Post by Okwes on Mar 2, 2006 10:54:53 GMT -5
The broader levels of logos and caricatures Debate regarding Native
American monikers is missing in the cartoon debacle.
By Ramla Bile www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/02/24/67335
<http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/02/24/67335>
[1] he cartoon debacle is almost analogous to the controversy of Native
American nicknames, mascots and logos in sports. Many college and
professional sports use images that clearly present Native Americans as
the "noble savage." And even though many proudly contend that these
logos are here to present Native Americans as brave and determined
fighters, many find the monikers insulting and demeaning.
I could not condone the cartoon and bypass such an offensive caricature
as freedom of speech. On the same token, I am offended by the naming of
sports teams. It is odd that many groups find protection under certain
ethical guidelines, but Muslims, among other populations, continue to be
left out of many discourses involving the Muslim community.
Who determines who is protected and who is not protected in the media?
When issues with sensitivity rise, are the represented groups consulted
with or do news institutions seek the advice of "experts," white men in
white collars, to speak on behalf of underrepresented populations?
Last winter the National Collegiate Athletic Assocation ruled that teams
with offensive name associations would be prevented from taking part in
postseason tournaments unless tribes give approval. Just as it's unfair
to seek the approval of any other group in this case, Muslims also
should be consulted in the caricature situation. To many Muslims, the
caricatures present offensive and hostile depictions of Muhammad. The
Muslim community expressed its dissent last September. The press
organizations are not above the ethical standards other institutions
adhere to.
Many groups still consider Native American monikers a complete mockery
of the history and culture of Native Americans. In this sense, it
becomes important to use common sense and avoid these unnecessary
labels. The Native American Journalists Association urged press
organizations to ban the usage of monikers representing Native
Americans. Although the ban later was lifted, the Star Tribune banned
the referencing of Native American monikers in 1994. Few news
organizations honored NAJA's request. Media often operate on the basis
of colonial knowledge ' knowledge that legitimizes the superiorities of
the West as defined against the others. This view allows the media to
present the so-called other from a very ethnocentric and biased
perspective, which often is based on stereotypes that Westerns hold.
Of all the protesting that took place, why did the image of the gunmen
in Gaza appear everywhere when other images easily could have been
presented? Is it, perhaps, because the man appeared to be militant and
Islam frequently is presented in context of its militant practitioners?
The situation became headlines simply because Muslim rioters are deemed
more newsworthy than millions of others who have and do protest
peacefully. The media failed to cover the initial protests but suddenly
became interested in the demonstrations when they became aggressive. The
caricature debate exemplifies the problems of the media in covering
Islam.
Muslims are presented only as mobs who cannot express dissent without
resorting to violence. This selective reporting only increases division.
Media, in many ways, do not give justice to those it covers. How is it
that we have a global world, a global audience, but not a global press?
The press is global in a sense that it touches the far reaches of the
earth, but it fails to include a global perspective. If news
institutions cannot hire a diverse staff, journalists must leave the
newsroom and seek the knowledge that is necessary for a global audience.
The freedom of speech argument is "the surface debate" of the caricature
issue. The issue at hand is the coverage of Islam. Beyond the caricature
debacle, does anyone care to give thought to the grievances of the
Muslim community regarding the constant misrepresentation of Islam by
the media? The issue of representation needs to include many of the
other underrepresented groups. The discussion concerning Native American
monikers must resurface.
American monikers is missing in the cartoon debacle.
By Ramla Bile www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/02/24/67335
<http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/02/24/67335>
[1] he cartoon debacle is almost analogous to the controversy of Native
American nicknames, mascots and logos in sports. Many college and
professional sports use images that clearly present Native Americans as
the "noble savage." And even though many proudly contend that these
logos are here to present Native Americans as brave and determined
fighters, many find the monikers insulting and demeaning.
I could not condone the cartoon and bypass such an offensive caricature
as freedom of speech. On the same token, I am offended by the naming of
sports teams. It is odd that many groups find protection under certain
ethical guidelines, but Muslims, among other populations, continue to be
left out of many discourses involving the Muslim community.
Who determines who is protected and who is not protected in the media?
When issues with sensitivity rise, are the represented groups consulted
with or do news institutions seek the advice of "experts," white men in
white collars, to speak on behalf of underrepresented populations?
Last winter the National Collegiate Athletic Assocation ruled that teams
with offensive name associations would be prevented from taking part in
postseason tournaments unless tribes give approval. Just as it's unfair
to seek the approval of any other group in this case, Muslims also
should be consulted in the caricature situation. To many Muslims, the
caricatures present offensive and hostile depictions of Muhammad. The
Muslim community expressed its dissent last September. The press
organizations are not above the ethical standards other institutions
adhere to.
Many groups still consider Native American monikers a complete mockery
of the history and culture of Native Americans. In this sense, it
becomes important to use common sense and avoid these unnecessary
labels. The Native American Journalists Association urged press
organizations to ban the usage of monikers representing Native
Americans. Although the ban later was lifted, the Star Tribune banned
the referencing of Native American monikers in 1994. Few news
organizations honored NAJA's request. Media often operate on the basis
of colonial knowledge ' knowledge that legitimizes the superiorities of
the West as defined against the others. This view allows the media to
present the so-called other from a very ethnocentric and biased
perspective, which often is based on stereotypes that Westerns hold.
Of all the protesting that took place, why did the image of the gunmen
in Gaza appear everywhere when other images easily could have been
presented? Is it, perhaps, because the man appeared to be militant and
Islam frequently is presented in context of its militant practitioners?
The situation became headlines simply because Muslim rioters are deemed
more newsworthy than millions of others who have and do protest
peacefully. The media failed to cover the initial protests but suddenly
became interested in the demonstrations when they became aggressive. The
caricature debate exemplifies the problems of the media in covering
Islam.
Muslims are presented only as mobs who cannot express dissent without
resorting to violence. This selective reporting only increases division.
Media, in many ways, do not give justice to those it covers. How is it
that we have a global world, a global audience, but not a global press?
The press is global in a sense that it touches the far reaches of the
earth, but it fails to include a global perspective. If news
institutions cannot hire a diverse staff, journalists must leave the
newsroom and seek the knowledge that is necessary for a global audience.
The freedom of speech argument is "the surface debate" of the caricature
issue. The issue at hand is the coverage of Islam. Beyond the caricature
debacle, does anyone care to give thought to the grievances of the
Muslim community regarding the constant misrepresentation of Islam by
the media? The issue of representation needs to include many of the
other underrepresented groups. The discussion concerning Native American
monikers must resurface.
