Comments on: Last week’s worst headline award goes to…

By: » MMW Weekly Roundup Talk Islam

» MMW Weekly Roundup Talk Islam — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:39:32 +0000

[...] week on MMW, we blasted Al Arabiya’s choice of headlines, bitched out the BBC, took a look at Undercover Mosque, and wondered about Aafia Siddiqui. I also [...]

By: Krista

Krista — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:06:25 +0000

Thanks everyone for the comments – glad to hear I wasn’t just overanalysing.

emmaculate – good points on the implications of all of this. If problem=conservative=backwards, then of course that paves the way for supposedly benevolent, liberated westerners to come rightt in to help.

Amazing how the language of supposedly “objective” reporting about a “scientific” survey can be so loaded!

By: Why patriarchy rules - Mideast Youth - Thinking Ahead

Why patriarchy rules - Mideast Youth - Thinking Ahead — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:44:06 +0000

[...] While the above might read like a lame attempt at satire on my end, I’m afraid to say that it’s genuine. The comment was made in response to a Reuters article that “blames mums” for child mortality in Afghanistan (for an analysis of the article, check out Muslimah Media Watch). [...]

By: dawudwalid

dawudwalid — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:27:19 +0000

You’re right on; this story uses the same ole’ lame regurgitated frame of the uneducated, backwards Muslim woman.

Nevermind not stressing that war torn countries normally have poor access to health care.

Geesh!

By: Mel

Mel — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:55:05 +0000

Not at all–it definitely implies that the women just need to step up and be educated, without sufficiently critiquing the larger social structures responsible for their situation.

By: emmaculate

emmaculate — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:59:26 +0000

I don’t think you are making too big a deal. The article is bathed in a barely-hidden agenda. Take the first seven words:

“High child mortality rates in conservative Afghanistan…”

What is “conservative Afghanistan”? Is it separate from “liberal Afghanistan”?

The use of “child mortality rates” rather than “baby deaths” signifies that this information comes from an incontestably serious, objective, professional, expert (and Western) source. Contrast it with the colloquial “mums” in the headline: locals, non-professionals in need of (expert, Western) “help”, which is presumably why “conservative Afghanistan” breeds (stay-at-home) mothers, rather than giving them the “opportunities” to become authors of an important “study”.

Also, “high…rates” indicates a comparative approach to the article (and the study) from the very first word – a comparison in which the luckless Afghans are unlikely to come out on top.

We thus identify the country’s illness – its deviance from the norm – from the get-go: all that remains is to clarify the cause (cultural and economic backwardness, plus war) and dangle a solution (“help” – from you, dear reader, against that very backwardness).

Yuk.

By: Extiinct

Extiinct — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:22:49 +0000

misconstrue*

By: Extiinct

Extiinct — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:22:04 +0000

Not at all. I was infuriated when I read the headline and the paragraph you quoted from the article. Goes to show that the only thing the media is interested in is selling copy. And in order to do that, they’re willing to miscontrue facts accordingly.

By: Kawthar

Kawthar — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:41:29 +0000

I think your reaction is warranted - the article was poorly phrased. Strange...the study actually mentioned family behaviour jeopardizing the health of children. I did a quick scan of the study and it seems the immaturity comment was made in relation to child brides. Perhaps I'm wrong, but "poorly researched" can also be added to the faults of the article.