Muslim media watchdog ‘wrongly labelled terror attack coverage as Islamophobic'

Telegraph

16 hours ago

A Muslim media watchdog wrongly labelled coverage of Islamist terror attacks as ' Islamophobic ', a report has claimed.
Policy Exchange, a think tank, said that factual news reports of such incidents had been assessed by the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) as examples of 'Islamophobic, negative' journalism.
Those criticised by the centre, which was originally a Muslim Council of Britain project but is now an independent entity, include the Associated Press, a leading news agency, after it reported on a terror attack in Manchester on New Year's Eve in December 2018.
The CfMM said the coverage was an example of negative reporting about Muslims because it included the phrase 'knife-wielding man yelling Islamic slogans.' However, Policy Exchange said this had been an accurate account of what happened.
The watchdog also complained that describing Mohammed Emwazi, the British Islamic State executioner known as 'Jihadi John', as a terrorist was misleading because he had never been convicted.
It further said that the decision by BBC News to call Khalid Masood, who killed five people in a terror attack near the Houses of Parliament in 2017, an 'Islamic extremist' was 'anti-Muslim language'.
It said that 'it can be argued that linking the word 'Islamic' with extremism is an oxymoron as the word 'Islam' comes from the Arabic root word 'Salam', meaning 'peace'.'
Policy Exchange claimed the centre's critique was part of a campaign to 'give legal and official force' to the concept of Islamophobia, ahead of moves by the Government to introduce a new legal definition of it.
The think tank's report, which is due to be published on Tuesday, said: 'The aim of this campaign, in the words of its own supporters, is to control and prevent conduct 'far beyond' anti-Muslim hatred or discrimination (which all can agree are wrong, but which are already illegal),' said the think tank's report.
'It is to impose 'appropriate limits to free speech' when talking about Muslims, and special protections for Muslims. An official Islamophobia definition would give CfMM and its like a significant new weapon.'
According to the report, CfMM said it had monitored at least 55,000 articles about Muslims and complained about those it deemed to be unfair or untrue.
It alleged that 'almost one in 10' of the articles it had monitored had either misrepresented Muslims, misused terminology or misinterpreted Islamic beliefs and practices.
The CfMM also claimed that almost 60 per cent of news stories about Muslims were negative, saying this proved the media's 'widespread… Islamophobia.'
It said Reuters, AP and AFP, the respected international news agencies, were the 'top three offenders'. This included criticism of AFP for using the term 'Ramadan violence' during coverage of three killings during the holy period.
By its own account, CfMM said it aimed to 'take control of the narrative,' telling journalists they should never use the terms 'Islamism,' 'Islamic extremism' or 'Muslim extremism.' It has also attacked news outlets for describing terror groups, including Hamas and Islamic State, as Islamist.
In a foreword to Policy Exchange's report, journalist Andrew Neil, a former editor of The Sunday Times and BBC broadcaster, said the research showed that the CfMM, as well as its 'evidence' and conclusions, were 'badly flawed.'
'It shows how CfMM is part of a wider campaign for legal restrictions on what you can say about Islam, with fundamental implications for free speech,' he said.
A spokesman for the CfMM said the claims by Policy Exchange were 'factually untrue' and fabricated.
He said the criticism it made of articles about terrorism-related only to cases where unverified information was used by journalists.
The spokesman added: 'This report is nothing but a politically motivated hitjob, riddled with inaccuracies, distortions and smears. It comes from an organisation that has long sought to influence our media into negatively framing British Muslims.'