Islam, media framing and Islamophobia in the US press, before and after the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack

ABSTRACT

On 7 January 2015, brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi, armed with Kalashnikovs, entered the headquarters of the Paris-based satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, and opened fire, killing 12 people and injuring 11 more. It would later emerge that the brothers – both native Frenchmen born to Algerian parents – belonged to the Islamist terrorist group, al Qaeda. The attack, which targeted a Western magazine, attracted tremendous international news coverage, provoking a widespread debate over issues relating to free speech, immigration (even though both attackers were born in France) and integration. There has been less discussion of the news framing of the attack by Western media outlets, and to what degree that news framing may have been biased or Islamophobic. In this study, it is our goal to understand how media framing may have been affected by this attack, and to what degree such framing is Islamophobic. To that end, we have operationalised the Runnymede framework of Islamophobia using the content analysis software Nvivo, in order to identify and better understand manifestations of Islamophobia in the mainstream press. Specifically, we analyse the news framing of Islam in the headlines of two US daily newspapers, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

KEYWORDS:

• Media framing
• terrorism
• Islamophobia
• media studies

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. As they claim: “the Op-Ed page editors do an evenhanded job of representing a range of views in the essays from outsiders they publish – but you need an awfully heavy counterweight to balance a page that also bears the work of seven opinionated columnists, only two of whom could be classified as conservative (and, even then, of the conservative subspecies that supports the legalisation of gay unions and, in the case of William Safire, opposes some central provisions of the Patriot Act).” (Okrent, 2004).

2. As argued, “On our editorial page we make no pretence of walking down the middle of the road. Our comments and interpretations are made from a definite point of view. We believe in the individual, in his wisdom and his decency. We oppose all infringements on individual rights, whether they stem from attempts at private monopoly, labour union monopoly or from an overgrowing government. People will say we are conservative or even reactionary. We are not much interested in labels but if we were to choose one, we would say we are radical. Just as radical as the Christian doctrine.” (Grimes, 1951).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Malia Nora Politzer

Malia Politzer is a doctoral candidate in migration studies at the University of Granada where her work focuses on the representation of migration and ethnic and religious minorities in the media. She is also a professional journalist with more than a decade of experience in complex, cross-border investigations.

Antonia Olmos Alcaraz

Antonia Olmos Alcaraz is a tenured professor in the Department of Social Anthropology at the University of Granada. His work focuses on representations of migration in the media (traditional and online press, television, radio, internet); studying coexistence practices in educational spaces and multicultural contexts and researching the operating logic of racism in current societies, with special emphasis on what is known as “elite racism”.