right of life, right of health
and welfare benefits, the right to education at all levels are guaranteed'
(Arfi, 1993).
The Post in its signed editorials
took a negative stance against Islam. Amos Perlmutter in his 10240-word
editorial described Islamic Fundamentalism as anti-West and anti-democracy.
He insisted that Islam cannot be compatible with liberal, human-right oriented,
Western-style representative democracy. Amos compared Islamic Fundamentalism
with an aggressive revolutionary movement as militant and violent as the
Bolshevik, Fascist and Nazi movements of the past. The Jordanian, Pakistani,
Algerian and Egyptian movements have managed to deceive the experts into
believing that once they are in power, they will become "Reformist", "Gradualist"
and eventually will rule by law.24
It (the Post) further portrayed the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism as
the new threat that was `as evil as the old Evil Empire.'25
Two editorial writers of the Post
framed "Islamic Fundamentalism" as a "New Global Menace" that will replace
Communism. They said that there were too many diverse currents in both
modern and traditional Islam, and too many national problems and conflicts
in those countries where fundamentalists hold or threaten to take power.26
The major reasons for this treatment
might be the prevailing ignorance of Western journalists about Islam, the
silence of scholars on this issue, the historical aspect of the religion,
the anti-Islam and pro-Israel lobby (Hammond, 1987; Mughees, 1991) and
indifference and negligence of the Muslim community, which has never made
a serious effort to build its image in the Western media. Moreover, Islam
has always been seen as belonging to the Orient.
Said (1981) speculates that some stereotypes
and misunderstandings about Islam are unintentional and some are intentional,
based on cultural and ideological biases against Islam (Pg. 4). These stereotypes
seem valid in the 90s, and an anti-Islam bias is still working in the US
media. Anti-Islamic groups have seized this case as an opportunity to whip
up hatred.
The US elite press, in its unsigned
editorials, conveyed cool attitudes towards the army coup in Algeria. However,
the analysis of the data indicated that the NYT was more critical than
the Post and the LAT on this subject. The NYT called the military action
"Clumsy", whereas the Post portrayed it as a "Legitimate Action". The LAT
surprisingly gave the least coverage to this topic. However, in opinion
editorials overall, these papers were unfair not to criticize the military
action in Algeria as they should have done.
All the papers, in their signed and
unsigned editorials, showed their skepticism about the future agenda of
FIS anti-West, anti-women, causing immigration of moderates to Europe and
France, a radical foreign policy, market economy, human rights etc. Very
few editorials suggested that the US and the West should give the FIS a
chance to give their performance.27
Few advised against treating FIS on the basis of the activities of the
Fundamentalists elsewhere but rather on the basis for their deeds, while
one advised the West to wait for more than two elections.28
It is interesting to note that, in
the past, the term "Terrorist" had been used mostly for left-oriented freedom
fighters (e.g., the PLO). It has been noticed that, for the last decade,
this image has been switched from socialists or secular radicals to Islamists,
in particular those Islamists who are working in a democratic frame and
using the democratic process instead of adopting other non-democratic methods
to come into the power (e.g. Algeria, Jordan, Egypt and Pakistan). These
few editorials portrayed Islam as the "New Global Enemy" of the West. Some
column writers warned the West that these "Islamic Fundamentalists" were
coming into power through democracy and speculated that Islam was a "New
Global Menace" which would replace Communism. Some argued that the US seems
always in need of some identifiable international menace. If it is not
Communism, it is Terrorism. If it is not Terrorism, then it is Islam (Nubar
Hovsepian).29
The present consistent pattern in
the portrayal of Islam in the US media supports the theory of Hackett (1991)
that, after the end of the Cold War, Islam will be the next "Threat Candidate"
for the US media. Since one year's data after the end of the Cold war is
not enough to make a valid judgement about Hackett's ideas, the next half-decade
will make things clearer and show whether or not an anti-Islamic element
has been substituted for "anti-Communism" as the "National Religion" in
the US media.
References
Abdullah, D. (January 1993). Algeria:
A Chronology of Events, Message International.
Ajani, Joseph (1982). A Content Analysis
of the Coverage of the Israeli Raid against the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor
by Four Elite American Newspapers. MA thesis, Ohio State University.
Amiri, Taher (march 1993). US Media
put Muslims on Trial in Arab News, Pg 8.
Arfi, Badredine (January 1993). What Islamists were going
to give Algeria. Message International, Pg 23.
Brewda, Joseph (1990). Superpowers
prepare Mideast War, "final solution" to Arab "problem". In Executive Intelligence
Review, July 20, Pgs. 28-29.
Daughterty, D. and Warden, M. (179).
Prestige Press Editorial Treatment of the Mideast during 11 Crisis Years.
Journalism Quarterly, 56, Pgs 776-782.
Galtung, J. (1987). US Foreign Policy:
As Manifest Theology. La Jolla, CA: Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation.
University of California at San Diego.
Ghareeb, Edmund, ed. (1983). Split
vision: The Portrayal of Arabs in the American Media. Washington D.C.:
The American Arab Affairs Council.
Gitlin, T. (1970). Prime Time Ideology:
The Hegemonic Process in Television Entertainment. Social Problems, 26
(3): Pgs 251-266.
Gitlin, Toad (1980). The Whole World
is Watching. Los Angeles University of California Press.
Hackett, R. A. (1984). Decline of
a Paradigm? Bias and Objectivity in News Media Studies. In M. Gurevitch
and M. R. Levy (eds) Mass Communication Review Yearbook, V, 251-274.
Hackett, R.A. (1991). News and Dissent:
The Press and the Politics of Peace in Canada. Norwood, New Jersey:
Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Haddad, Y. (1991). A Television Interview
with Bill Moyers on PBS, 1991.
Haddam, Anwar N. (January 1993). Algeria
Today. Message International, 16 (8).
Hall, Stuart (1975). Introduction.
In A.C.H. Smith et al., eds., Paper Coverage in the New
York Times and the Washington Post (1980-1985). Master's thesis, University
of Texas in Austin.
Holsti, Ole R. (1969), Content Analysis for the Social
Sciences and Humanities. Addison Wesely Company.
Jansen, G.H. (1979), Militant Islam.
Pan World Affairs.
Kurian, George Thomas, ed., (1982).
World Press Encyclopaedia, N.Y, Facts on File.
Lerner, Richard M. (1992), Final Solution:
Biology, Prejudice and Genocide, University of Park: Pennsylvania State
University Press, Pg 238.
Lewis, B. 1990), Origins of Muslim
Rage. Atlantic Monthly.
Maslog, Crispin (1971). Images and
the Mass Media. Journalism Quarterly, Autumn, P. 519-525,
Merril John C. (1964). US Panel Names
World's Ten Leading `Quality Dailies'. Journalism Quarterly, pp. 586-572.
Mughees-uddin (1991). The Relationship
between a Nation's Foreign Policy and its Press: The Case of Pakistan and
the New York Times and the Times of London in 1980. Unpublished paper,
presented at the AEJMC Convention in Montreal (Canada) on August 7, 1992.
Nait-Ameur, Adnan (January 1993).
Algerian Military: Defence or Delusion. The Message International.
Nixon, Richard M. (1988). Victory
Without War..., N.Y.: Simon and Schuster, Pg 336.
Richlin, A. (1988). News as a Hegemonic
Reality: American Political Culture and the Framing of News Accounts. New
York: Praeger Publishers.
Rachty. G. (1980). The Arab Image
in the American Media. Paper presented at the World media Conference, New
York.
Richter, William L. (1988). Pakistan's
Domestic and Foreign Policy. In Scalpino, Robert A., Sato, Seizabnro, Wanandi,
Jusuf & Han, Sung-Joo, eds. Asia and Major powers: Domestic Politics
and Foreign Policy. Institute of East Asia University of California.
Rifai, Salwa Shtieh (1987). The Palestinian
Guerrilla's Image in the New York Times during the Jordan Crisis 1970.
Nortridge: California State University.
Said, Edward (1981). Covering Islam:
How the Media and the Experts Determine how We See the Rest of the World,
London.
Semmel, Andrew K. (1976). Foreign
News in Four US Elite Dailies: Some Comparisons. Journalism Quarterly,
53, PP. 732-736.
Seymour-Ure, Coiin (1974). The Political
Impact of Mass Media, London: Constable.
Shaheen, Jack (November 1985). Media Coverage of the
Middle-East, Perception and Foreign Policy. Analysis of the American Academy
of Political Sciences.
Shaheen, Jack (1990), Our Cultural
Demon: the `ugly Arab'. Des Moines Register, August 25, Pg 7A.
Siddiqi D.A. & Alkhfai, Abbaas
F. (1992). The Gulf war: Implications for Global Business and Media. Closson
Press, Apollon, Pennsylvania.
Stemple, Guido H. and Westley, Bruce
H., Appollo, Pennsylvania.
Stemple, Guido H. and Westely, Bruce
H., eds. (1981). Research Methods in Mass Communication. N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.
Suleiman, M.W. (1983). The effects
of American Perceptions of Arabs on Middle East Issues. In E. Ghareeb,
ed., Split Vision: The Portrayal of Arabs in the American Media, Pgs 337-344.
Suleiman, Michael E. (1965). An Evaluation
of Middle East News Coverage in Seven American Newsmagazines. July-December
1956. Middle East Forum., SLI: Pgs 9-30.
Syzkowny, R. (November-December 1990).
The Humanist Interview: Bewildering the Herd. The Humanist. Pgs 8-17.
Tankard, James W and Hendrickson,
Silberman, Jackie, Kris Bliss and Salma Ghanem (1991). Media frames: Approaches
to Conceptualization and Measurement. Unpublished paper presented at Association
for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Convention, Boston,
Massachusetts, August 1991.
Terry, Janice and Gordon Mendenhall
(1974). 1973 US Press Coverage on the Middle East. Journal of Palestine
Studies, IV, Pgs 120-133.
Wright L. (September 7, 1989). Peace:
Living Without Enemies. Rolling Stones, 560: Pgs 54-65, 82-88.
Zaidi, Nayyar (June 1992). Islam,
Muslims and the US Media. The Message International. New York: ICNA Publications.
|