PDA

View Full Version : Racism and Media Stereotyping in Australia


GenericBox
21st September 2011, 05:31 PM
Was watching this at work today and it stood out as a case of how ignorant and racist we as a country are, especially towards Muslims.

It's not even what the cameraman says here that is the most troubling - it's that both Channel 7 and Channel 10 news ran this story as akin to 'angry Muslim attacks channel 9 cameraman' - and didnt even refer to the incident nor play it.

Australia needs to grow up - we think Fox is bad...


gphfniNvMgg

dilbadoon
21st September 2011, 05:39 PM
Was watching this at work today and it stood out as a case of how ignorant and racist we as a country are, especially towards Muslims.

It's not even what the cameraman says here that is the most troubling - it's that both Channel 7 and Channel 10 news ran this story as akin to 'angry Muslim attacks channel 9 cameraman' - and didnt even refer to the incident nor play it.

Australia needs to grow up - we think Fox is bad...


gphfniNvMgg

I was also unimpressed by this (although I think we still have a bit to go to catch up with Fox). As I recall the ones who were running it as an anti-muslim theme were caught out pretty good when the audio of the cameraman was released?
After a few recent issues (eg. census, school prayer poll etc), I have started to wonder how much the Xtian agenda contributes to the Muslim scare campaign. A fair bit is my guess.

Jaar-Gilon
21st September 2011, 06:23 PM
Disgusting and ignorant but islam is not a race.

Slothhead
21st September 2011, 06:36 PM
Was watching this at work today and it stood out as a case of how ignorant and racist we as a country are, especially towards Muslims.

It's not even what the cameraman says here that is the most troubling - it's that both Channel 7 and Channel 10 news ran this story as akin to 'angry Muslim attacks channel 9 cameraman' - and didnt even refer to the incident nor play it.

Australia needs to grow up - we think Fox is bad...



While i agree that the camera man should not have said what he did, i think it a little far to extend the actions of the individual camera person to "how ignorant and racist we as a country are".

slim
21st September 2011, 06:37 PM
News slots have some pretty expensive advertising space. The sort of bollocks covered off in the featured article helps sell it to the sort of crowd that 7, 9 and 10 "news" appeals to. I expected nothing else from these arseholes (7, 9 and 10)...

Their "journalist" colleagues on ACA, TT and also like to run important updates on important issues such as the "dole bludger" epidemic, muslims who refuse to integrate, dodgy used car salesmen, the special new radical awesome weight loss regime and many other things.

They're on the same trajectory as the Murdoch media empire. These companies are the cancer of modern society. I struggle to think of what benefit they provide to us...

If only the redneck crowd watched media watch on a regular basis... it could be enough to make them question what they're being told. I was lucky enough to have had a couple of teachers that made the class watch it through high school, usually in English class.

Maybe this is something they should be broadcasting in ethics classes.

slim
21st September 2011, 06:42 PM
While i agree that the camera man should not have said what he did, i think it a little far to extend the actions of the individual camera person to "how ignorant and racist we as a country are".

They do this because they knew it would yield footage that would help them in concocting a scare-piece on angry irrational Middle Eastern folk that would be swallowed whole, and enjoyed, by the ignorant masses (and there are masses of these people) that appreciate these news outlets.

Atheos
21st September 2011, 07:08 PM
While i agree that the camera man should not have said what he did, i think it a little far to extend the actions of the individual camera person to "how ignorant and racist we as a country are".
While I agree with your statement about conflating the individual with the society, our political and societal record clearly shows that as a nation Australia has historically been a deeply bigoted, racist and sexist society, and although it is improving we as a society have a long long way to go before we can class ourselves as otherwise.

GenericBox
21st September 2011, 07:18 PM
And what defines a race? I would call it racism because it is a statement against a group of persons related by common descent, or a population so related. It is an " arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups" (Dictionary.com)

or the Science definition,

Any of several extensive human populations associated with broadly defined regions of the world and distinguished from one another on the basis of inheritable physical characteristics, traditionally conceived as including such traits as pigmentation, hair texture, and facial features. Because the number of genes responsible for such physical variations is tiny in comparison to the size of the human genome and because genetic variation among members of a traditionally recognized racial group is generally as great as between two such groups, most scientists now consider race to be primarily a social rather than a scientific concept.


Then if we get technical, you can then say that to describe someone as Muslim is someone pertaining to not just the religion, but the civilisation of Islam - and those countries where Islam is the dominant religion (dictionary.com)....


But why bother, its racist. Full stop. Should not be happening to anyone, Muslim or not.

It has always been a pet peeve that these journalists think that they (especially so in TT and ACA) have some sort of right to be in the face of other people without receiving any hardship in return. It's harassment, and I applaud that the victims here chose to find Police (near the end of the segment) - which is the correct response imo.

Slothhead
21st September 2011, 10:38 PM
While I agree with your statement about conflating the individual with the society, our political and societal record clearly shows that as a nation Australia has historically been a deeply bigoted, racist and sexist society, and although it is improving we as a society have a long long way to go before we can class ourselves as otherwise.

Well we might just conclude that all societies have "historically been a deeply bigoted, racist and sexist " and that "although it is improving we as a species have a long long way to go before we can class ourselves as otherwise"

Thus, i am not denying that people, individuals acting alone, or individuals acting as groups are racists etc, my gripe is more so with casting aspersions across a an entire culture.
GenBox claiming that we as a country are ignorant racists, makes an inherently ignorant and 'racist' (culturist) comment. On the one hand he decries the camera man for calling a muslim a terrorist, claiming it as a racist comment, then on the other condemns Australia in its entirety as a racist ignorant coutry.

Jaar-Gilon
22nd September 2011, 05:40 AM
They might have racially stereotyped middle easterners but not muslims. Islam is not a race just as christianity is not a race just as zoroastrianism is not.......
Then if we get technical, you can then say that to describe someone as Muslim is someone pertaining to not just the religion, but the civilisation of Islam - and those countries where Islam is the dominant religion (dictionary.com)....Rubbish, there are plenty of non-middle eastern countries whose majority population is islamic.

dilbadoon
22nd September 2011, 05:55 AM
They might have racially stereotyped middle easterners but not muslims. Islam is not a race just as christianity is not a race just as zoroastrianism is not.......
Rubbish, there are plenty of non-middle eastern countries whose majority population is islamic.

I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, but Islam seems to blur the religion/culture line alot more than christianity.

Logic
22nd September 2011, 06:21 AM
I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, but Islam seems to blur the religion/culture line alot more than christianity.

Indeed. I've noticed that Islam seems to be trending (in the media at least) along the lines of how the Jewish people are viewed.

The Jews (Hebrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language): יְהוּדִים‎‎ ISO 259-3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_259-3) Yhudim Israeli pronunciation [jehu'dim] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_Hebrew)), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation) and ethnoreligious group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoreligious_group) originating in the Israelites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelite) or Hebrews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrews) of the Ancient Near East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Near_East). The Jewish ethnicity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group), nationality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality), and religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) are strongly interrelated, as Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism) is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

At what point does Islam stop being a religion and start being an 'ethnoreligious group'?


An ethnoreligious group (or ethno-religious group) is an ethnic group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group) of people whose members are also unified by a common religious background. Ethnoreligious communities define their ethnic identity neither exclusively by ancestral heritage nor simply by religious affiliation, but often through a combination of both (a long shared history; a cultural tradition of its own; either a common geographical origin, or descent from a small number of common ancestors; a common language, not necessarily peculiar to the group; a common literature peculiar to the group; a common religion different from that of neighbouring groups; being a minority or being an oppressed or a dominant group within a larger community).

In an ethnoreligious group, particular emphasis is placed upon religious endogamy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogamy), and the concurrent discouragement of interfaith marriages or intercourse, as a means of preserving the stability and historical longevity of the community and culture.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoreligious_group


This whole race/religion thing has been discussed a few times before:
Islam is not a race (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=1564&highlight=jewish+race)
Religion as a race (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=1384&highlight=jewish+race)
Race, religion and sometimes nation (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=9265&highlight=jewish+race)

Jaar-Gilon
22nd September 2011, 03:18 PM
Indeed. I've noticed that Islam seems to be trending (in the media at least) along the lines of how the Jewish people are viewed.



At what point does Islam stop being a religion and start being an 'ethnoreligious group'?




This whole race/religion thing has been discussed a few times before:
Islam is not a race (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=1564&highlight=jewish+race)
Religion as a race (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=1384&highlight=jewish+race)
Race, religion and sometimes nation (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=9265&highlight=jewish+race)
You only need a Jewish mother to be Jewish, there are atheist Jews. To be islamic you have to believe in Allah. It would be a contradiction to be an atheist muslim, Just like there aren't atheist christians (except for me) I don't think there can be atheist muslims.

GenericBox
22nd September 2011, 05:54 PM
Just as Jewish does not only refer to the religion, neither does Islamic.

Logic
22nd September 2011, 07:29 PM
You only need a Jewish mother to be Jewish, there are atheist Jews. To be islamic you have to believe in Allah.

That there seems to be a rather obvious key point that I overlooked. :o

GenericBox
22nd September 2011, 07:57 PM
Meriam-Webster (and every other Dictionary out there):

1 : the religious faith of Muslims including belief in Allah as the sole deity and in Muhammad as his prophet
2 a : the civilization erected upon Islamic faith b : the group of modern nations in which Islam is the dominant religion

GenericBox
22nd September 2011, 08:21 PM
Sure, if you follow that definition - as long as they are of or from a civilisation founded upon Islamic faith or from the group of nations in which Islam is the dominant religion.

It all helps show how pedantic and arbitrary "race" is - either race doesn't exist because scientifically we are of the human race or race is a series of arbitrary distinctions based on geographical, physical or otherwise traits. As the dictionary defines race. But I'm repeating myself now.

The Magic Pudding
22nd September 2011, 08:29 PM
This may be off topic, I'm not sure.

I heard Joe Hockey handing out insults for a bunch of countries because their treasurers had previously received the same best Finance minister award as recently awarded to Swan.

I know standards are slipping with our representatives but I really don't appreciate this insult performed for his own petty benefit. Joe seemed to think he was being very funny, I wasn't amused.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/22/joe-hockey-on-wayne-swan-treasurer-of-the-year/

Hockey also strangely complained about the lack of “ringing third party endorsements” about the award, which appears to assume that Euromoney, which handed it out, is some Labor-affiliated entity. Hockey read out a list of the nationalities of previous recipients, and appeared particularly unimpressed about some of them “Slovakian ministers, a Serbian, a Nigerian and a Bulgarian. In 2001 there was a Pakistani finance minister. That is quite an extraordinary one, that one.” What’s extraordinary about Shaukat Aziz — later Prime Minister — getting an award went unexplained, particularly as Aziz was lauded for a consolidation of Pakistan’s previously shambolic public finances, something the IMF singled him out for praise over. Perhaps, you know — Pakistan is inherently funny? As for “a Nigerian”, well, that was only Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who became managing director of the World Bank (http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21499083%7EpagePK:64257043%7EpiPK:43 7376%7EtheSitePK:4607,00.html) for four years between stints as Nigerian Finance Minister and Foreign Minister. Still, Nigerians, eh? Hockey strangely omitted last year’s recipient. Nothing extraordinary about that one. Last year Jim Flaherty, Finance Minister in Stephen Harper’s right-wing Canadian government, won the gong. Perhaps it wouldn’t do to mock a conservative colleague.