Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, School of Social and Political Sciences
Abstract
Previous studies have highlighted links between rising levels of ‘Islamophobic’ attitudes, increases in direct and structural violence towards Muslim individuals and communities, and the electoral success of the Howard Government in Australia. This thesis seeks to extend existing research by exploring how and why the wedge politics which the Government utilised so effectively during the 2004 election campaign, at the expense of Australian Muslims, failed to achieve the same endorsement from the media during the 2007 election campaign. Divergences in media representations of Muslims between 2004 and 2007 point to a crucial shift, when the Howard Government suddenly found its political currency devalued as support among key players in the media fell away. This study investigates this shift through an analysis of manifest content from one influential media genre – news reporting and commentary published in two broadsheet newspapers, The Australian and The Sydney Morning Herald. The implications of my analysis are explored by drawing on a suite of conceptual frames including Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). This study found that Islam and issues related to Muslims were more likely to be represented through essentialist, ‘Islamophobic’ stereotypes, and were more frequently presented as a significant ‘problem’, in The Australian than in The Sydney Morning Herald. Whilst the two different publications often framed their selected stories with different emphases, the agenda-setting function of the different papers nevertheless showed a substantial overlap. For both publications, however, 2007 election reporting was characterised by increased contestation of essentialist discourses and a more adversarial stance towards the incumbent government. Analysis of this shift is utilised to suggest potential strategies for disrupting or contesting negative representational patterns in future reporting on Muslims and Islam