Independent Research Project Sarah Clark

SOC 250

Independent Research Project

Naturally Occurring Data: Media Watch Segment

Video Link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1puKmV_qOc




The Media shapes societies perception of the world micro and macro. It is the window to the world for most people. It is what we use to educate ourselves about our society. The media has a direct impact on how we as a human race interact daily. This research project will be focussing on Islamic (Muslims) people and how they are presented by the Australian media. To give a clear and relevant example this essay will focus on a segment from the ABC networks show Media Watch. The segment describes how a disagreement with a Muslim man and a camera man was subsequently blown up and taken out of context. It has to be understood that the political context in which this media has come from is post 9/11 and corresponds with the United States War on terror which Australia was a part of (Rachel, 2008). A lot of war propaganda was focussed through the media which sold the war on terror or Iraq war by marrying religion (Islam) to terrorism and the Middle East(Racheal, 2008). This often saw Islamic people being demonised by western media sources (Sway, 2005). The Treatment of Islamic people in macro society has direct implications on our everyday micosociety and human interaction.




The segment on media watch which aired on the 12th April 2010 explains how Seven news completely manipulated a media story in order to make a Muslim man and his son appear to be ‘angry Muslims’. Seven news starts the story with the following quote Peter Mitchell: “An accused rioter has clashed with a television cameraman after facing court on charges arising from the attack on the Oakleigh Bob Jane store “— (Channel Seven News, Victoria, 1st April, 2010). It then proceeded to show the confrontation between the man Mr Gad Amr and his son as if to imply that they weren’t provoked they simply lost control of their anger for no reason at all. Media watch then exposes the raw footage not shown by Channel 7. Mr Gad Amr and his son were actually badgered and harassed by camera men in particular Win News camera man Simon Fuller who calls the men a “fucking terrorist”. The use of the word terrorist incurs a dramatic and emotion fuelled reaction from both Mr Gad Amr and his son.

Media interest in Islam exploded after the September 11th terrorist attacks. Politics and the media made it hard to distinguish between Islam and terrorism, the two terms were coined together (Mamdani, 2002). What has occurred in the video from Media Watch of the raw footage of the confrontation is the peak of this process that the media has created in relation to terrorism and Islam. After Simon Fuller calls Mr Gad Amr a terrorist, his son Omar Amar reacts with ferocity and anger. He makes the statement “Calling my dad a terrorist! Who the f** are you to call him a terrorist? Why are you calling him a terrorist? 'Cos he has a beard and 'cos he's Muslim? It's what it comes down to? Is that what you guys have brung us down to? You can't even have a beard in this country any more without being called a f***ing terrorist!”. The fact that Omar Amar makes reference to the fact that simply because his father has a beard and is Muslim, people will make the identification that he is a “terrorist”. This raw footage, as Media Watch uncovers is an ironic example of how the media has created such a prejudicial stereotype. If Mr Gad Amr had not been in fact called a terrorist he would not have reacted in such a manner and therefore the angry outburst would not have been filmed and then subsequently displayed without context to make Mr Amr seem like an angry man. Not just any kind of angry man, an angry Muslim man.

What strikes out to me is the way in which all the men in the footage conduct themselves, including Mr Gad Amr, Mr Omar Amr and Mr Simon Fuller. The way in which they produce themselves socially in this situation is quite intriguing as they all act in ways which are deemed or considered normal for the persons that they are. Goffman explains this as rules of conduct, that are deemed by society and developed within groups of people (Goffman,1967). Rules lead to consistency and patterning behaviour (Goffman, 1967). This can be seen with Simon Fullers behaviour as he baggers the Amrs down the street attempting to get footage. Mr Fuller’s actions may well have been nothing to do with the fact that the men involved were Muslim. Many journalists have been known to disregard common decency and follow people attempting to get footage or a reaction from them. Mr Fuller then reinforces this by stating “I’m just doing my job mate”. It seems that in Mr Fullers eyes he is simply doing his job by rules of conduct created by media practices. Now despite it being blatantly an invasion of privacy and breach of common decency Mr Fuller continues to film and badger the Amrs. He is therefore expressing himself as a journalist because it is in his perceived right to do so, he may truly believe that it is within his rules of conduct.

All human interaction requires what Goffman refers to as performance from individuals. This is very apparent in the exchange and confrontation between the Amrs and Mr Fuller, especially by the Amrs. Goffman explains that while in the presence of others, individuals will come to a dramatic realization, meaning their actions infuses with signs that dramatically portray confirmatory facts(Goffman, 1971). Mr Gad Amr throughout most of the video maintains the statement “Please stop, Please, Leave me alone”. Now this statement alone reflects how Mr Amr feels about the present situation at hand, his performance is trying to stop the situation, and avoid dealing with the camera man. After Simon fuller uses the insult “fucking terrorist” Mr Omar Amr’s performance takes to the stage. In defence of his father his actions are seeking a dramatic response from those around him, so angered by what his father was called he takes it upon himself to seek justice in the situation and tell Simon Fuller how disgusted he is by the remarks. His performance can be specifically categorised by Goffmans interpretation and understanding of performance.

The cut version of the confrontation that aired on Channel 7 does one of two things. Firstly is reiterates the stereotype that has been unfairly created by the media that all Muslim people are simply angry dangerous people and therefore have a direct relation with suicide bombers and terrorists. Secondly it again portrays Muslim men and misogynistic, it reinforces that women should be fearful of Muslim men (Ho, 2007). Now of course because the cut version that went to air was taken completely out of context, Channel 7 essentially manipulated this social interaction for their own political agenda. The performances made by the Omar, attempting to express themselves were made in vain and subsequently used against them. There is nothing in the confrontation that suggests anything about oppression of women or sexual misconduct, however the anger that is shown from the Amr’s that seems to be unprovoked encourages the perception that Muslim men are angry and misogynistic.




The Media Watch Segment begins with a warning from the host “I warn you the language isn’t pretty”. At the beginning of the confrontation, despite the arrogance by the camera man and the obvious discontent by the Amrs, they seem to all attempts to portray an aura of politeness. This can be understood as trying to save face and remain social respect in a situation (Daly,2004). All the language used within the first couple of minutes of the footage are deemed forceful yet polite, especially Mr Amr who says “Please” multiple times. Mr Fuller also reciprocates by calling Mr Amr “Mate”. Politeness theory suggests that if an interaction threatens the negative face of anyone involved the speaker will use negative politeness strategies (Daly, 2004). This is seen when Mr Amr over uses the word “please”, he is attempting to remain polite yet it is understood that his pleading is going unnoticed and he continues to use the word “please” over and over. As the situation turns and both parties become aggravated by each other’s presence the words “fuck and fucking” become the main part of the verbal banter between the parties. The word “fuck or fucking” are not always used in situations of rude, crude or defensive matters, it can often be used as friendly banter amongst friends (Daly, 2004). Fuck is used for a wide variety of situations; in this instance it is primarily to be impolite rude and express anger and discontent with the situation at hand. Fuck in this instance is used as an insult, and intensifier, in this situation it is not used to be anything but offensive (Daly, 2004)




The segment from Media Watch tells us a lot about everyday interaction. It explains that everyday interaction can be dictated by the media and how the media and manipulate information and therefore influence our perceptions of the world. The social interactions that take place within the footage explain a lot about social interaction amongst people, especially when looking at how they will perform in a social context that threatens them and makes them uncomfortable. The naturally occurring data that this situation produces can be understood when looking at the works of Erving Goffman who explains how individuals produce themselves in social interactions and context. Analyzing the language used especially the use of swearing and the word ‘fuck’. It gives us a very real situation that shows how swearing can be used in a negative and offensive manner.



















References

Sway, M. (2005). Islamophobia: Meaning, Manifestations, Causes. Palestine-Israel Journal Of Politics, Economics & Culture, 12(2/3), 15-23.

Rachel A. D. Bloul (2008): Anti-discrimination Laws, Islamophobia, and

Ethnicization of Muslim Identities in Europe and Australia, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 28:1,

7-25

Ho. C (2007) Muslim women's new defenders: Women's rights, nationalism and Islamophobia in contemporary Australia Women's Studies International Forum Volume 30, Issue 4, July–August 2007



Mahmood Mamdani (2002) Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: A Political Perspective on Culture and Terrorism American Anthropologist , New Series, Vol. 104, No. 3 pp. 766-775 Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3567254



Watch, M. (n.d.). Media Watch: Just doing my job, mate (12/04/2010). ABC.net.au. Retrieved October 31, 2012, from http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2870685.htm

Goffman, Erving. 1967. “The Nature of Deference and Demeanor.” Pp. 47-96 in Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York: Pantheon Books.

Goffman, Erving. 1971. “Performances.” Pp. 28-82 in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Top of Form



Daly, Nicola, Janet Holmes, Jonathan Newton, and Maria Stubbe. 2004. “Expletives as solidarity signals in FTAs on the factory floor.” Journal of Pragmatics 36: pp. 945-964