Sobering Thoughts On An allegedly American Newspaper

Last Saturday night I had an interesting conversation in Canberra with a group of people who had gotten together to support that progressive bunch known as the Canberra Islamic Centre. Amongst them was a gentleman who had something to do with media.

I made a flippant throwaway reference to an American newspaper that likes to call itself The Australian. I was expressing my frustration at one section of The Oz which provides voice to some of the ugliest views I have ever read since I arrived in Australia as a wee toddler.

Going to school as virtually the only non-Anglo kid at Ryde East Public, I heard lots of nonsense in the playground from other kids. But the taunts I received then were nothing compared to some of the things I read in the columns of Janet Albrechtsen and others claiming to represent conservative thinking.

The fellow I spoke to claimed not to recall the good Doctor making any extreme reference to Muslim cultures. I reminded the chap of Dr Albrechtsen’s claim that Victoria looked like it was on the verge of becoming an Islamic state because of its religious vilification legislation. I also reminded him of the comments she made in relation to the gang rapes that took place in south western Sydney.

I got the feeling my converstaion partner may have had some link with The Oz and appeared to be offended by my suggestion that a newspaper he associated with was printing views which, if said about Jews and Judaism, would be deemed anti-Semitic.

I hope he goes back and reads some of the offending columns and considers the impressions that the promotion of such lunatic-fringe ideas has on even the most conservative people for whom Islam forms perhaps a minor part of their identity.

The gentleman certainly had far more enlightened views about non-Christian religions (if he didn’t, why on earth would he be attending a fundraising dinner for an Islamic centre?). To his credit, the gentleman did provide me with some food for thought which I felt should be shared with readers.

He explained that each section of the paper has its own editors who have separate briefs and engage their own regular contributors. These contributors are given a certain amount of latitude and are deliberately chosen because they represent a certain element of the public conversation.

There is a significant monoculturalist element of the public conversation which wants to read criticisms of matters associated with Muslim cultures. Writers like Kevin Donnelly and Janet Albrechtsen cater for these people.

At the same time there are elements of the public conversation that want to read relatively less conservative and/or multiculturalist views. Writers like Phillip Adams and others cater for these.

He also pointed out that ugly views about certain non-Christian faiths and cultures are also printed in the Fairfax press. I agreed with him in the case of Paul Sheehan and Miranda Devine (and occasionally Gerard Henderson, though he is far more sophisticated in his analysis of sectarian issues).

He also suggested that much of the problem is not that of the paper but rather of those claiming to speak for Australia’s incredibly diverse Muslim communities. On this point, I doubt there can be any disagreement except from those representing the private interests of those benefiting from their continual domination of Muslim institutions.

I guess this is where government-sponsored multiculturalism has its limits. If, by multiculturalism, we mean governments spending money on organisations which then divert funds into private ventures then it is understandable for taxpayers of any denomination to find such activity inherently offensive.

In this regard The Oz has investigated and exposed both the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. But it has also exposed the Hillsong Church. If Islam or Pentecostal Christianity has reputation problems, this cannot be solely attributed to a few op-eds in a newspaper.

Perhaps the most important point the gentleman made is that what gets printed in different sections of a newspaper may or may not represent the entire newspaper. He said that no mainstream newspaper from any camp (Fairfax or News Limited) has a single ideological agenda. Rather, the newspapers try to reflect the national conversation and break news stories that readers want to read.

Further, often a newspaper’s op-ed section will enable the views of certain writers to be projected further so as to counter-balance the perceived biases of a competing newspaper and so as to differentiate itself from its competitors.

In the current environment, with anything remotely related to Islam being painted as violent and ugly, it is sometimes easier for those of us who don’t feel the urge to hate the faith and all its followers to presume every attack is part of some agenda. Conspiracies often make excellent self-fulfilling prophecies.

But we have to learn to be careful not to demonise media outlets just because they give space to those who demonise us. Because chances are the same outlet gives space to the demonising of just about everyone else.

(A version of this was first published on The Webdiary.)

© Irfan Yusuf 2006