Journal of Communication Inquiry: Framing Islam & Al-Jazeera English: A conciliatory medium in a conflict-driven environment?

Journal of Communication Inquiry: Framing Islam

Vocabulary: Orientalism= view of islamic beliefs as backwards to western beliefs

Islamophobia= prejudice against muslims

Hegemony= world leadership by one country

The article by Deepa Kumar regarding the resurgence of orientalism during the Bush II era is a piece that puts forth the message that orientalism, under the Bush II era, became the dominant viewpoint towards the islamic religion. Kumar attempts to take apart five different Orientalist frames regarding Islam. His five frames are: Islam is a monolithic religion, Islam is a uniquely sexist religion, the “Muslim mind” is incapable of rationality and science, Islam is inherently violent, the West spreads democracy, while Islam spawns terrorism. He attempts to find the falsities in this frame and look further into the “east v. west” cultural dilemmas.

The first frame that Kumar begins to look at is: Islam is a monolithic religion. Kumar says this original frame is the one that all the other frames are built from. He explains how Islam is perceived to have two strict sides, Sunni and Shi’a; however, he explains how there is far more different branches of islam ranging from countries like Indonesia and North Africa showing how diverse Islam actually is. Kumar finishes this second by explaining that not all arabs are muslims and visa versa. All in all, Kumar is trying to show that Islam is actually fairly diversified.

Here is a map of Muslim populations around the world. While there is a large amount in the middle east, it is easy to see how spread out the religion is.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/10/07/mapping-the-global-muslim-population/

The second frame that Kumar dissects is: Islam is a uniquely sexist religion. Kumar explains how this a common tactic used throughout history to make countries feel as though they are rescuing Muslim women if they invade. He then continues by showing how sexist the entire world is, especially the U.S. and, our extremely common, practices of sexism in Christianity and Judaism. Kumar points out the major hypocrisy in the women’s rights argument towards Islam considering many practices that take place in the western world.

Here are many examples of blatantly sexist phrases in the Bible:

https://www.rationalchristianity.net/women.html

The third frame that Kumar addresses is: the “Muslim mind” is incapable of rationality and science. For this section Kumar focuses on a speech that was given by the Pope in which compared Christianity to reason and Islam to violence and irrationality. Kumar explains how these messages portrayed by the Pope only further the “commonsense” method surrounding Islam and how it can be used to create a frame to only further orientalist ideals.

Here is a copy of the Pope’s 2006 speech: https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg.html

Here is President Bush’s 2006 speech to the country:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/11/AR2006091100775.html

It is interesting to look at similarities and comparisons here.

The fourth frame Kumar used is: Islam is inherently violent. Kumar begins here by explaining how events like 9/11 and Fort Hood have only further linked Islam and violence together by media and public figures. However, he then continues to explain Christianity’s history of violence through roman crusades and other christian based raids. His second half of his argument explains how modern historical issues have lead to the stereotypical islamic violence, not islam itself. But, overall, Kumar wants to get across the point that historically Christianity has actually been more violent than Islam.

This article talked about the history of christian armies and the violence and death they brought to the world:

http://www.history.com/topics/crusades

The final frame that Kumar uses is: the West spreads democracy, while Islam spawns terrorism. Kumar explains how commonly Islamic countries are seen to be incapable of democracy and it is up to stronger democracies to intervene and help the struggling countries. But, Kumar points out how actually when these strong democratic countries, like the U.S., get involved, poorer countries have gotten worse. Kumar continues to explain how the U.S. does things like this to block Arab nationalism and the possible growth of communism. In addition, Kumar explains that there are internal factors that aid in the failure of Arab nationalism.

All in all, the article concludes with Kumar urging scholars to do research on these issues regarding Orientalism and engage the public in discussing and debunking certain myths. For me, Kumars piece regarding different frames of Islam was extremely interesting in that, from my point of view, Muslims have been the enemy in the modern day. Due to extreme rhetoric tactics portrayed by politicians and others alike, Muslims have become a violent and dangerous religion that is understood to be the enemy of the west.

Al-Jazeera English: A conciliatory medium in a conflict-driven environment?

In El-Nawawy and Powers piece on Al-Jazeera English they aim to explain the benefits that AJE brings to the world, mainly the chance to be a global news audience to pool together all sorts of diverse opinions and viewpoints to ultimately create better, more accurate news. The two authors argue that AJE is an anomaly in current media in that it is neither geopolitical nor commercial based and aims to reach out to an audience that is normally ignored. The two also argue that AJE is and will be a conciliatory news program for the world.

El-Nawawy and Powers begin their article about the increase of mass-mediated conflicted and how, with the use of modern, world-wide, and opinionated news opinions and angry sentiments are only furthered in the world by media. Then, they continue to talk about how media today is often focused around war. Often, the media coverage of war simply targets and heightens sentiments that viewers already believe. As we discussed Monday, most news sources have an intended audience and, as El-Nawawy and Powers explain, they choose what they broadcast on their audience.

Next, the two authors discuss whether the type of media that AJE wishes to produce could help resolve some global conflict. The two then give an 11- point typology of ways to create a more conciliatory media. The 11 points are:

Providing a public place for politically underrepresented groups.
Providing multiple viewpoints on a diversity of controversial issues.
Representing the interests of the international public in general, rather than a specific group of people.
Providing firsthand observations from eyewitnesses of international events.
Covering stories of injustice in the world.
Acknowledging mistakes in journalistic coverage when appropriate.
Demonstrating a desire towards solving rather than escalating conflicts.
Avoiding the use of victimizing terms, such as martyr or pathetic, unless they are attributed to a reliable source.
Avoiding the use of demonizing labels, such as terrorist or extremist, unless they are attributed to a reliable source.
Abstaining from opinions that are not substantiated by credible evidence.
Providing background, contextualizing information that helps viewers fully understand the story.

Following the eleven points, the two authors give a brief history of AJE beginning by stating it was the first worldwide english based news coming from the middle east. Next, the two authors show a study in which AJE viewers were asked how well AJE did on its 11 points for conciliatory media. The results of the study are quite impressive considering most of the respondents said that AJE was fairly successful in all of the categories it explained. Finally, the two authors express the promising future that they see for AJE and how it is a breath of fresh air from the “clash of civilizations” that other news programs seem to only encourage. Here is Al-Jazeera’s listed missions and goals on their website:

http://america.aljazeera.com/tools/vision-mission-values.html

Here is a Washington Post article talking about what doomed Al-Jazeera in America: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/01/14/this-is-what-doomed-al-jazeera-america/?utm_term=.c05e92ac61c8

Overall, I think the 11 point system that AJE proposes is a great way to attempt to create a more conciliatory media source. However, as we have discussed in class, I think it is nearly impossible to create this unbiased and peacemaking news source. Al-Jazeera will always be looked at by Americans with heavy skepticism due to the rise of islamophobia and a major misunderstanding of the middle east by many westerners.

Works Cited:

Powers, Shawn, and Mohammed El-Naaway. “Al-Jazeera English: A Conciliatory Medium in a Conflict-Driven Environment?” Global Media and Communication. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2017.

Kumar, Deepa. “Sign In: Registered Users.” Journal of Communication Inquiry. N.p., 15 Apr. 2010. Web. 03 Apr. 2017.

31 Responses to "Journal of Communication Inquiry: Framing Islam & Al-Jazeera English: A conciliatory medium in a conflict-driven environment?"

Isaiah Duplessis says:

April 4, 2017 at 12:27 pm

In regard to the article on Al-Jazeera, the news organization finds itself in a largely unique position. The press, worldwide has largely been consumed by the resourceful western world, and at this time the influence of politics within the news has led to a largely similar news front in the western world.
Presenting itself as an Arab based news media, it decidedly wanted to appeal to the west and the east. Controversy however exists because in presenting news unbiasedly, both sides were felt targeted. The United States found terrorists being portrayed on Al-Jazeera as alarming, and pro-Israeli news offended most of the Muslim middle east. Gathering opinions and information to support each side, the article to me shows the news arena as a decidedly as an interpretive process. Those who receive the news decide how to interpret it, and therefore I would like to discuss how America has abused the news service.
Freedom of press has experienced tons of government influence within the united states, and outside those borders, America has sought to control the new, news source. By limiting their access to American troops, and similarly detaining their reporters the United States is putting a stance against anti-American news outlets. Of course, Al-Jezeera refused to cave entirely and negotiations were made, but in the thick of the war on terror, America sought to maintain its public image by abusing these journalists and can certainly be trusted to do the same in the future.
1. Helen Spiller says:
  
  April 4, 2017 at 9:19 pm
  
  That is an interesting take on America abusing the media. Do you think this is a force by the news media, the government, or Americans? I wonder if people would argue similar things about AJE and its abuse in possible Qatar. All in all, I agree with the statement about how media can be abused in the US, I just am not sure where that abuse is coming from.
Caroline Zerkle says:

April 4, 2017 at 3:11 pm

In my response I will focus on “Framing Islam”. After reading this article I found myself wanting to comment on various different aspects of the authors argument. First, I believe that it is not effective to argue that it is okay if Islamic regimes or Islamic countries perpetrate acts of violence or sexism towards women and back it up by saying that the West has done it before too. You cannot compare honor killings, inability to drive, inability to vote, forced marriages, and other terrible acts with restriction of birth control. This is not a fair comparison. What the article ignores is the real violence that women are facing in parts of the Islamic world, a real problem. Women in the West are free to go to school and learn. In comparison, areas controlled by Islamic extremist thought, such as those areas controlled by the Taliban and Boko Haram, restrict women from going to school. This is the major fight that Malala Yousafazi is trying to bring awareness towards. It is also not effective to counter claims of current events that are happening with the Islamic world with events that happened within the Christian/Western world in the 19th or early 20th century. Acts of imperialism in Africa and many of the examples about racism where passages are cited from centuries old sources, do not properly represent western ideology or christian ideology today. By using extremist Christian/Western thought, which is no longer relevant today, to justify actions by current Islamic controlled governments like Saudi Arabia and Iran, the argument lacks effective basis. Another hole within the argument is when the author brings up why Iran cannot have nuclear weapons, but the U.S. can? Honestly, this doesn’t even make sense to me because the difference between the U.S. and a country like Iran is that Iran has stated that they will use nuclear weapons to bomb the U.S. and Israel. There are no plans in the United States for nuclear war or a nuclear attack. While it is unfair to attribute all of these characteristics to Islam, one must recognize that many Islamic extremist groups and many Islamic governments do use their interpretation of Islam as a basis to justify their actions.
1. Helen Spiller says:
  
  April 4, 2017 at 9:23 pm
  
  I entirely agree with a lot of your statements calling out holes in the arguments made in “framing islam”. I have trouble finding holes in scholarly articles so I think that’s neat how you did that. However, I think what the author is trying to do is simply show that Islam is not all bad. I like how the author pointed out hypocrisies around the world regarding sexist actions. I think in his take on sexist actions regarding Islam was more focused on how Islam is not the only sexist religion and many who follow these strong sexist ways are extremists who aren’t truly following most islamic believers.
Sean Foley says:

April 4, 2017 at 8:57 pm

Deepa Kumar’s article does an excellent job of dissecting the prejudices against Islam. Kumar’s five points: 1. Islam is a monolithic religion. 2. Islam is a uniquely sexist religion. 3. The “Muslim mind” is incapable of rationality and science. 4. Islam is inherently violent. 5. The West spreads democracy, whereas Islam spawns terrorism have all been imprinted in our minds through propaganda. All of these premises are based on loose evidence that is easily generalized to put down an entire diverse group of people. In my World History course I took my senior year in high school I learned about the development of Islam and the formation of the Shia and Sunni. Islam has had its conquest and wars; however, ultimately the religion is a big promoter of benefiting your community. The claims by the Bush administration and the Trump administration are huge stretches of the truth. Islam is one of the largest religions in the world by numbers and geographically. The idea that Islam is this small violent religion in the middle east is absurd and certainly incorrect. I agree with Kumar that the only way to fix this is to do your own homework on the situation. As with many issues concerning prejudices, the solution is always to do more research into an issue and to not allow yourself to be a puppet of a propaganda campaign.

In response to the Al-Jazeer article, I am brought back to our discussion on Monday. I agree that having another news source is beneficial. The more diverse news sources that are available to the public the more accurate the news will become. I believe Caroline said that she believes people want to hear the TRUTH with all the “fake news”. I totally agree. I believe people finally want to have the unbiased news. However, no one station, not even Al-Jazeer, will accomplish this because they will always try to please their audience. No matter how unbiased Al-Jazeer tried to remain they would always gain a niche of the news market. That niche wanted less political in agenda news; yet, it still had a taste for war reporting. Ultimately, I would love a more foreign news sources in the American media; however, gaining the traction and staying true to the broad audience will be difficult.
1. Helen Spiller says:
  
  April 4, 2017 at 9:26 pm
  
  I like how you concluded your first section regarding Islam and how the readers should do their homework. I entirely agree that a majority of this work comes to the average citizen to attempt to ignore propaganda and actually look at the issues itself and find their own truth. Secondly, I agree with the fact that it is nearly impossible to try to find unbiased news with the complete truth. However, I definitely think it is important to try. Just like you mentioned in the first second, it is important to do your homework on news and its validity as well.
Michael Horan says:

April 4, 2017 at 9:33 pm

I would like to focus my response on “Framing Islam”. Deepa Kumar discusses the resurgence of Orientalist and Islamophobic rhetoric, and talks about five dominant frames in US media: Islam is a monolithic religion, Islam is a uniquely sexist religion, the “Muslim mind” is incapable of rationality and science, Islam is inherently violent, and the West spreads democracy, whereas Islam spawns terrorism.
First, I think Kumar’s points are all rhetoric that most Americans, such as college students like us, have heard many times. She successfully refutes each of these frames one by one, by providing evidence and often a counter-argument referring to Christians or the United States. While I think her points are effective, I think some of her argument is lacking because it so repeatedly brings up “historical” evidence and comparisons. I think many reader’s are more interested in what is going on today, rather than connecting instances from many centuries ago to today. For a few of the points, I also do not think Kumar gives a fair argument on both sides. Regarding women, her main argument critiques America for the lack of birth control and access to abortion. In reality, women in America generally have access to birth control, and besides that, women have a number of advantages, that many middle eastern women do not have, such as freedom to education, and to dress without fear of being punished. I also thought her input about suicide bombers was rather confusing. She describes how media portrays them as “rabid lunatics rather than as a people driven to extreme measures under conditions of occupation.” She does not leave a further explanation, unless she is saying that they are rational people driven to extreme measures. Either way, it seems to be defending suicide bombers, to me.
To conclude, Kumar delineates five key points (myths) about Islam that are very important for the West to see in order for the unmerited Orientalist and Islamaphobic rhetoric to cease.
1. Helen Spiller says:
  
  April 19, 2017 at 7:59 pm
  
  I agree with you entirely in your stance that Kumar was quite successful in her analysis of her five points. However, do you find something scary about the fact that most of the readers could easily identify with her points? Do you think that speaks to a greater issue in our media?
Emily Wu says:

April 4, 2017 at 9:50 pm

The article on Framing Islam attempts to identify common frames of thought toward Islam while challenging and exposing the logic behinds these frames. Even simply recognizing statements like “Islam is a monolithic religion” or “Islam is a uniquely sexist religion” etc as frames is important in beginning to critically think about how ideology is not just common sense but a construction. The power and significance of frames is that the way a problem is framed “sets the limits for subsequent discussion”. In analyzing five frames about Islam, the author especially tries to reveal contradictions in these arguments by comparing these criticisms with the dominant western religion of Christianity, and emphasize historical connections rather than distinctions between the Muslim world and the West.
I thought it was interesting that we read Al-Jazeera English article which takes a positive, hopeful view towards AJ as a more objective and potentially conciliatory medium after the last reading which also presented more critical views towards AJ. The article seemed to suggest a tension between presenting news in a way sensitive to the audience for their understanding (contextual objectivity) and true objectivity. The article uses a good amount of evidence from AJE’s staff and public statements to support the idea the AJE could be a conciliatory medium. This evidence largely relates to the missions, goals, objective of AJE but lacks more evaluation on whether or not they are achieving such goals. I also thought that the viewer survey about how AJE performed regarding criteria for a conciliatory media is not the most convincing support.
1. Helen Spiller says:
  
  April 19, 2017 at 8:01 pm
  
  In regards to AJE, do you see the potential of the program being successful? I agree with you in that AJE takes a unique positive spin on media. I also think its very interesting in its clear attempt for objectivity. Sadly, I just wonder if this is even possible.
George Clayson says:

April 4, 2017 at 9:53 pm

I believe that Deepa Kumar does a good job de-bunking the myths of Islam and Arabs, especially through using counter examples showing how the US or Christianity fits these frames and stereotypes just as well, if not better, than Islam. I wish Kumar discussed frames that, if they exist, support stereotypes the Western world has created about Islam. These frames likely exist because usually every stereotype is based off of a truth. If Kumar were then able to show how these frames portrayed Islam as an enemy of the United States it would make his argument stronger.
After reading tonight’s and last class’s articles I noticed conflicting ideas. Al-Jazeera may not have been made to have a political impact on world politics, however the news station already has, and likely will be accused of having a political agenda again in the future. Al-Jazeera has so far given the opposite impression to a news network trying to be conciliatory. The network has caused more anger and unfriendly discussion than it has proved itself to pacify the world of news. Like Hellen says, a lot of this is due to skepticism and Islamophobia in the US. I believe that as Al-Jazeera continues to push for its goals they will be more successful.
1. Helen Spiller says:
  
  April 19, 2017 at 8:05 pm
  
  I find it interesting that you think Kumar’s argument could have been stronger if he used more stereotypes that the Western world has about Islam. Do you think there are stereotypes? Are they’re any of you could think of? I think that stance is important to look at in regards to Kumars article.
Corey Beutel says:

April 4, 2017 at 11:24 pm

The fourth point arguing that Islam is not inherently violent stands out to me. No other religion has to even make an effort to prove it is non-violent. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all abrahamic religions. They all share similar origins. The teachings of the religions are all similar too. They focus on religious morals and understanding, as well as devotion to the religion. The point of Christianity’s violent past supports the idea that all religions can be violent. There is nothing in Islam that stands out. It is my personal belief that all religions intend for the best but are misconstrued by the followers. This can be due to other conditions that are affecting the people, not religious factors. For example, the middle east has been in turmoil and they feel as though the Western world is influencing them too much. So some select people from the middle east have reacted negatively and turned to terrorism. This is not to say that people from the middle east are terrorists, but to say that religion is not the key factor for violent terrorism.
1. Helen Spiller says:
  
  April 19, 2017 at 8:16 pm
  
  I agree entirely. I agree that there is no religion that preaches violence in any form. However, I think the main issue here is that extreme followers of Islam has made the religion violent. It is hard to not see the religion as violent when attackers hold their Qaran before attack. Overall, it is a tough subject but I agree with the fact that no religion is violent at its core.
Colin O'Donnell says:

April 4, 2017 at 11:59 pm

I want to focus more on the article discussing Al-Jazeera English. One thing which I found to be particularly interesting was the list of the 11 points/goals that Al-Jazeera English wishes to follow. The list itself is very indepth and if followed to a T I think that it would have a profound effect on improving media and providing differing yet evidenced back opinions. However the problem with the list is similar to the reason why most media fails to be unbiased it due to each individual’s bias. Every single person in the world contains some sort of bias so it is inevitable to reporters of Al-Jazeera English will also have bias. They can try to follow all of these points however at each step in the road they will run a little of course because of their bias. For example a writer may try to provide coverage of all major happenings around the world but because they are from say europe they will end up focusing more on the major events happening in europe even if they do not notice it. Also when reporting on news even if you try to play both sides you will inevitably sway to the side which you believe is right. Despite all these downfalls I still think that least having a list of all 11 points is still a great improvement. Even if you can’t follow them perfectly they can still help to improve the news and if all news organization at least try to follow this model they will improve.
1. Helen Spiller says:
  
  April 19, 2017 at 8:25 pm
  
  I agree with the fact that it would be great if more news sources could attempt to follow these points. However, as another student noted, do you think that viewers truly want to hear unbiased news? Or just news that they want to hear?
Steven Zhang says:

April 5, 2017 at 12:51 am

In the article “Framing Islam”, Deepa Kumar thoroughly studies the orientalism nature of Bush’s politics. She reveals the resurgence of orientalist rhetoric by analyzing five frames that become dominant. And she then argues that none of the frames is based on truth but a rhetoric which stimulates civilians’ bias. I found her arguments are persuasive and clear. For example, to object the frame that Islam is uniquely sexist, she firstly argues under political background and then points out that all religions are kind of sexism.

The article makes me realize that it’s inevitable have a biased understanding of Islam. While the author lists the five frames in the text, like “the ‘Muslim mind’ is incapable of rationality and science, they seem irrational and radical. But in the quoting from the discourses from Bush, these frames were blended with the discourses that were familiar to us. However, I feel like it’s unavoidable but normal for people to have biased opinions because there is huge gap between cultures. The crucial problem should be if it’s justified to start the war. The article has sufficient argument to defend Islam as a religion from rhetorical bias. But there are plenty of reasons to accuse Islamic for the terrorism and its repression and damage it had done on people. The rhetoric of framing Islam did raise the pro-war, anti-Muslims sentiment by propagandizing biased ideology. But these rhetorics might be necessary and essential for the politics and for the whole nation.
1. Helen Spiller says:
  
  April 19, 2017 at 8:43 pm
  
  I agree with you that it seems almost impossible to have an unbiased view of Islam. So many beliefs and ideas are forced down the throat of viewers that it is almost impossible to avoid. But, I think that is what makes this piece so significant because it forces us to see what we are being forced to believe and challenges that.
Michael Paul says:

April 5, 2017 at 1:45 am

There is a clear stigma surrounding Islam in America and other parts of the world. Like Kumar talked about, the sexism that is generally associated with Muslims is evident in many other religions as well. Furthermore, the idea that the Muslim mind is incapable of rationality and science is also apparent in other religions. I used to go to a Jewish day school where I had a teacher who was a rabbi. This teacher would refuse to accept that the earth revolved around the sun (or maybe we refused to refute this), yet I still viewed him with respect. Had this been a Muslim teacher, I am sure I would have respected him just the same, yet I don’t think this can be said for all Americans. Since president Trump has taken office, I see more resentment towards Islam because of a more isolationist attitude, and a similar thought was spread following the 9/11 terrorist attacks under the Bush administration. By running on platform of the “War on Terror,” Bush boosted this resentment that we know today.

This islamaphobia that has been fostered over the years has allowed for the rejection of what likely is a largely unbiased news source, Al-Jazeera. Continuing on our discussion yesterday, Al-Jazeera will always be looked at by Americans with skepticism because of this islamaphobia that has grown, possibly without any good reason. Like Kumar’s article talked about, Al-Jazeera and Islam are misunderstood in America. I agree with Helen on this point. For political gain, the resentment that has been fostered has reached a point that may be very difficult to come back from, if even possible.
1. Helen Spiller says:
  
  April 19, 2017 at 8:53 pm
  
  It is definitely a difficult task that AJE would be trying to do in the United States. Do you think their goal is even possible to do? Possibly the key of AJE could be to end islamaphobia. Do you also think thats too far gone?
Nicolas Delvalle says:

April 5, 2017 at 2:56 am

It is perhaps dangerous that I am beginning to believe that I have perspective about how those who worship Islam view the west. Especially the overlap between Arab and Islam populations have a right to be outraged at the west, and in particular America’s, behavior, but even the fact that I see it that way without actually interacting with anyone of Arab descent or who worships Islam makes me think that perhaps I am just another cog in the problem. For example, if someone were to engage me in argument about why Islam is creating terrorists, the only basis I would have to stand upon would be journal articles presenting an argument rather than a surveyed opinion of the populous. This lack of perspective lends to a divide among nations, and even if the US invasion was inevitable due to other vested interests, a greater knowledge of customs spread between peoples would help to soothe relations. This is why Al-Jazeera is so vital.

Where the arguments often get heated is the subject of Islam itself, which I must profess I hold no lost love over. It is yet another topic that I hold very little knowledge of, yet from my own western perspective the oppression of women alone is enough to raise my hackles. “Framing Islam” attempts to separate some readings of the Quran, much of what actually exists, at least it Saudi Arabia, is a virulent source of human inequality. I find that as many excuses that are thrown at me for actions overseas, I cannot find it within my heart to simply chalk it up to a difference of culture. Does it warent international war? No, absolutely not. Are my views intolerant? Yes, perhaps they are. Does that mean I have to like how things are now? No, no it doesn’t.
1. Helen Spiller says:
  
  April 19, 2017 at 8:51 pm
  
  I agree that a difference of culture is definitely not an excuse for war and violence. It is definitely an argument that has its pitfalls. However, I think Kumar is not arguing that it is purely a difference in culture and more so a misunderstanding of culture.
Madeline Tolsdorf says:

April 5, 2017 at 10:42 am

How the United States and the general West view Islam has become more and more skewed in the past decades. Although those who worship the Islamic faith have faced prejudice for hundreds of years, this prejudice has only become worse since the development of radical Islam and terrorist movements. Because of this very small minority, many people have begun to believe myths about the Islamic faith and the general populations of the Middle East.

Kumar does a good job of accurately debunking many of these faiths and creating a more accurate explanation and approach to many ways Western thought has inaccurately represented the Middle East. He approached this thought by his use of the 5 frames within Western media. The first of these is that Islam is a monolithic religion, which is what the Western media would like us to think. He also discusses the portrayal of Islam as a sexist religion; although there are many differences between women worshippers and men, Kumar debunks the overarching sexist thoughts. The other three frames are centered on terrorist claims: The “Muslim mind” is incapable of rationality and science, Islam is inherently violent, and the West spreads democracy, whereas Islam spawns terrorism. By putting forth other examples, Kumar displays many ways in which all of these Western frames on Islam are not inherently true and have only been developed by Western media to explain Western culture.
1. Helen Spiller says:
  
  April 19, 2017 at 8:47 pm
  
  I agree with your standpoint on the fact that Kumar did a good job of debunking myths. It is definitely an interesting and intriguing argument that Kumar makes and it challenges the reader to think deeper about these stereotypes.
Sophia Bruce says:

April 5, 2017 at 10:54 am

I have never thought about Islamophobia in terms of ideology but after today’s reading I see how it can become a kind of “micro-ideology”, since people are acting in ways that uphold the beliefs they have. Kumar talks about the stigmas and stereotypes around Muslims in America, especially the sexism and oppression of women that is generally associated with Islam and looked down upon in our society. There is also the idea that Muslims are unable to be rational, as well as many other stereotypes. These ideas are put into action through spoken words and the avoidance of muslims in America, and therefore we can see it starting to become an ideology. With this comes irrational fear and ability to make excuses, and this is where the rejection of Al-Jazeera comes in. Even though it is typically an unbiased and very resourceful new source, without thinking of it those in the islamophobic ideology may be fearful of trusting a news source, especially with a name like Al-Jazeera, as they have become fearful and skeptical of Muslims. The fourth point of their 11 points made me think about where the idea that Islam is a violent religion came from. Did we create this idea from actions partaken by Muslims, since all other religions have been violent at some point, or did we assume they were violent and then that ideology created violence itself? I have a hard time grasping this subject as I like to feel that I am not biased but it’s impossible to not be biased and I don’t believe I am educated enough on this to form a very strong opinion.
1. Helen Spiller says:
  
  April 19, 2017 at 8:44 pm
  
  It is definitely hard to feel like you are unbiased on the topic when there is so many ideas forced into our minds. But, the important part of this is that you are aware of the fact that you may be biased.
Claire Brown says:

April 5, 2017 at 11:33 am

The ideas put forth in these two articles are incredibly interesting and thought provoking. The 5 frames Kumar details revolve around things that we, as Americans, come into contact with on a daily basis. Through his article and explanation of each frame, Kumar explains so much about Islam that most people in America do not know. One of the issues in America in regards to our Islamophobia problem is that people are under the impression that they know what they are talking about simply because they know one or two facts about Islam, or because they know Muslim people. While these people may be slightly knowledgeable, they assert themselves to be experts and form opinions based on what they believe they have a firm understanding of. The danger of this is clear especially with the rise of ISIS and radical Islamic terrorist groups. Some people might make assumptions based on scattered bits of information that have been ripped out of context and twist them to align with what they want to see.
In regards to Al-Jazeera English, while the idea of a balanced and unbiased news source in America seems ideal, it is highly impractical. America is ruled by capitalism and news sources that cater to specific audiences will thrive over balanced sources in this climate. As I mentioned above, people see what they want to see to confirm their own beliefs and it is infinitely easier to take in information that conforms to your own views than it is to view something that challenges you to think about topics in a different light.
1. Helen Spiller says:
  
  April 19, 2017 at 8:12 pm
  
  As sad as it is, I entirely agree with the fact the AJE would definitely have serious trouble being successful here in the United States. However, I think it is something that we should, as a country and viewers of the media, at least strive for. Do you think people will even want to strive for this unbiased media? Or stick with what they want to hear?
Virginia Thornton says:

April 5, 2017 at 11:52 am

When reading the article by Deepa Kumar I was reminded of a story from about 5 years ago when a family form Egypt took over the one grocery store in our town. For as long as anyone could remember one white family in our town had run the grocery store. They attended the prominent white, Baptist church in town and the father of the family had been elected Mayor several times. The father wanted to retire and his sons did not want to take over this tiny grocery store in a town that was rapidly losing population so he decided to sell it. For many of the same reasons the sons did not want to take over, there was not much interest in buying it. Finally, he sold it to an out-of-town family who moved in and took over. Quickly word spread that the family was Muslim. This was shocking to much of the town. For context, my town has a population of 600 and 36 Christian churches; my town is very Christian to say the least. The store was closed for a week to let the transition in ownership transpire, but the family was seen around town during that time. Before anyone even met the family rumors were rampant that they were terrorists. They had done absolutely nothing except be Muslim but they were still being called terrorists. When the store opened up again many people didn’t go claiming to be scared of them. Grown adults were not going to the grocery store because they were scared. My family and I all laughed at what we saw as idiotic actions from our neighbors. We thought it was great that this family had taken over because the vegetables were much better quality. This article reminded me of this story because it talks about how rhetoric has shaped our views Muslim people. I think this type of hatred is rooted in Kumar’s final frame. This is the one that talks about how the Islamic world spawns terrorism. The people in my town believed this so deeply they drove 20 minutes to the next town just to buy milk.
1. Helen Spiller says:
  
  April 19, 2017 at 8:09 pm
  
  That’s an extremely interesting story that definitely relates well to the articles and this sense of Orientalism. It’s is an extremely tough topic and idea to tackle considering our president preaches some of the ideas. I agree that Kumar’s final frame definitely speaks to this story.
  1. Virginia Thornton says:
    
    April 22, 2017 at 5:46 pm
    
    I agree that this is a tough topic to tackle with our current President. It is hard to tell someone to stop believing something that the leader of their nation is preaching.

Comments are closed.