The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 53: 29 August 2005

'YOUNG MUSLIMS AND EXTREMISM' REPORT - BACK OFF THE FRONT PAGE

A NOT VERY SIGNIFICANT EVENT

The media behaves predictably, burying stories that do not serve power.

On 10 July, just three days after the 7/7 bombings, The Sunday Times carried a front-page story about a secret government study of the sources of extremism in the British Muslim community, recognising that the war in Iraq (and British foreign policy generally) were a principal source of anger.

Apart from a few mentions in the Guardian, the Young Muslims and Extremism report was effectively removed from the record. Nothing appeared in the British papers on the Monday after The Sunday Times story.

Yesterday, 28 August, as we discussed in the Media Review, the Observer had a front-page story carrying another part of the correspondence around this report (without mentioning the earlier, more substantial leak). The link between the war in Iraq and the heightened threat of terrorism in the UK was once again accepted at the highest levels of the Government.

On past form, we would expect today's newspapers to be virtually devoid of any mention of this important leak.

Well, a pleasant surprise. It is mentioned.

The FT decided to blank the topic, but the other major dailies all had pieces.

The Telegraph had a page 8, right hand column story. The Times went for a page 7 left hand double column story (but in a tabloid format; this is probably equivalent to a page 4, right hand column story for a broadsheet). The Independent and the Guardian both went for page 2, bottom of the page.

Curiously, the Guardian online has effectively hidden the story. It is not visible on the main home page for today, nor in the Home News section. In the London bombs area of the site, it is not even listed as a follow -up to the Observer story (the Guardian owns the Observer). You can find it in the Politics section, though (below other stories that are further back in the paper version of the Guardian). Odd.

Perhaps even stranger is that in the Politics section, Madeleine Bunting's column today is listed as a Comment on this story, when it isn't. At all. Very odd.

The overall impression of the coverage is that the newspapers are going through the motions. This is a revelation. It has to be (reluctantly) recorded. It will be dead tomorrow.

PARTY POLITICS

This is in part because of the way that mainstream politicians have reacted to the leak. (Let us enter the caveat that we only know what the newspapers have reported, which could be an edited version of the politicians' remarks. However, in the circumstances, it seems highly likely that the reported remarks are faithful to both the letter and the spirit of what the politicians had to say.)

Note first that the media only pay attention to what the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have to say. They do not seek the opinions of the Scottish Nationalists, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, or Respect. They do not look outside party politics. They are merely fulfilling the party political requirement that the major Westminster parties define as 'balance'.

Onto our two appointed representatives of the people.

Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat spokesperson on foreign affairs:

'When a figure of such experience and authority as Michael Jay highlights the relationship between our foreign policy and disaffection amongst Muslims, the immediate question for the Government must be, what weight did they attach to his advice and what was their response? The continuing political and constitutional crisis in Iraq offers no antidote to Michael Jay's prescription.' (Independent)

'The government - and the prime minister in particular - has sought consistently to deny any connection between our foreign policy and the terrorist threat. Sir Michael's perceptive analysis undermines that position substantially.' (Guardian)

'The reasons for the terrible events of July 7 are very complex indeed and it is not simply a question of competing ideologies as the Prime Minister would argue.' (Telegraph)

Liam Fox, Conservative spokesperson, shadow Foreign Secretary:

'It’s simply not sensible . . . for the Government to say there is no link whatsoever between what is happening in Iraq and what is happening in terms of recruiting extremists.'

'Most people with common sense would say there is probably some link in terms of making it easier to recruit extremists from the Muslim community.' (Times)

'What I think is surprising is that the Government denies there's any link but the Government's handling of this has been rather inept politically from start to finish.' (Independent)

Overall impression? Low-key. No outrage, no shock. Liam Fox's charge that the Government has been 'inept' sums up the general tone of the two parties' reaction, and of the media coverage.

Second impression? Both politicians need to be acquainted with the earlier Sunday Times leaks.

Menzies Campbell

Email his office

Liam Fox

House of Commons Phone number: 020 7219 4086
House of Commons Fax number: 020 7219 2617

TODAY'S TOP REALIST

Third impression? What is quite striking is the easy way in which Liam Fox admits that there is a causal connection between the war in Iraq and the threat of terrorism here in Britain. This is rather startling, and worth remarking on in press comment.

In fact, Liam Fox is Today's Top Realist. Let us all emulate his casual way of recognising simple political realities.

ANYTHING NEW?

Most of the stories are just straight 'reproduce-the-original-report-and-add-two-comments' pieces. (The Guardian settled for just one comment, from Menzies Campbell.)

The Times was the only paper to add anything of significance to the discussion, noting that,

'In his letter Sir Michael did not refer specifically to terrorism, speaking instead of the underlying causes of "extremism" such as discrimination, disadvantage and exclusion.'

'He wrote: "But another recurring theme is the issue of British foreign policy, especially in the context of the Middle East peace process and Iraq." '

'The experience of both Foreign Office officials and ministers suggested British foreign policy was perceived as having a negative effect on Muslims globally and "creating a feeling of anger and impotence among especially the younger generation of British Muslims". '

'Sir Michael added: “This seems to be a key driver behind recruitment by extremist organisations [eg recruitment drives by groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroon]." '

Recall that yesterday's Observer report was based on a leaked letter by Sir Michael Jay (top civil servant at the Foreign Office), writing to the Cabinet Secretary (the top top civil servant) in May 2004.

Here is where a knowledge of the 'Young Muslims and Extremism' report is necessary. In that report, leaked to The Sunday Times on 10 July (and available on The Sunday Times website for any journalist or politician who cares to download it), the Whitehall definition of 'extremism' is given:

'By extremism, we mean advocating or supporting views such as support for terrorist attacks against British or western targets, including the 9/11 attacks, or for British Muslims fighting against British and allied forces abroad, arguing that it is not possible to be Muslim and British, calling on Muslims to reject engagement with British society and politics, and advocating the creation of an Islamic state in Britain.'

This is rather a loose definition, which is too imprecise for effective policymaking, one would have thought. The first elements (highlighted) involve violent action. The second set of beliefs do not necessarily involve violent action, and do not carry with them any implication of violent action.

It might have been more sensible to define 'extremism' as nonviolent - 'arguing that it is not possible to be Muslim and British, calling on Muslims to reject engagement with British society and politics, and advocating the creation of an Islamic state in Britain' - and to define the other positions as, say, 'support for violent extremism'. The term 'extremism' then would not carry a necessary connotation of violence.

Note that the Whitehall definition of 'extremism' does not include 'religious supremacism', which was one of the charges of 'extremism' in the Panorama programme eight days ago.

In any event, returning to the comment in The Times. Michael Jay wrote:

'Other colleagues have flagged up some of the potential underlying causes of extremism that can affect the Muslim community, such as discrimination, disadvantage and exclusion. But another recurring theme is the issue of British foreign policy, especially in the context of the Middle East Peace Process and Iraq.'

When we add in the agreed Whitehall definition of 'extremism', this means he was saying that the Israel/Palestine conflict and Britain's participation in the occupation of Iraq were causing support for violent extremism and support for nonviolent extremism (as we have just defined these terms). 'Violent extremism' can also be translated as 'terrorism'.

BURYING THE REPORT AGAIN

The 'Young Muslims and Extremism' report just refuses to die. The media is determined to bury it, but we can help to bring it back to life.

The central truth in the report is that British participation in what George W. Bush calls 'the global war on terrorism' has increased the threat of terrorism in Britain, just as British intelligence warned before the invasion of Iraq.

The central truth in today's newspapers is that the mass media serve power, not truth. What is unhelpful to power is forgotten and erased.

The only thing that keeps the truth from being buried is citizen action.

Get those shovels going.

JNV welcomes feedback.