Deciding what outfit to wear as a Muslim writer setting off to report on a far-right event is at least as complicated as getting ready for an important job interview. This isn’t because I want to impress the local neo-Nazis with my high-level grooming skills, but because when I’m keeping that kind of company I’m torn between the desire to pass unnoticed and the desire to set myself apart. On the one hand I don’t want to be mistaken for a supporter of the self-styled patriots’ movement. On the other hand, I don’t want to get beaten up.
In the end, I always settle for a hybrid ethnic-lite ensemble — jeans and a long tunic with a scarf draped across my shoulders, ready to be pulled up over my hair should I suddenly feel the need to signal my ethno-religious identity. My brown skin already sets me apart from most of the patriots, so I’m not really putting myself at further risk by indulging in this small gesture of defiance. And it seems important to clearly signal that my physical proximity to white supremacists and neo-Nazis does not make me their fellow-traveler.
Prior to 2016 when we experienced in short order the “yes” vote for Brexit just days after the assassination of pro-Remain Labor MP Jo Cox, the return of One Nation to the Australian Senate, and finally the Trumpocalyse in the United States, I asked myself at regular intervals whether I should write about what were at that stage widely regarded as obscure fringe movements at all. Perhaps it was better to let them wither on the vine rather than providing them with what Margaret Thatcher had termed “the oxygen of publicity”.
If just ignore them and they’ll go away was ever a viable strategy for dealing with white supremacists and neo-Nazis, that moment has long passed. In the months since the election of Donald Trump and even more in the days since the terrorist attack in Christchurch, media outlets around the world have wrestled with the question of how — and even more importantly, how not — to report on the far-right.
Australian media outlets and practitioners have provided the world with prime examples of how not. From the Sky News interview with United Patriots thug Blair Cottrell to A Current Affair’s inflammatory report on the “race war” supposedly underway in Melbourne to the coverage of the terrorist attack in Christchurch, Australian media has steadily chiseled its way right through the bottom of the barrel. In recent days, we’ve seen Australian media outlets post links to the murderer’s so-called manifesto, run clips from the GoPro footage of his crime that stop just short of the moment when it becomes an actual snuff movie, and provide Fraser “final solution” Anning with airtime on The Kyle and Jackie O Show so that he could “explain” his victim-blaming response to the carnage in Christchurch. (No need to explain, Fraser. We understand.)
None of this indicates a sector that has given serious thought to providing the far-right with what Evan Osnos in The New Yorker describes as “more sunlight, less oxygen’.
The current focus on role of the far-right and social media in last Friday’s horrific events serves to deflect us from addressing the role of the establishment right and the mainstream media. Pauline Hanson’s established role in Australian politics is to make the racebaiting from the Liberal-National party seem respectable by comparison — and now Fraser Anning performs the same function for her. News Corp may have driven a former Young Queenslander of the Year out of her job and eventually out of the country for the crime of thinking that a Muslim was entitled to express an opinion that had been safely aired by many non-Muslims before her, but at least it isn’t as bad as 8Chan.
If we want better coverage of the far-right, then media outlets need to prioritise reporting by writers from those communities that are in its crosshairs. Acclaimed author and academic Randa Abdel-Fattah was forced to published her response to the Christchurch massacre in The New Arab after the editor of a major Australian newspaper declined to provide space to what, as she explained in a tweet, they described as a “pretty incendiary” article. The publication of such voices shouldn’t just be seen as a pro-diversity measure. It would also lead to better reporting because our lived experience has provided us with the necessary expertise. As many, many Muslims have stated in the aftermath of the Christchurch slaughter, we knew this was coming.
At the same time, it should be recognised that journalists and writers from racialised communities face a higher level of risk than do their “mainstream” colleagues when reporting on particular topics. We should be given every opportunity to decline to place our physical and emotional health at risk by returning to the front line over and over again. (I note that the Crikey editors have at various points expressed an appropriate level of concern and support for my safety). Nor should we be restricted to writing about the Muslim/African/Aboriginal “problem”.
But when it comes to writing about the far-right and white supremacy, editors and publishers need to provide far more space to those of us who quite literally have “skin in the game”.
A very short sighted article, incorrectly arguing that impartiality is not desirable in media reporting.
I don’t think that your personal experience reporting right wing extremism could be impartial and is unlikely to be anything more than superficial, as your not able to penetrate these organisations…. maybe more suited to blogging.
Journalism has become far to subjective and central to the reporting, as evidenced by your first three paragraphs. I don’t really want to know your personal experience of an event or your fashion choices, it’s the content not the package.
It might be old fashioned but I prefer to read articles where the author is able to win the interviewees trust without fear or favour and presents a accurate case study of the facts in a neutral fashion for my judgement.
Nowhere do I see a sentiment saying impartiality is undesirable. I read a piece describing how the Australian media are complicit in normalising racist murderers in pursuit of revenue and in support of the political interests of their owners.
Inasmuch as the article touches on the author’s personal experience, it is a revealing insight into the fear and stress experienced by a journalist with a brown complexion, female configuration and Muslim faith when covering events with genocidal racists and their appendages.
There is no such thing as objective journalism. All too often what we see as objective is what reflects our own prejudices. It’s the three degrees of separation really:
– I’m objective
– You’re prejudiced
– He’s a flaming lunatic.
The fact you have chosen to complain about a lack of impartiality says as much about your own prejudices as it does about Shakira Hussein.
“.. when it comes to writing about the far-right and white supremacy, editors and publishers need to provide far more space to those of us who quite literally have “skin in the game”.
So It’s different rules when it comes to far right and white supremacy reporting is it, WHY ??
Perhaps you should read what has been written and base your comments on that.
Please name any “genocidal” racists and their appendages that have been interviewed by the author, hysterical overreaches in reporting and conversation are sadly becoming the norm.
Do you think that this Tarrant creature relied on hysterical oversimplifications ; or complex, logical and impartial commentary in forming his world view??
Objectivity and truth are not absolutes in any regard, but they are desirable concepts in communication.
Did anyone watch The Drum last night? A panel of women, all Muslim. Absolutely riveting TV with articulate, intelligent women telling it like it is!!
Good ideas SH thank you. On a personal level, I now understand the “casual” racism I’ve been exposed to all my life often from otherwise “lovely” people including some family members was and is racism. Speaking up to reject that and feel safe and be braver than your fear is sometimes hard. Leaders and public communicators have a crucial role to play in challenging bad stuff and exposing us the realities of our world and the people in it. The words and behaviour you let pass are in the end what you accept. The media, like our institutions needs to reflect the reality of Australia today.
Thank you.
I am a caucasian and have been saying (too often) that the dog-whistling about Muslims is not only against what I understand of the Christianity that so many of the whistlers claim, but dangerous.
I am so very sorry to be right.
I read the article by Randa Abdel-Fattah, for which you provided a link. It is no wonder that the MSM here didn’t want to publish it. What a torrent of hate and abuse for anything ‘western’ and anyone ‘white’…how is that kind of language supposed to reflect sympathy, compassion and love for the victims of the terrible massacre in Christchurch, I’d like to know? It just spreads division and a ‘them and us’ attitude.
What you have to say is hardly any better, Shakira. Of course white supremacist terrorists/murderers are abominable, but so are terrorists from ALL extreme groups. It seems you both want us to forget that Muslim terrorist extremists have murdered thousands of people, particularly in the UK, Europe, The Middle East and Africa…but not forgetting Bali and 9/11 as well. Are we supposed to just forget these previous unspeakable events?
As far as I’m concerned these events are all as bad as each other, and Christchurch is only different because it happened in a ‘western’ country and the victims were all Muslim. My sympathy and compassion goes out to ALL the victims and their families/friends…because NO ONE deserves what happened to any of them!
I read the article, twice. I didn’t see a torrent of hate and abuse. I saw a passionate outpouring of grief and quite justified rage at a hypocritical double standard. Nowhere in this article by Shakira Hussein, or in the linked article by Randa Abdel-Fatta can I discern the least diminution of the harm done by terrorist islamists.
However, while for the last thirty years the Muslim community has been held collectively responsible for the least act of violence of an individual, a large part of our mainstream media and political establishment have provided cover for the terrorist sub-culture which spawned that murderer in Christchurch. That cover was cynically provided for profit and political advantage. Now, when the butcher’s bill is presented, you anoint yourself in the rancid oil of even handed sanctity. We, collectively, as the Australian community are responsible.
“We, collectively, as the Australian community are responsible”.
Bullshit, I’m not.
Australia is a multicultural nation and hardly responsible for an individuals action overseas.
Islam on the other hand is a religion and all practitioners hold common beliefs and rituals… islamic extremists commit atrocities motivated solely by their religion.
Not at all the same thing.
My point was that suddenly we are all supposed to forget the atrocities committed by Moslem terrorists because the latest and horrific incident killed only Moslems. Well sorry…as I said before, these ‘terrorists’ are all as bad as each other.
As for that poor excuse for a human being who committed the Christchurch murders…I understand that he had only spent 45 days in Australia over the last 3 years, and was probably groomed by one of the 30 white supremacist groups that have been operating in Christchurch for the past 20+ years.
It is very convenient for NZ to blame us, but I think they should be looking closer to home. A few more stringent gun laws wouldn’t have gone astray either!
I reject totally your accusation that the Australian community is to blame, and I absolutely do not accept any personal responsibility for this person. My political views are about as far removed from his as it is possible to be.
His use of internet during the attack suggests he was influenced strongly by online propaganda.
Live streaming to ‘prove’ his credentials as a fringe lunatic to the other fringe lunatics.
I don’t know myself, but doubt there is a significant white supremacist movement in Christchurch, probably the same level as any for extremism there.
A very reasonable comment CML. I fully agree with you.
We have seen apologists for Islamic terror repeatedly downplay and minimize the ‘rogue’ elements which ‘don’t represent Islam’. The Victorian police and government and the ABC have more than once reported Islamist terror incidents in Australia as ‘not terror related’ only to be quickly shown to be wrong. Faces are routinely pixelated on the ABC, when the same face can be seen on a commercial network or in a newspaper.
Yet if we ordinary Australians are to say ‘this murderous Tarrant creature does NOT represent any Australian value or dominant culture’ – then we get a torrent of abuse from the usual suspects trying to heap collective guilt on the whole Australian community.
Well said, moriarty262…it is precisely because I wanted to avoid the abuse and ‘guilt trip’ that I switched off Monday’s edition of The Drum, immediately.
Of course Muslim voices should be heard…but the whole damn program without anyone else to contribute? Forget it!!
CML – The Drum was an absolute disgrace with the 5 ‘muslim women’. They all ‘race-baited’ the rest of the non-muslim Australian population and one had the cheek to condemn Q&A for once having Aayan Hirsi Ali on the panel.
Aayan is a hero of our time – suffered FGM; suffered muslim male oppression posing as Somalian culture; escaped to Holland to have her associate Van Gogh hacked to death on a Dutch street; and dared to denounce the toxic muslim culture she narrowly escaped and still lives under death threats from her former home.
To condemn Aayan is ‘hate speech’ from the mouths of ‘muslim women’ left unchallenged by the Lefty host and facilitated by ‘our’ ABC.