"Islamophobia for Dummies"

Jon Stewart Daily Show, P.1 Ground Zero Mosque Islamophobia -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUcHQmUEICc

The news media of the United States, particularly FOX News Network, are paramount in constructing a “fear mongering campaign”. This discourse essentially exacerbates, and disseminates, “Islamophobia”.

Last year, media frenzied over the decision to build a mosque at Ground Zero. What is interesting from the news reporting of this issue is the lack of focus on fact, and the centrality in exacerbating an Islamophobic discourse to exude “real-American” (non-Muslim) power. Journalists framed their reporting around the fact that it was too soon and insensitive to build a Mosque at Ground Zero. Their emphatic assertions are assumed to represent the “everyday American’s concerns” – this immediately casts Muslims as the “Other”. The issue is told from the point of view from primarily white Americans, from a “single privileged point” (Shohat and Stam) that characterises the White voice as omniscient. This effect of Orientalism, as Edward Said argues, illustrates that Muslims are not part of the fabric of American society.

The truth of the story is that a mosque was not to be built at Ground Zero, but an Islamic Cultural Centre – and there had already been a mosque in the same location which has been there for 40 years, with another two blocks away. It is interesting that it seems presumed that only non-Muslim Americans have the liberty to deliberate the appropriate distance of where a mosque could be built. FOX News included in their segment their “expert interview” Paster Waine DeVrou, who says, “There are some people that are afraid and they’re afraid for a good reason. Because Islamic philosophy and ideology starts in a mosque.” The discourse here has produced an ideology which associated Islam with deviance, threatening and cold people. The fact that no counter interview with an alternative viewpoint was provided by FOX, proliferates the production of the ideology of Islamophobia. This exercise of Orientalism shows that Muslim’s are not a “free subject of thought or action” (Said). Diane Sawyer of ABC News closes her segment by asking the viewers, “Should Muslims be allowed to build their mosques in the neighbourhoods of their choosing?” The question immediately places irrationalises Muslims and alienates them from deliberation.

The Eurocentric framing of news presents the European viewpoint as the rational, it utilises a fear-mongering ideology which in turn exacerbates the dehumanisation of the “Orient”.

Are we a divided nation?

For one of my other papers I have to analyse a debate between Dr. Pita Sharples and Dr. Don Brash on Native Affairs (http://www.maoritelevision.com/default.aspx?tabid=636&pid=212 “Native 05/17” dated 11/7/11) about the the Act Party half-page advertisement in the New Zealand Herald headed “Fed up with pandering to Maori radicals?” (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1107/S00102/image-acts-pandering-to-maori-radicals-advertisement.htm)

I wasn't aware of the ad, or the fuss it caused, until I watched the interview so it was my first impression of the ad. Realistically, Don Brash only has a small minority of supporters and I think that the issue he raises don't rate too highly on the most voter's list of election issues. That said, the amount of support he received in the comment pages on the internet and in opinion pieces made me think that this ad was not just the rantings of two rich old white men but a valid issue in New Zealand politics and society.

Brash starts out the interview claiming that the ad addresses an issue that is a concern to him and “many New Zealanders”. I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say Brash wasn't referring to Maori when he used the term 'New Zealanders'.

When I Google searched the headline it returned loads of relevant comments and opinion pieces and, after reading them, I realised that, while Brash is generally considered extreme, there was no lack of people agreeing with the ad. To me, Don Brash's reasoning was narrow minded and misinformed. His argument is that it is radical and unjust to request a change in the constitution of New Zealand. I think the comic Sue showed us in lectures is the best way to point out Brash's errors.

It is interesting that both Dr. Sharples and Dr. Brash claim to have the backing of the majority of New Zealand and both paint the other as separatist. Sharples and Brash also disagreed about the state of race relations in New Zealand - Brash insisted that we "are on a dangerous path" where separate development is enforced while Sharples argued that Maori and non-Maori were working together better than ever before. Dr. Brash has several assumptions and his choice of words are, to me, inflammatory. For example, a bullet point that argued National was too weak on Maori policy read “Kept the crippling RMA conditions that force many of us to 'bribe the tribe' to develop our own land”. Pita Sharples said this was outrageous and asked for a solid example but Brash defended this statement in the interview saying that, “he was told” that it was true in “many” cases. The ad itself is a bit more extreme than Dr. Brash in the interview but he defends almost every word of it, though at one point he says “It's an ad! There's a bit of poetic license.” Poetic license.. exaggeration, same difference?

Brash also said in the interview "All over the country people say to me 'when is the Government going to deal with the Maori issue?'" this essentially flattens Maori so that all Maori are in conflict with non-Maori and framing them as a problem that needs 'fixing'. It made me think, “If I was Maori, how would I feel about that comment?” The word unwanted comes to mind. (Race Relations Commissioner, Joris De Bres commented on this: http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/act-warned-over-maori-radicals-ad-4298156?page=5&pagesize=5)

After counting the shots of about half the interview, I found that there was only one over-the-shoulder shot from Brash's point of view and about 20 from the other. This was slightly balanced having more mid-shots of Brash than of Sharples however I think that it did have an effect on the balance of the interview. Also the interviewer is not as balanced as he could be (even as a Maori presenter, he didn't need to start the interview with “This is Maori bashing, Dr. Brash, isn't it?”)

A last though that occurred to me was, why was this debate on Native Affairs? Or rather, why wasn't this debate on a mainstream channel? I know that not many people vote for Brash but it sounds like that doesn't mean people don't agree on the things he has said. I think this is because of misinformation and, of course, seeing everything from the 'white eye' perspective. Surely open, fair debates should be in front of wider, less one-sided audiences (I have an inkling ACT supporters aren't big watchers of Native Affairs), so that a fairer, more balanced settlement on the issue might be found.