Here is how the Guardian website treated a recent news item.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/10/two-arrested-army-protest-luton

Here is how the BBC website treated the same story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/beds/bucks/herts/7935049.stm

From the Daily Telegraph website

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/4972211/Muslim-protest-at-Luton-Army-parade-was-upsetting-says-senior-officer.html

and

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/4991313/Lutons-Muslim-extremists-defy-public-anger.html

and

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4975163/Stop-pandering-to-enemies-of-our-way-of-life.html

The Sun had this to say

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/article2314309.ece

Here is Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508686,00.html

The inevitable youtube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_ygCc9qlWM

Here's Andrew Bolt

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/killers_for_their_god/

And, finally, here is what the British National Party website has to say n the matter,

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/03/muslim%E2%80%99s-luton-anti-army-protest-%E2%80%9Cportent-of-things-to-come%E2%80%9D/

Which, if any, of this reportage best captures the essence of the event and, most importantly, its CONTEXT? Is it even possible to say?

Steven,
More Muslim hating madness. More indirect uber pro israeli bumf. What a waste of time all that effort researching for what is 20th rate story in England about a few hysterical protesters that realistically deserved to be ignored.
We're in Australia who cares what a piddling minority of anti war protesters did in England.
Have you heard of freedom of speech?
The last report is pure toxic spin (Nationalist fear mongering the editorializing was neither accurate or objective).
PS newspapers/media are generally for entertanment/profit...be it on your head if you believe their spin.

I'm not entirely sure what is your question, stevenlmeyer.

>>Which, if any, of this reportage best captures the essence of the event and, most importantly, its CONTEXT? Is it even possible to say?<<

The answer is, if I have interpreted you correctly, "all of them".

Each comes from a different perspective, and each provides a different set of quotations from key observers.

The Guardian, generally regarded as left-of-centre, includes this little gem.

"Shahid Malik, the justice minister, said... these extremists in Luton no more represent ordinary Muslims than the Real IRA represent ordinary Irish people<<

Nice summary, especially given the actual size of the protest.

And at the other extreme-right end of the spectrum, the organ of the BNP, has this to say.

"...we cannot help but think of what would happen to British nationals who would insult a Pakistani army parade in Lahore in this manner; they would be lynched,”

Another very astute observation, underlining the fundamental right to free speech that the British hold dear. The fact that he is probably close to the truth illustrates the tolerance that is a critical component of any decent civilization.

But so what? Every news item is filtered through the lens of the medium. I am pretty sure that the reporting of the same incident by the Lahore Chronicle would add another angle.

It simply illustrates that there is no longer a "newspaper of record". All we have available to us is editorial opinion, using current events as a vehicle.

Why would anyone bother reading all those?.

You kinda have to sell the urge to read them.

I'm reminded of the old fable about the blind men and the elephant.

Dear Steven,

Well you've certainly illustrated beautifully
just how successful the manipulation of an
event by the media can be. The power to instill
fear - that was out of proportion to the real
numbers or strength. The last website you gave
was really over the top - "portent of things to
come..." My, my.

I guess if I had to select one report out of all
of the ones you gave - it would be the one cited
at the beginning of your post - by The Guardian.
The content seemed the least biased and emotive.

I wonder if the same occurs here in Australia?
I've not done an inquiry to compare the reporting
on any given story here. I'll have to give it a
go.

Thanks. Interesting thread. Actually an eye-opener.
Makes you think twice about the effect slanted reporting
has on people doesn't it? Some subtle, some not so
subtle. It all depends where the emphasis is placed.
And the right buttons are pushed.
Emotions certainly could be stirred up - especially
in a vulnerable city with its mix of problems...

Steven,
A thought provoking presentation, I’ve been tempted to do similar a number of times, though from a slightly different tack.

It's notable how many times a charge is given loud & long headline coverage but, the rebuttal, if it’s reported at all, is assigned a short segment in the back sections.

PS: good to see you back on board –OLO needs more white hats

Not even the supposedly 'objective' Guardian or BBC dared to question whether these homecoming military parades through the streets are in themselves highly provocative, especially for wars that are internationally condemned as illegal and/or immoral.

Foxy, Horus, thank you for your kind words.

(1) Do media ORGANISATIONS attempt to manipulate public opinion?

(2) Do INDIVIDUALS within the media attempt to manipulate public opinion?

I think the answer to the SECOND question is unquestionably "yes." Some individuals do try to influence public opinion in two ways:

--In their selection of material. Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman and David Marr are the poster boys for this approach to journalism.

--In the way they present their material. Philip Adams is Australia's maestro in this category of journalism but Bolt, Akerman and Marr are quite good as well.

I think the answer to the first question is a little more subtle than an attempt at outright manipulation. Executives at successful media organisations have a good idea of how their respective audiences would like to see controversial stories covered and they do their best to oblige.

In short it is the goal of most successful media organisation to cater to the tastes of their readers or viewers.

But it seems to go even deeper than that. Take Foxnews. They certainly know their audience – mostly conservative Republicans in the US. No one can deny that they cater, some would say pander, to the tastes of their target audience.

But Foxnews executives also seem to understand how those on the OTHER SIDE OF POLITICS would like to see them covering events. I know people who may be described as being on the "Left" who are avid "Fox watchers." Watching the shenanigans of Foxnews presenters makes them feel virtuous and clever.

So Foxnews wins both ways. It attracts those that like them and those that hate them. At low cost it attracts a large audience and the advertising revenue flows in.

QUESTION:

One of the Luton protestors, Jalal Ahmed, was fired from his job as a baggage handler at Luton airport.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/article2317177.ece

Was this the right decision?

Dear Steven,

You're welcome!

I agree with you that newspaper editors are out
to cater to their readers. Afterall if they
didn't, their sales would go down - right?

As for Andrew Bolt - et al? Yes, he and quite
a few others do have their own agendas - and
they certainly try to influence public opinion.
I actually can't name one commentator on world
affairs who doesn't try to influence people.
Possibly George Negus -
who tries to present the entire picture.

As for the 21 year old being fired?
Airport security is a sensitive area - and image
is everything. So - from the air-port's point of
view - they possibly did the right thing.
Was it fair? Possibly not. But, the guy should
have known better. There are risks involved
in certain forms of behaviour.

You can't rock up to an airport and joke that you've
got a bomb in your suitcase - and expect nothing to
happen to you. This guy attracted media attention
in a very public deminstration. It's not an image
that his bosses would find desirable to promote.

Hi Foxy,

Supposing a baggage handler from Luton Airport called, not Jalal Ahmed, but John Smith had participated in a similar protest. Suppose further that the protesters had called themselves "Christians for Peace" or some such.

Would you have considered it reasonable for Luton Airport to fire John Smith of "Christians for Peace"?

Is there a difference between Jalal Ahmed, the Muslim, and John Smith the Christian?

Under what circumstances is it reasonable to sack someone for participating in a street demonstration while he is off duty?

Under what circumstances is it unreasonable?

Do we have any evidence that Jalal Ahmed intended any harm?

Is a Muslim in Ahmed's position more vulnerable to being recruited by terrorist organisations than a Christian? Is that a reason to sack him?

What if John Smith's fellow protesters had called themselves "Christian Soldiers" rather than "Christians for Peace?"

Would your answer change if the group called itself "Atheists for Peace?"

I don't pretend to have any easy answers to these questions; but I am interested in what you and other posters think.

I don't see too many christians strapping bombs to their bellies, or to their children's, or declaring outright war on entire societies or countries. Given the harsh realities of current Geo-politics, and the mounting body-count of innocent victims, on both sides, I figure it was a reasonable security-risk assessment, and action. The man put his religion before his job, as is his right, but must accept the consequences there-of, that's what we all have to do in the real world.

Dear Steven,

I totally agree with Max on this one.

He's summed up the situation very well.

LOL Max, Foxy,

Be careful. You're laying yourself open to charges of "Mozzie whacking" and "Islamophobia." Soon examinator will accuse you of propagating "indirect uber pro israeli bumf."

OK, let's get real. The evidence indicates that in 2009 Muslims are more vulnerable than Christians to being seduced by networks intent on causing violence and mayhem. It was not that way in the past. It may not be that way in future. But today, in 2009, that's the way the evidence points. To pretend otherwise is to be wilfully blind.

But where does that get us? The fact is that Jalal Ahmed participated in a legal non-violent demonstration. Yes the language the demonstrators used was confrontational and I would surmise they were hoping to provoke a violent response. More fool the onlookers who took the bait. But Ahmed and his fellow demonstrators did nothing violent or illegal.

If participating in legal, non-violent political activity in your own time is likely to get you fired then free speech is dead. Few of us can afford to lose our jobs.

You may respond that in this particular case the risk of keeping Mr. Ahmed on as a baggage handler outweighs the need to preserve free speech.

But does it?

If I were running a Jihadi network Ahmed is the last person I would approach. He has blown his cover. I would have to assume that at the very least he was under intermittent surveillance and that his phone calls and emails were being monitored. Were I to approach Ahmed there is a good chance I would bring myself to the attention of the security services.

The person I would target for recruitment is someone who appeared to be apolitical. Best would be a convert to Islam who could be persuaded to keep his conversion secret.

I question whether sacking Ahmed will make Luton Airport any safer.

Dear Steven,

His sacking may not make the airport any safer.

But, the airport execs made the decision
as they saw fit. End of story.

They saw him as a risk - one they weren't prepared
to tolerate. As Max pointed out - he chose his
religion over his job - and paid the price for it.

Such is life.