Message Framing and Measuring Emotional Response to Islam and Terrorism:
A Comparison Between Christians, Jews and Muslims
By
Robert H. Wicks
Department of Communication
Kimpel Hall 417
Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701
501-575-5958
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
- Abstract -
Religion, like politics and economics, has an enormous impact on the
evolution of peoples, societies and nations. This study considers how
members of different religions perceive and respond emotionally to
televised news reports about Islam and terrorism that the media frame in
various ways. The study employs emotional response procedures that are
similar to Mehrabian scaling techniques. The results indicate news reports
with high relevancy to members of various faiths produce feelings of
hostility, anger and outrage.
Paper submitted to the Communication Theory and Methodology Division for
presentation at the 2002 meeting of the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication, July 20 to August 2, Kansas City, MO.
Running Head: Measuring Emotional Response
Message Framing and Measuring Emotional Response to Islam and Terrorism:
A Comparison Between Christians, Jews and Muslims
- Abstract -
Religion, like politics and economics, has an enormous impact on the
evolution of peoples, societies and nations. This study considers how
members of different religions perceive and respond emotionally to
televised news reports about Islam and terrorism that the media frame in
various ways. The study employs emotional response procedures that are
similar to Mehrabian scaling techniques. The results indicate news reports
with high relevancy to members of various faiths produce feelings of
hostility, anger and outrage.
Paper submitted to the Communication Theory and Methodology Division for
presentation at the 2002 meeting of the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication, July 20 to August 2, Kansas City, MO.
Message Framing and Measuring Emotional Response to Islam and Terrorism:
A Comparison Between Christians, Jews and Muslims
Introduction
Events of the past several years including the September 11th attacks on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the continuing Palestinian
uprising in Israel and the war with Iraq have caused the media to focus its
attention on the issue of terrorism and its relationship to Islam. Although
the focus on Islamic terrorism has been intense for the past few years,
media framing of it began several decades ago.[1]
Televised terrorism and live war coverage produces compelling and upsetting
images that are consumed by worldwide media audiences. Journalists do
endeavor to explain that these events are rooted in a political context
stressing that Islam represents a religion that is practiced throughout the
world. However, many observers believe that the constant and repeated
framing of Islam in the context of Middle East terrorism may cause a
sizeable portion of the audience to conclude that Islam and terrorism are
inextricably linked.
This report is intended to accomplish three primary objectives. First, it
provides a theoretical discussion about media framing theory and explains
how this concept is relevant to the study of religion and terrorism.
Second, it introduces a method of measuring emotional response to media
images known as AdSAM©. In so doing, it suggests that emotional measurement
warrants considerable attention in future research about news and
information framing concerning religion. Finally, it concludes with an
analysis of how members of the Presbyterian, Jewish and Muslim faiths
differ in their emotional response to images of Islam and terrorism in
televised news and information.
Literature Review
Message Framing
Message framing refers to the idea that the media choose to focus attention
on certain events and then place them within a field of meaning Iyengar,
1991). Frames enable people to evaluate, convey, and interpret information
based on shared conceptual constructs. As such, media messages contain
contextual cues supplied by professional communicators to help people
understand information (Reese, Gandy & Grant, 2001). Framing analysis as an
approach to analyzing news discourse mainly deals with how public discourse
about "public policy issues is constructed and negotiated" (Pan and
Kosicki, 1993, p. 70).
Framing theory is based on the recognition that in the American political
process, the participants are increasingly pressed to use symbolic devices
to gain legitimacy, form political alliances, strive toward consensus, and
organize collective or policy actions (Gamson, 1988; Snow, Rochford, Worden
& Benford, 1986). It shares with agenda-setting research a focus on the
public policy issues in the news and in voter's minds. However, it expands
beyond what people talk or think about by examining how they think and
talk. It also goes beyond the agenda-setting literature, characterized by
collections of empirical generalizations without theories, to build a more
solid theoretical basis of news discourse processes (Shaw, 1992). The
critical advance from the agenda-setting research is that framing analysis
examines the diversity and fluidity in how issues are conceptualized and
consequently allows for more fruitful analysis of the conceptual evolution
of policy issues.
Interpretative frames enable people to place information in context and
make sense of events. Gitlin (1980) explained that frames "enable
journalists to process large amounts of information quickly and [enables
them to] routinely package the information for efficient relay to their
audiences" (p. 7). Gamson suggests that framing is essentially an
organizing mechanism that enables communicators to provide meaning (Gamson,
1992; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989). Hence, the ways in which communicator's
frame messages may significantly influence the ways in which they are
attended to, interpreted and processed by audience members.
Audience members also engage the framing process. Media audience members
actively classify, organize, and interpret our life experiences to make
sense of the world (Goffman, 1974). Audience frames are the set of
attitudes, ideas, opinions, and beliefs that people employ when they
receive and interpret information. Audience framing is normally
investigated using focus groups, interviewing strategies, or panel studies
(Graber, 1988; Neuman et al., 1992). By considering media content and
audience framing simultaneously, a more complete picture of how and why
members of social groups negotiate meaning has begun to emerge.
Fawaz (1997) asserts that mental conceptualizations of Islam for many in
the West began to develop in February of 1979 when the Ayatollah Khomeini
took power in Iran. Images of blindfolded hostages at the US Embassy in
Teheran coupled with descriptions of fundamentalist Islamic violence and
the introduction of terms like Jihad, holy war and terrorism produced
mental frames that pitted "not only two religions but two civilizations,
[against each other] even though they have common foundations, not to
mention an axiology of common values" (Arkoun, 1995, p. 471).
Framing and Religious Stereotyping
Media messages contribute to the formation of attitudes, beliefs and
opinions by audience members. When at their best, newspapers, magazines and
television can help to illuminate important issues and contribute to the
process of teaching citizens about their community, the nation and the
world. When at their worst, media can present misleading or distorted
information that may reinforce stereotypes and cultivate beliefs that are
at odds with reality. Examples of this include research over the past two
decades indicating that news reporting about Hispanics tended to be
negative portraying them as "problem people" (Turk, Richard, Bryson, &
Johnson, 1989). In a similar vein, Entman (1992) reported that local
television news reports in Chicago tended to present white politicians as
representing the interests of all constituents and the overall civic good
whereas black politicians were typically portrayed as representing only the
interests of the black community.
As a consequence of the events of September 11th, government and media have
shifted the issue of terrorism and Islam to center stage. While President
George W. Bush, political leaders and the media have repeated the message
that Islam is not to blame, many American Christians and Jews may suspect
this religion, rather than radical fundamentalism, is responsible. Equally
important, Muslims in the United States appear to be struggling to find new
ways to communicate information about their religion to members of other
faiths (Esposito, 1997). The media will certainly play a central role in
determining what is presented and how these messages are framed. Hence, it
is important to understand how American citizens are developing schemas
about Islam and members of the Muslim faith based on what they learn from
the mass media. Because a majority of Americans are either Christians or
Jews, and most learn about Islam from the media, it is important to
consider the potential stereotyping that may occur over time.
Terrorism has dominated our media landscape since the attacks of September
11, 2001 brought it to the forefront. But prior to that date, only about
10% worldwide attacks on the United States had been initiated in the Middle
East while 85% had been initiated and in Latin America (State Department,
2001). Furthermore, few terrorist acts within the U.S. could be connected
with Arab groups (Shaheen, 1998). Irrespective of the evidence,
responsibility for terrorist actions often is attributed to members of Arab
and Muslim communities, as was the case immediately following the 1995
Oklahoma City bombing (Chomsky, 1986; Karim, 2000; Said, 1997; Shaheen,
1997, 2000). Media messages that portray Arabs and Muslims as culturally
predisposed to terrorism have the potential of systematically influencing
perceptions of approximately one-sixth of the world population while
perpetuating a climate of discrimination against Arabs and Muslims in the
U.S. (ADC, 1998). Indeed, more than 1,100 people of Middle Eastern descent
were secretly apprehended following the events of September 11 (Amnesty
International U.S.A., 2001).
Edward Said (1978; 1997) has asserted that Western discourse depicts Islam
and the Middle East as unitary, absolutist, fatalistic, patriarchal,
unreasoning, anti-modern, and punitive. Wilkins and Downing (2002) assert
that the media often portray Muslim Arabs as culturally and psychologically
primitive, emotionally unstable, trapped in a patriarchal vise, and
obsessed with a bloodthirsty "Jihad" expansion to the West. Western
political, educational, literary, scientific and military agencies have
reinforced these perspectives, assumptions, and rationales. As Said has
noted, while Muslims are a religious and not an ethnic community, their
public homogenization and frequent identification with Arabs and the Middle
East can lead to a kind of framing of Muslims similar to racial
stereotyping (Naber, 2000). As such, the media may deliberately or
inadvertently contribute to this stereotyping which the has the potential
of shaping and reinforcing attitudes and beliefs.
The role of media in shaping attitudes about Muslims as this religion
continues to grow. Petty and Cacioppo (1981) define attitude as, "a general
and enduring positive or negative feeling about some person, object or
issue." While this definition includes acknowledgment of an affective or
emotional component in attitude formation, most research on news
information processing has focused primarily on cognition (i.e., learning
and/or developing attitudes as a consequence of thinking). Given the
emotional nature of news, it is surprising that relatively little attention
has been paid to the role of affect.
One explanation for the scant attention to affect may be a function of
measurement tools. Attitude measures rely on cognitive scales that require
advanced verbal skills and a cerebral analysis by respondents of surveys.
Such procedures rest on the assumption that respondents are capable of
accessing the individual components of attitudes, judge their feelings, and
translate them into responses on typical Likert scales. Morris, Woo, Geason
and Kim (2002) explain that although verbal measures can represent many
distinct aspects of emotion, "they do not produce a true dichotomy between
affect and cognition, because they too require cognitive processing" (p.
7). They advocate the development and use of a nonverbal measure of affect
in which emotional reaction rather than cognitive processing is measured.
Research Procedures
The Focus Group Strategy
The research team conducted focus groups with members of three religious
faiths (Presbyterian, Jewish and Muslim) in a southern city. Religious
orientation is theorized in this context to represent an orienting variable
rooted in community membership. In other words, belonging to a social
system in which members share a common philosophy and set of beliefs is
theorized to represent a social structure with agreed-upon values, beliefs
and rules. Participants were asked to watch video clips dealing with issues
related both to Islam and terrorism. Immediately following the each clip,
participants were asked to rate their emotional response of each clip using
a system similar in nature to Mehrabian scaling known as AdSAM©. After
rating the clip for emotional response, the group moderator led a brief
five to ten minute discussion about the clip.
The focus group method is often used to understand framing processes
because sensitive topics may be addressed in such a setting. The method
enables moderators to develop a dialogue about topics that would be
impossible to broach using traditional survey methodologies (Stewart &
Shamdasani, 1990). As Lunt and Livingstone (1996) explain, the focus group
method is particularly useful when "researchers seek to discover
participants' meanings and ways of understanding" (p. 79). And, the focus
group method has been particularly useful in recent years as a mechanism by
which to explore consensual underlying themes that may be shared by members
of specific social or cultural groups. Kern and Just (1995) also reported
that focus groups are especially useful for understanding how gender
differences or cultural orientation (Morris, Roberts & Baker, 1999) may
influence the construction of social reality.
Evidence from focus groups suggests that merely mentioning a controversial
or salient topic stimulates, emotional response (affect) and thinking
(cognition). This can lead potentially to visualization of the issue in a
wide expanse of related cognitive domains. For example, using focus groups
in his framing of affirmative action, Gamson (1992, p. 118) reported that
members in several groups quoted the advertising slogan of the United Negro
College Fund that "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." He asserted that
the slogan and the affirmative action concepts were cognitively bound
together. He also explained that subjects in his study brought up popular
films like Silkwood and The China Syndrome in discussions about nuclear power.
Conducting focus groups with the families of different religious groups
reported, Liebes (1994) reported "a major difference between Jewish and
Arab moderates is found in the invocation of historic frames" (p. 120) when
they interpreted television news coverage of the Intifada. These examples
suggest that while media messages may influence what we think, they also
stimulate people to construct their own knowledge based on stored schemas
that have developed over time.
Focus groups are also useful because people use "metaphors" to explain
ideas and concepts. Metaphors involve understanding and experiencing one
thing in terms of another (Lakoff & Johnson 1980) and they are used to
represent thoughts that are tacit, implicit, and unspoken (Zaltman, 1997).
Metaphors are central to understanding the human mind (Honeck 1996) because
they both invoke and express nonverbal imagery. Metaphors, like schemas,
can act as a heuristic in human information processing (Allbritton, 1995).
Gibbs argues that (1992, p. 572), "The vast majority of linguistic
metaphors reflect underlying conceptualizations of experience in long-term
memory that are already structured by metaphorical schemes." Conceptual
metaphorical schemas stored in long-term memory help us make sense of
literal metaphors (Glucksberg 1991).
The assertion that thinking is represented largely through metaphors is
consistent with connectionist models of the mind and memory including
schema theory (Graber, 1988; Wicks, 2001). Human discourse can stimulate
the construction of mental imagery. When neurons are activated, images can
be experienced as conscious thought (Damasio, 1994). An image is defined as
an internal representation used in information processing (Kosslyn, 1994).
Because two-thirds of all stimuli reach the brain through the visual system
(Kosslyn et al. 1990), images often are visual. Verbal language plays an
important role in the representation, storage, and communication of thought
(Bickerton 1990), but verbal language is not the same as thought (Kosslyn &
Koenig 1992). Hence, providing an opportunity for participants to discuss
and ultimately visualize themes related to religion, media and terrorism
may offer valuable insights into differences in the way in which images and
text are encoded, assimilated, stored and retrieved among members of
different religious groups.
Stimulus Materials
More than 75 hours of news and information programming dealing with Islam
and terrorism was collected during the summer of 2002. The principle
researcher and six associates evaluated programs and segments that were
presented on outlets such as Nightline, 60-Minutes, Frontline, The History
Channel and numerous venues. The team isolated nine video clips that
appeared to represent wide range of topics. A pretest focus group including
10 participants was conducted on June 26, 2002 to assess instruction
clarity and ease of instrument usage. The members of this group were all
Christian but denominations varied. Following the presentation of each
clip, participants scored the AdSAM© measurement instrument based on their
emotional response. A brief discussion of the clip was held immediately
thereafter. Based on the comments from this, clips were eliminated or altered.
The final stimulus tape contained six edited video clips ranging in length
from 90 second to 4:00 minutes. A brief description of each clip is
provided in Table 1.
Table 1: News and Information Clips Included as Stimulus Materials
Clip 1 – 911/MEDIA COVERAGE WTC VIDEO FROM HBO
Clip 1 was part of a special about September 11th that appeared on HBO. It
contains narration from former New York Mayor Rudy Gulianni as he remembers
both his admiration for the twin towers and his sadness a year ago
September. It contains video of each collision.
Clip 2 – THE FIVE PILLARS OF ISLAM AND STUDENTS IN NEW YORK CITY FROM 60
MINUTES
Clip 2 was from a 60 Minutes broadcast and introduces the five pillars of
Islam. It then visits an Islamic school in New York City. Islamic students
at the school defend suicide bombing in Israel as a means of resolving
problems in Israel and the Middle East.
Clip 3 – NIGERIA AND WESTERN ATTITUDES TOWARD ISLAM
Clip 3 was from a PBS Frontline program entitled "Muslims." It included a
segment suggesting that following the September 11 attacks, Islam was
portrayed in the media as uncivilized and backwards while the West was
portrayed as forward-looking and civilized. In Northern Nigeria in Africa,
Osama bin Laden was portrayed as a heroic figure.
Clips 4 and 5 – HISTORICAL AND CURRENT DEFINITIONS OF JIHAD
Clips 4 was from the History Channel and Clip 5 was from Nightline. Both
dealt with the concept of Jihad. The first clip explains the concept as a
personal struggle to do right in the eyes of God. The second clip shows
Jihad as defined by Osama bin Laden.
Clip 6 – SAUDI ARABIA – PRINCE/DISSIDENT "60 MINUTES"
Clip 6 from 60-Minutes was filmed in Saudi Arabia and presents images of
Saudi men asking a member of the ruling elite for assistance. It also shows
one Saudi man verbally attacking former New York Mayor Rudy Gulianni for
returning money that the Saudis had donated to the relief efforts. It
concludes with an interview featuring an exiled Saudi dissident who asserts
that people in Saudi Arabia oppose American foreign policy because it often
operates against the interest of citizens in other countries.
Measuring Emotional Response
This study employed a nonverbal measurement system known as AdSAM® in which
respondents use a scale based on the Self-Assessment Manikin developed by
Peter Lang and Jon Morris (Lang, 1980; Morris, 1995). Using a database of
232 emotional variables, AdSAM® provides insight into the attitude and
cognition. The procedures employ the use of "SAM," a graphic character that
combines three dimensions of human emotions – pleasure, arousal and
dominance (PAD) – into a score. These PAD scores were first proposed by
Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum (1957) and later refined by Mehrabian and
Russell (1974) who argue that three independent, bipolar dimensions
reliably and sufficiently define all emotional states.
Figure 1 presents a graphic illustration of the SAM measurement
instrument. Pleasure to displeasure ranges from extreme happiness to
extreme unhappiness. Arousal to nonarousal constitutes a physiological
continuum depicting a level of physical activity, mental alertness, or high
excitement at one extreme with a sleepy figure at the other extreme.
Dominance to submissiveness refers to a feeling of power, control, or
influence as opposed to feelings of lack of control or weakness. The text
accompanying the figures are the instructions given to the focus group
participants.
Figure 1: This is SAM. Sam represents you and your feelings
We would like you
to use SAM to indicate how you feel about the video clips you watch.
You will notice the measures consist of three rows of graphic characters.
The top row ranges from a big smile to a big frown. This represents
feelings that range from extremely HAPPY or ELATED to extremely UNHAPPY or
SAD.
Look at the middle row
The middle row represents feelings that range from extremely STIMULATED or
INVOLVED (on the left) to very CALM or BORED (on the right).
Look at the bottom row
On the bottom row SAM goes from a little figure to great big figure. The
row represents feelings of WEAKNESS or BEING CONTROLLED on the left, to
completely STRONG or IN-CONTROL on the right. This row does not represent
positive or negative feelings, just how much the video makes you feel weak
or strong.
For every video clip, please mark a circle on each row.
You'll have a total of three marks for each video; you can mark a circle
directly below a figure, or between two figures.
Don't spend a lot of time thinking about your response on the SAM scales.
Just indicate how the video clip makes you feel.
The three dimensional PAD approach is capable of characterizing a diverse
range of emotions using graphics to illustrate an emotion. Scaling systems
that employ adjective checklists or semantic differential scales may fail
to extract the precise meaning of the emotional that can vary from person
to person (Morris, et al., 2002). SAM uses a nine-point scale for each of
the dimensions. On each of the three scales, respondents are required to
mark the oval below the manikin or between the manikins that best
represented their feelings after seeing the stimulus.
Because the meanings of pleasure, excitement or dominance may vary across
individuals, the manikin helps reduce differences in meaning across the
participants. It is also especially useful in data collections involving
participants from different cultures or those who speak different
languages, SAM is also believed to eliminate or reduce the cognitive
processing associated with verbal measures of emotional response (Edell and
Burke, 1987). Correlations of .937 for pleasure, .938 for arousal, and .660
for dominance were found between ratings generated by SAM and by the
semantic differential scales used by Mehrabian and Russell (Morris, et al,
2002).
Data Analysis
Two focus groups were conducted in the fall of 2002 with members of a
Presbyterian Church and a Muslim Mosque. A third focus group was also
conducted in the winter of 2003 with members of a Jewish congregation.
Members of each group viewed the identical videotape described in Table 1.
The Presbyterian focus group was conducted in a meeting room at the church
and included 13 individuals. The Jewish focus group, which contained 10
participants, was conducted at a Jewish community center maintained by the
congregation. The Muslim focus group containing eight participants was
conducted at the university of the principle researcher. Following the
presentation of each clip, participants rated their emotional response
using the three PAD scales. After the scoring was complete, the moderator
led a five to ten minute discussion about the clip. The demographic
composition of each group was quite diverse. Members of the Muslim group
were from Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Sri Lanka and the United States and
two of the eight participants were female. This was the youngest of the
groups as many Muslims in the region are here to attend college. Age ranged
from 20 to 40. The Jewish group included five males and five females and
ages ranged from 22 to 87. The Presbyterian group included 13 participants
of which seven were male with ages ranging from 42 to 70.
The data were submitted to the AdSAM© software program that produced
pleasure by arousal perceptual maps with means scores. For all six stories,
the mean for each group fell in the quadrant representing high arousal and
severe sadness. There were noticeable differences, however, based up
religious membership with respect to the news clips.
Clip one containing former Mayor Giuliani and the attacks on the World
Trade Center produced emotional response perceptual maps that were similar
for the three groups. Members of all three groups cluster around the
concepts of "terrified," "hate" and "enraged" (see Figure 2). Members of
all three groups said the clip caused them to feel tremendous sadness and
grief. However, one member of the Muslim focus group commented that after
witnessing the collapse of the World Trade Center, he recalled hoping that
it "was not the work of bin Laden." He explained that as an Arab, he felt
he was the object of suspicion following the Oklahoma even though that
attack had no connection to Islam or people from the Middle East.
Clip two focused on the Five Pillars of Islam[2] and featured Islamic high
school students in New York students explaining that under certain
circumstance, suicide bombings against Jews are justifiable. The Christian
group did not find the clip as arousing or displeasing as did the other two
groups. The group mean for Christians was in the proximity of contempt,
insolent and suspicious. By contrast, members of the Jewish group found the
clip highly arousing and very displeasing producing anger and terror. The
mean response by members of the Muslim group produced tension and
irritation (see figure 3).
Clip three featured video in Nigeria in which it was suggested that the
Western media portrayed Islam as uncivilized and backwards. In this clip,
many Nigerians viewed Osama bin Laden as a heroic figure. Once again,
members of the Jewish focus group indicated the highest degree of arousal
and displeasure with mean emotional response near terrified and enraged. By
contrast, the Muslim group mean was closest to anxious. For the Christian
group, the clip produced suspicion, disbelief and tension (see figure 4).
Several members of the Christian focus group commented they believed that
anti-Western sentiment in Nigeria was a function of jealousy. A member of
the Jewish focus group summarized the feeling of many in the room:
"I thought it was real interesting—in that clip it talked about how the
United States was killing Muslims all over the world [by supporting Israel
with money wand weapons]. I've never heard of this – this is news to me.
Where did they get this idea? Also Israel is one teeny little country and
Islamic countries are huge with millions of people. Why do they think that
one little Israel is a threat to them—I don't get it!"
Clips four and five focused on the concept of "Jihad." The first of these
two clips appeared on the History Channel and explains the concept of Jihad
as a personal struggle to do right in the eyes of God. At the end of the
clip, the announcer explained that for many in the West, the term has
become associated with Muslim extremists and terrorism in general. Of the
three groups, members of the Muslim focus group found this clip to be the
most displeasing, arousing and anger producing. For members of the
Christian and Jewish focus groups, this clip produced less displeasure and
less arousal but placed them in close proximity to suspicious and
disbelieving on the perceptual map (see figure 5).
Clip 5 presented images of Osama bin Laden calling for violence toward the
West in response to the "shameful occupation of Muslim land" (i.e.,
Israel). The clip showed training activities at terrorist training camps in
Afghanistan and shows young Muslims in the United States who both agreed
and disagreed with the position advocated by bin Laden. Members of the
Jewish focus group expressed the most displeasure and highest degree of
arousal placing them in close proximity to terrified and enraged.
Christians also found the clip displeasing and arousing, but their
emotional response was closer to disgust and fear. Members of the Muslim
focus group, by contrast, Muslims, found the clip startling and
overwhelming (figure 6).
Discourse following the two clips on "Jihad" varied significantly between
the groups. Most members of the Presbyterian and Jewish groups said that
they did not understand that "Jihad" in the historical sense meant an inner
struggle to do well. By contrast, members of the Muslim focus group
asserted that the American media paints a negative picture of Islam by
linking Jihad to violence. One group members said:
"Documentaries like this are just so inefficient. They're not talking about
where it [Jihad] started, what the Prophet Mohamed thinks about Jihad,
things like that. They're showing people first, partying, drinking, and
then they show Iraq, and then they show pictures of September 11. So what
do Muslims make of this tape or Jihad? Watching this will make them think
the whole Muslim world is involved in violent Jihad."
Clip 6 presented images of the wealthy Saudi ruling family meeting with
citizens of their country to hear requests for assistance. The wealth of
the family is apparent while those seeking aid are much less affluent. One
of the Saudi's asking for assistance read a statement suggesting that
former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani is a "lackey for the Jews" (see figure
6). The comment produced an outpouring of laughter from the other Saudi's
in the room in which the clip was filmed. The clip ended with a comment
from an exiled Saudi dissident who asserts that many Saudi Arabians believe
that the Saudi ruling family and the United States are "conspiring to loot
the country." The clip concluded with the dissident suggesting that few in
the Arab world felt sympathy for the US following the attacks of September
11, 2001.
Clip six produced a pattern on the perceptual map similar that that of
clip 5. The clips produced anger and outrage on the part of the members of
the Jewish focus group. For Christians and Muslims, the clips produced
suspicion, embarrassment, irritation and fear.
Discussion
The three religions that participated in this study have very similar
historical roots based on Abrahamic theory and tradition. Each maintains
that Abraham was the father of many nations. All three adhere to a belief
in one superior being, or one reigning "God." With this ideology comes the
corresponding idea that there is only one true religion, and the other
competing religions are either deficient or inferior. But this, and other
common ground between the three religions, may be at the root of religious
tensions and differences. Wars fought over concrete material resources such
as land, grazing rights or water reserves will eventually deplete resources
on both sides leading to truces and compromises. But conflicts over the
meaning of God place opponents in the untenable position of fighting over
sacred real estate leading to a situation in which there is no way out.
Swidler (1993) asserts, "when different religions or ideologies met in the
past, the main purpose was to overcome an opponent, because each was
completely convinced that it alone knew the secret of human life" (p. 444).
In the current climate, religious rivalry combines with media narratives
and images of Islamic terrorist groups. This has the potential of
polarizing to an even greater extent the divide that is becoming
increasingly apparent between Jews and Christians, and Muslims (Edwards,
1993; 1995).
The framing of Islam in the US news media potentially contributes to a
negative perception of this religion among many Americans. Specifically,
the context in which information about Islam is framed by media may
significantly influence what people understand and learn. Gerbner asserts
that the mass media and especially television are quite instrumental in
cultivating attitudes, beliefs, values, and perceptions of global affairs
(Gerbner & Gross, 1972; 1976). Exposure to the same types of media messages
over time shapes common values. The steady diet of images of Taliban
prisoners, fighting in Iraq, news reports about suicide bombers, "Jihad and
the Intifada in Israel may present a distorted picture of the true nature
of Islam and Muslim's in general.
With respect to the findings presented in this report, it is fair to say
that members of each faith found all of the clips displeasing and arousing.
It is also fair to say that the reasons for this varied between group
members. Members of the Jewish focus group appeared to recognize that all
of the clips concerned Israel and Judaism in one form or another. Images of
terrorism and acknowledgment by some Muslims that under certain conditions,
violence is justified, appeared to have produced significant unease. The
pattern and comments made during the Christian focus group appeared to echo
these fears although to a lesser extent. While it would be inappropriate to
generalize to a wider population based on such a small number, the findings
in this report do provide provocative directions for future research.
Specifically, message framing and audience interpretation appear to have a
significant influence on how members of social or spiritual communities
learn and understand the news. In this respect, communicators should
recognize that especially in the volatile times in which we live, care
should be taken to provide news in context and to avoid presenting
stereotypes that may influence how citizens learn about other cultures and
religions.
References
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) (1998). 1996-97 Report on
hate crimes and discrimination against Arab Americans. Washington DC: ADC
Research Institute.
Amnesty International U.S.A. (2001) Memorandum to the U.S. Attorney
General-Amnesty International's concerns relating to the post 11 September
investigations. AMR/51/170/2001. Washington DC: Amnesty International USA.
Allbritton, D. W. (1995). When Metaphors Function as Schemas: Some
Cognitive Effects of Conceptual Metaphors, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity,
10 (1), 33-46.
Arkoun, M. (1995). Is Islam threatened by Christianity? Cross Currents, 45,
(4), 469 479.
Bickerton, D. (1990). Language and Species. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Pirates & emperors: International terrorism in the real
world. New York: Claremont.
Damasio, A. R. (1990). Time-Locked Multiregional Retroactivation: A
Systems-Level Proposal for the Neural Substrates of Recall and Recognition,
in Neurobiology of Cognition, Peter D. Eimas and Albert Galaburda, eds.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 24-62.
Edell, J. E., & Burke, M. C. (1987). The power of feelings in understanding
advertising effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, (3). 421-433.
Edwards, D. B. (1995). Media and religious revolution in Afghanistan.
Anthropological Quarterly, 68, (3), 171 185.
Edwards, D. B. (1993). Summoning Muslims: Print, politics, and religious
ideology in Afghanistan. Journal of Asian Studies, 52,(3), 609 - 628.
Entman, R. M. (1992). Blacks in the news: Television and children's
preferences. Journalism Quarterly, 69, (2), 341-361.
Esposito, J. L. (1997). Islam and Christianity face to face. Commonwealth,
124, (2), 11 17.
Fawaz, G. A. (1997). Islam and Muslims in the mind of America. Journal of
Palestine Studies, 26, (2), 68 81.
Gamson, W. A., (1988). The 1987 distinguished lecture: A constructionist
approach to mass media and public opinion, Symbolic Interaction, 11, 161-174.
Gamson, W. A., (1992). Talking Politics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliana, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion
on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of
Sociology, 95 (1), 1-37.
Gerbner, G. (1972). Violence in television drama: Trends and symbolic
functions. In G. A. Comstock & E. Rubinstein (Eds.), Television and social
behavior: Vol. 1. Media content and control (pp. 28-187). Washington, DC:
US Government Printing Office.
Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence
profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 173-199.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1992). Categorization and Metaphor Understanding.
Psychological Review, 99 (3), 572-77.
Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making
and unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Glucksberg 1991
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of
experience. New York: Harper and Row.
Graber, D. E. (1988). Processing the news: How people tame the information
tide, (2nd edition). New York: Longman.
Honeck, R. P. (1996). Introduction: Figurative Language and Cognitive
Science--Past, Present and Future, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11 (1),
1-15.
Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political
issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kern, M., & Just, M. (1995). The focus group method, political advertising,
campaign news and the construction of candidate images. Political
Communication, 12, 127-145.
Karim, K. H. (2000). Islamic peril: Media and global violence. Montreal:
Black Rose Books.
Kosslyn, S. (1994). Image and Brain: The Resolution of the Imagery Debate.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kosslyn, S., & Koenig, O. (1992). Wet Mind: The New Cognitive Neuroscience.
New York: The Free Press.
Kosslyn, S., Segar, M.C., Pani, J., & Hillger, L. A. (1990). When is
Imagery Used? A Diary Study. Journal of Mental Imagery, 14, 131-52.
Kosmin, B., & Lachman, S. (1993). One nation under God: Religion in
contemporary society. New York: Harmony Books.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Lang, P. J. (1980). Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral assessment:
Computer applications in technology." In J. B. Sidowski, J. H. Johnson, &
T. A. Williams (Eds.), Mental health care delivery systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. (1996). Rethinking the focus group media and
communications research. Journal of Communication, 46, (2), 79-98.
Morris, J. D., Woo, C., Geason, J. A., & Kim, J., (2002). The power of
affect: Predicting intention. Journal of Advertising Research, 42 (3), 7-17.
Morris, J. D., Roberts, M. S., & Baker, G. F. (1999). Emotional responses
of American voters to ad messages. In L. Kaid and D. Bystrom (Eds.), The
Electronic Election: Perspectives on the Campaign Communication (pp.
275-293). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Morris, J. D. (1995). SAM: The self-assessment manikin: An efficient
cross-cultural measurement of emotional response. Journal of Advertising
Research, 35, (6), 63-68.
Liebes, T., & Ribak, R., (1994). In Defense of negotiated readings: How
moderates on each side of the conflict interpret Intifada news. Journal of
Communication, 44, 108-124.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental
psychology. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Naber, N. (2000). Ambiguous insiders: an investigation of Arab American
invisibility. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23(1), 37-61.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of
meaning. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Pan, Z., Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news
discourse. Political Communication, 10, 55-75.
Petty, R. E., & Cacipoppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic
and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
Reese, S. D., Gandy, O. H., Jr., Grant, A. E., (2001). Framing public
life: Understanding of the social world. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Said, E. (1997). Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine
how we see the rest of the world. New York: Vintage Books.
Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Shaheen,J. G. (1984). The TV Arab. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State
University Press.
Shaheen, J. G. (1997). Arab and Muslim stereotyping in American popular
culture. Washington DC: Georgetown University Center for Muslim-Christian
Understanding.
Shaheen,J. G. (1998, November 15). A look at the power of film; The image
breakers; We've seen this plot too many times. Washington Post, C3.
Shaw, D. L., (1992). Comments on the papers presented at the session
entitled, "Reading the news, Reading the polls, Is there and agenda?
Presented at the annual conference of the International Communication
Association, Miami, Fl.
Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B. Jr., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D., (1986).
Frame alignment processes, micro mobilization, and movement participation.
American Sociological Review, 51, 464-481.
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and
practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Swidler, L. (1992/93). Islam and the trialogue of Abrahamic religions.
Cross Currents, 42, (4), 444 453.
Turk, J. V., Richard, J., Bryson, R. L. Jr., & Johnson, S.
M. (1989).Hispanic American's in the news in two southwestern cities.
Journalism Quarterly, 66, (1), 107-113.
United States State Department (2001). Patterns of global terrorism 2000.
U.S. State Department Web Site [On-Line]. Available:
http://www.state.gov/www/s/ct/rls/rm/.
Wicks, R. H. (2001). Understanding Audiences: Learning to Use the Media
Constructively. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wilkins, K., & Dowing, J. (2002). Mediating terrorism: Text and protest in
interpretations of The Siege. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19,
(4), pp. 419 437.
Zaltman, G. (1997). Rethinking Market Research: Putting People Back In.
Journal of Marketing Research, 34, (November), 424-37.
[1] Events that shaped our attitudes and beliefs include the terrorist
assault on Israeli athletes during the Munich Olympics in 1972, the
takeover of the American Embassy in Teheran in 1979,
the hijackings of the cruise ship Achilla Lauro in 1985 and the merchant
vessel City of Poros in 1989, the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over
Lockerbie, Scotland, and, the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in the
Yemini port of Aden.
[2] A Muslim has five main duties to perform:
1 bearing witness to the unity of God and Muhammad his messenger,
2 observing the prescribed prayer five times a day,
3 payment of Zakat,
4 keeping the fasts of Ramadhan 30 days each year,
5 performing the pilgrimage to Mecca once if a lifetime (if one has the
sufficient resources).
|
