Predetermined Outcomes, Part 2
Given what I wrote about the Policy Exchange report into extremist literature in Mosques when it was published, I can’t say I was at all surprised to see Newsnight’s report on the subject last night. It appears that there are serious questions over the “evidence” used to construct the report. Osama Saeed has more on the Newsnight broadcast and on the implications of what was discovered.
I don’t think I’ll be having any second thoughts about my original post title on the subject.
Dean Godson, the Policy Exchange shouter sent to defend the report on Newsnight, adopted an all too familiar strategy to deal with criticisms of this so called academic report. He played the man, not the ball, accusing Newsnight’s editor of “disastrous editorial misjudgement” and of “appalling stewardship of Newsnight”. Textbook.
You might like to compare and contrast Godson’s approach to another response to criticisms of the report. Back in November, over the course of three posts, Dr Marranci of the University of Aberdeen raised a number of serious concerns regarding the methodology and ethics of the P.E. report. The report’s author, Dr MacEoin, responded. Here are the two quotations which illustrate the central theme of his response:
“I’ll read your remarks in more detail later. But I already see denial writ large on what is there.”
“As it is, you all seem to think this sort of thing is OK. You bring nothing but shame on yourselves by giving it even tacit approval. The materials are all entirely genuine, they are all available.”
In reality, anyone reading the posts on Dr Marranci’s blog can clearly see that these stock accusations are entirely without foundation. Dr Marranci’s primary concern, as an academic himself, is the fact that his study was being presented as an academic work when it is clearly nothing of the sort.
To conclude, I’ll repeat what I wrote last time round:
None of the above is to deny that there is extremist literature to be found in some British Mosques, of course. Nor is it to deny that the Saudi government actively seeks to promote its intolerant version of Islam in other countries including the UK. The point is merely that headlines generated by flawed reports masquerading as academic surveys should not be taken at face value.
Unlike almost all of the rest of the British media which reported the P.E. headline grabber unquestioningly, Newsnight actually investigated the veracity of what they were being asked to report. Like, you know, journalists. And the Policy Exchange study, unsurprisingly, came up short.
Respect to Peter Barron and Newsnight. Can we have more journalism like that please?
Quinn said,
December 13, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Good stuff. Dean Godson certainly took an unusual approach, purely playing to the gallery. His “there’s nothing in shariah law about ink jet printers” jibe told you all you needed to know about where he was coming from. What an odious man. Why he didn’t just admit that the Newsnight findings were worrying and would be looked into, but didn’t alter the main thrust of Policy Exchange’s report, I don’t know. Not that it would alter the fact that you can get extremist and offensive literature legally on Amazon and in Waterstone’s; but hey, freedom of speech and all that.
Just wait till I get out my inkjet « akatsuki ra-ra-ra said,
December 14, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
[…] 14 December 2007 by akatsukira What they […]
Scottish Roundup » Blog Archive » Fore! said,
December 16, 2007 @ 2:34 am
[…] on the subject of hateful literature in mosques. Osama Saeed takes a look at the report, while Garry and BookDrunk are exasperated at how the rest of the media simply took Policy Exchange’s word […]
Newsnight versus Policy Exchange « pixelisation said,
December 18, 2007 @ 3:41 am
[…] some analysis of their own. MacEoin’s own political viewpoints are noted by Garry Smith (1, 2), and a quick search of his name tells you a lot. (Indigo Jo, a keen reader of letters to the […]