The EU Lectures Journalists About PC Reporting

Authored by Bruce Bawer via The Gatestone Institute,

  • Nor, we are told, should we associate "terms such as 'Muslim' or 'Islam'... with particular acts," because to do that is to "stigmatize." What exactly does this mean? That when a man shouts "Allahu Akbar" after having gunned down, run over with a truck, or blown to bits dozens of innocent pedestrians or concertgoers, we are supposed to ignore that little detail?
  • But that is what this document is all about: advising reporters just how to misrepresent reality in EU-approved fashion.
  • It is interesting to note that while many people fulminate over President Trump's complaints about "fake news," they are silent when an instrument of the EU superstate presumes to tell the media exactly what kind of language should and should not be used when reporting on the most important issue of the day.

"Respect Words: Ethical Journalism Against Hate Speech" is a collaborative project that has been undertaken by media organizations in eight European countries – Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Slovenia, and Spain. Supported by the Rights and Citizenship Programme of the European Union, it seeks, according to its website, to help journalists, in this era of growing "Islamophobia," to "rethink" the way they address "issues related to migratory processes, ethnic and religious minorities." It sounds benign enough: "rethink." But do not kid yourself: when these EU-funded activists call for "rethinking," what they are really doing is endorsing self-censorship.

In September, "Respect Words" issued a 39-page document entitled Reporting on Migration & Minorities: Approach and Guidelines. Media outlets, it instructs, "should not give time or space to extremist views simply for the sake of 'showing the other side.'" But which views count as "extremist"? The report does not say – not explicitly, anyway. "Sensationalist or overly simplistic reporting on migration," we read, "can enflame existing societal prejudices" and thus "endanger migrants' safety." Again, what counts as "sensationalist" or "overly simplistic"? That is not spelled out, either. Nor, we are told, should we associate "terms such as 'Muslim' or 'Islam'... with particular acts," because to do that is to "stigmatize." What exactly does this mean? That when a man shouts "Allahu Akbar" after having gunned down, run over with a truck, or blown to bits dozens of innocent pedestrians or concertgoers, we are supposed to ignore that little detail?

Or perhaps we should entirely avoid covering such actions? After all, the document exhorts us not to write too much about "sensationalist incidents involving migrants," as "[v]iolent individuals are found within every large group of people." If, however, we do feel compelled to cover such incidents, we must never cease to recall that the "root causes" of these incidents "often have nothing to do with a person's ethnicity or religious affiliation." What, then, are those root causes? The report advises us that they include "colonialism, racism, [and] general social inequality." Do not forget, as well, that there is "no structural connection between migration and terrorism."

When the EU-funded activists behind the document "Reporting on Migration & Minorities" call for "rethinking," what they are really doing is endorsing self-censorship.

At least the report's authors do not have the audacity to maintain that there is no connection between Islam and terrorism. But they do urge us to remember that Islam is "diverse." The notion that it is inherently violent is -- what else? -- a "stereotype." So is depicting Islam as "grounded in a different reality and lacking common value with other cultures" or portraying Muslim immigrants as being "fundamentally different from the citizens of the host country." And it is just plain wrong, needless to say, to encourage "the widespread perception that there is a 'cultural clash' between Islam and the West with religion at the heart of the 'problem.'" (On the contrary: Islam is, the report tells us, "a belief system that can exist alongside others.") And do not dare to suggest that Islamic culture is in any way "inferior to Western culture." Or that Muslim men are "highly patriarchal." (Repeat after me: "Many societies around the world remain highly patriarchal, independent of religion.") And do not pay too much attention to Muslim women's "clothing styles." Why? Because doing so tends to "homogenise" them. (Banish from your mind the thought that it is the clothing itself that homogenizes them.)

During the last couple of years, many countries in Europe have experienced a veritable tsunami of Islamic migration. But responsible journalists, according to "Respect Words," must never, ever put it that way: "When describing migration, don't use "phrases such as 'tide,' 'wave' and 'flood'" (or, the authors later add, "horde" or "influx") because such language can "evoke the sense of a 'mass invasion.'" It "dehumanises migrants," you see, and "constructs a false sense among the audience of being 'under siege' by an 'enemy' that must be repelled." Of course, much of Europe is "under siege"; this fact is becoming clearer by the day; to use milder terms when discussing this topic is to do nothing less than misrepresent reality. But that is what this document is all about: advising reporters just how to misrepresent reality in EU-approved fashion.

"Inform your audience," the report urges journalists, "about the reasons why people feel compelled to leave their homelands, and investigate what connections there may be to policies and practices of European states." Possibly, however, a massive percentage of the Muslims pouring into certain European states are doing so because of those states' "policies and practices" -- namely, their readiness to start handing immigrant families large sums of cash the minute they arrive, to set them up with free housing, furnishings, etc., and to allow them to stay on the dole for the rest of their lives. Many of those countries are more generous to Muslim newcomers than they are to their own citizens who have fallen on hard times; immigrants often go to the front of the line, while elderly citizens of some of these countries – people who have worked hard and paid into the welfare system since the world was young – have been turned out of their homes in order to accommodate newly-arrived Muslim families.

But these obviously are not the "policies and practices" to which the "Respect Words" document is referring. Quite the opposite. The transparent implication here is that Muslim refugees and asylum seekers are fleeing conditions for which they and others in their countries of origin hold no responsibility whatsoever and that can, in fact, ultimately be traced back to Western wrongdoing, whether in the last generation or centuries ago. Never mind that Muslims took over Persia, the Byzantine Empire, all of North Africa and the Middle East, Greece, Northern Cyprus, much of Eastern Europe, and Southern Spain. Ultimately, everything that is wrong with the Muslim world is seemingly the fault of the West, so Europeans owe all incomers a new life -- and perhaps even a new country -- peaceably handed over to them so that they can import sharia law?

No, the report does not quite go so far as to make this argument. But the report does caution that even to touch on the question of "whether asylum seekers' claims are genuine" or "whether migrants have a right to be in the country" is thoroughly inappropriate: it places the focus on "law and order" rather than on such things as "the fundamental right of asylum." Yes, you read that correctly: "the fundamental right of asylum." Never mind that under international law not everyone is entitled to asylum -- and that a huge proportion of self-styled asylum seekers in Europe today have no legitimate grounds for such a claim but are, like many of us, seeking better economic opportunities.

But such facts are inimical to the authors of the "Respect Words" document. In their view, no human being can be "illegal"; therefore, the word "illegal," they admonish, should be used to describe actions, not people.

The only surprising thing about this document is that it actually includes a brief section on anti-Semitism, in which it suggests -- believe it or not -- that equating Israel and Nazi Germany may not be a good idea. For the most part, however, the report is one long taxpayer-funded catalog of politically correct protocols which -- if adhered to by everyone in Europe who is professionally involved in reporting on events concerning Islam and immigration -- would guarantee a full-scale whitewash of the alarming developments currently underway on this unfortunate continent. It is interesting to note that while many people fulminate over President Trump's complaints about "fake news," they are silent when an instrument of the EU superstate presumes to tell the media exactly what kind of language should and should not be used when reporting on the most important issue of the day.


beemasters D Nyle Fri, 10/27/2017 - 02:17 Permalink

"That when a man shouts "Allahu Akbar" after having gunned down, run over with a truck, or blown to bits dozens of innocent pedestrians or concertgoers, we are supposed to ignore that little detail?"

Like not mentioning the 9/11 dancing Israelis? Like not reporting Harvey Weistein is Jewish that's why he could go on decades raping women and not getting caught??

Oh, another fake news Gatestone Istitute bad.

In reply to by D Nyle

Der Libertäre Fri, 10/27/2017 - 02:13 Permalink

Any questions why so many Germans, Austrians and Dutch move to Hungary these days? I remember Doug Casey saying "Have a crip outside your country" and East Europe is the nearest oasis to reach. I hope Orban will be able to maintain his position...  

Ghordius Der Libertäre Fri, 10/27/2017 - 02:49 Permalink

"Any questions why so many Germans, Austrians and Dutch move to Hungary these days?"

yes. how many? numbers? percentages? one characteristic of this kind of disinfo is the lack of hard data

the other is the presentation of completely conflicting narratives. in this article from the anti-Islam, pro-Judeo-Christian values Gatestone article, the object is a conference of journalists from 8 countries and, at the same time, a "superstate EU" (28 countries) initiative

yes, the Visigrad countries don't allow non-european immigration of any kind. how does this fit the other narratives?


In reply to by Der Libertäre

Haus-Targaryen Ghordius Fri, 10/27/2017 - 03:12 Permalink

Who cares? In 20 years western European countries will no longer be European in the sense they were for the past two millennia. the Eastern Europe will still be eastern Europe.Explain to me why the flooding of the continent with savages is a good thing.  (Anxiously awaits you avoiding the question, or changing the topic so as to not answer the question) 

In reply to by Ghordius

Ghordius Haus-Targaryen Fri, 10/27/2017 - 03:48 Permalink

I'm still waiting for the hard data, the numbers, the percentages, the veryfiable facts supporting those theories

instead of the appeals to emotion, like "flooding of the continent with savages", which sounds like a complaint in front of the "Throne of Swords" for the "Man in Black" commander opening the gates of the "Ice Wall" for refugees from the "soul eating Zombies"

what really happened involves wars, and Turkey opening Turkey's border for one quarter of their war refugees to walk over here

what really happened was 28 govs to sit in council and agree, according to previous alliance agreements, to share the load

what really happened is that 3 allies don't comply with the deal. since they are sovereign countries... meh. just that. they don't take them... period

like in "Game of Thrones", Mr. Targaryen, without the nudity but with way more lies

are you, like me, involved in solutions? I am involved in the efforts in deportations, starting with those that come from "safe countries". you could join us, it's a lot of work there

yes, we took them up. no, the Visigrad Countries are not. yes, it is asylum for War Refugees. no, it's a temporary status. no, we need peace to send them back. yes, we have begun

Would You Be Fit To Sit On The Throne Of Swords, "Targaryen"?
Would You Be Fit To Wear The Black, "Targaryen"?

or... are you only for the appeals to emotions? lately, there were some non-existing Catalonian Grannies Covered In Blood that did that job, remember? Your Choice, Mr. Targaryen

In reply to by Haus-Targaryen

Joe A Ghordius Fri, 10/27/2017 - 05:25 Permalink

28 govs sitting in council and agreed to share the load?It was the first time in EU history (correct me if I am wrong) that they used the system of qualified majority instead of unanimity for that decision. Hungary voted against as well as two others. Poland agreed because at that time there was a government there led by Donald Tusk who is now......the head of the EU council of ministers.The EU scrapped the migrants distribution programme which obliged EU countries to take in a certain number of migrants. The Visegrad countries are not cooperating. But now the EU LIBE committee is adopting a far more intrusive programme to redistribute migrants over Europe with financial consequences if countries don't comply. Knowing Eastern Europeans, unless the EU finds a way to bribe officials in these countries, I don't think these countries will cooperate again.And you might say that in the EU there is concensus and discussion etc., the influx of migrants into Europe is the result of Merkel unilaterally and without consulting her European partners opening the borders and putting no cap on the number of people that Germany would take in. And now Merkel and Germany demand "European solidarity".There is a population strategy going on in Europe and the EU directives to the press -aka blatant propaganda and censoring- is part of that.

In reply to by Ghordius

Ghordius Joe A Fri, 10/27/2017 - 05:42 Permalink

correctit was the first time the alliance went and used the pre-agreed method of not going for full consensus but only partial, i.e. QVMthe second time was last week, btw. for a matter of "posted workers", i.e. Labour agreementsthe first time, in 2015, was a bit of a shock, yes. I think more of them are comingand you are correct: Poland did vote yes, but now the new coalition is on board on not respecting those agreementsagain, a sign of the fact that those countries are sovereignsmeanwhile, those countries are also completely.... pure, in the National sense. Purityand they want to keep that Purity. so they won't comply to those appeals to "Solidarity"in the US, rational minds try to keep the discussion separate between "illegal immigrants" and "legal immigrants"here, rational minds try to keep the discussion separate between "legal refugees", "illegal refugees", "illegal immigrants" and "legal immigrants", starting with the division between refugee, which is a temporary status and immigrant, which can be someone that is going to stay here, or not, subject to a completely different set of...... drum rolls...... National Lawsso no, I do not see where is that "population strategy going on in Europe". there is a set of 28 sovereigns. in three sets of alliances, at leaston some things, they agree, and act together. on other things, they do not agree, and act according to their National Will. and this includes how media is treated in the various Nation States, which speak different languages, to boot

In reply to by Joe A

Joe A Ghordius Fri, 10/27/2017 - 07:00 Permalink

Yes, you keep mentioning national laws and national sovereignty. But countries adopted the Lisbon Treaty which regulates many things that supercede national laws. For instance, there was much to do about a speech Juncker gave the other day regarding a EU finance minister etc. Many objected including "Rubberen Rutte". Then Juncker replied by saying "but it is all in the Lisbon Treaty which you all signed".Yes, the is the EC, the EP and the EU council of ministers. Yes, there is national law and sovereignty. And then there is the Lisbon Treaty. These are the things in plain views. Then there are the things you don't see. Like for instance the little talk that Greek PM had with Merkel and Sarkozy. Others were left out of that. There is policy making out of the view of others. Hard power vs soft power.And seriously, the EU now scrapping the old migrant distribution programme and replacing it with something that determines that an EU member gets more or less subsidies depending if that country cooperates or not, is a population strategy. Not to mention one single EU MS leader determining that there is no cap on the number of people entering Germany (and therefore Europe for that matter because at one point migrants with status can travel anywhere).

In reply to by Ghordius

LightBulb18 Fri, 10/27/2017 - 02:26 Permalink

I would go about the exposing of the leftist hypocrisy, dishonesty, and illegitimacy like so: so if A racist Christian or white identarian goes around killing muslims while screaming either Jesus or praise the white people, that should be censored so as to not stigmatize people against whites and Christians? Because there is A lot of systemic anti white and Christian discrimination in European corporations and institutions already. The different press coverage criteria is an example of discriminating based on the race and religion of the extremist. Keep digressing, in G-d I trust.

Ignatius Fri, 10/27/2017 - 02:29 Permalink

Do people understand that the EU wants to draw a connection between Islam and violence?These mass immigrations (and resulting cultural conflicts) are a result of wars perpetrated to produce that very result?It's a world of opposites.  Stay alert.

MPJones Fri, 10/27/2017 - 02:36 Permalink

My claim for many years: that the EU is a fundamentally fascist construct becomes increasingly substantiated by the day. The EU is the most recent manifestation of the propensity of large European states towards totalitarianism and authoritarianism historically leading to brutal dictatorships under people like Franco, Mussolini and Hitler.The mindset of people like Juncker is not materially different: they see a top-down rigid paternalistic and authoritarian model of governance as the best solution to all issues, in other words: the people at the EU top see the world as a nail and have been given a hammer. The EU is no less dangerous than earlier European empires and dictatorships. It should be stopped and taken apart before it gets too far. It is important that freedom-loving people support the new democratic movements (by some called 'populist' but in reality just democratic) and quickly follow in the footsteps of countries like Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic.The evolution of the EU from a free trade agreement full of opportunity to a schlerotic empire ruled by megalomaniacs in such a short span of time is the missed opportunity of a century - very sad indeed.

Ghordius MPJones Fri, 10/27/2017 - 03:09 Permalink

Juncker's Utopian Dream is the abolishment of borders
Juncker's job... to manage an org that has the scope of allowing/ensuring free movement of citizens, goods, services and finance among 28 member countries

how does this fit your "fascist", exactly? or "paternalistic", or "authoritarian"?

Juncker might be a heavy drinker, yes. But his goals/dreams/acts are nevertheless of Liberty

you oppose to them "National Freedom... of setting borders". aka State Power, aka "statism", for example by the Nation State called Hungary, led by the "fatherly figure" Hungarian leader called Victor Orban

meh. I could go on. but I doubt you want to see the differences in those labels you are using. it's disinfo, after all

In reply to by MPJones

GreatUncle Ghordius Fri, 10/27/2017 - 07:27 Permalink

The dictatorship would require assimilation of all nation states and you have two choices, with or without war.Now go ask the commission to resign and hand over all power to the EU parliament so they can make law and propose legislation.Not going to happen Ghordius ever ... it was not designed with that in mind.From the outset the construct was put together by elites not the populations so they could control populations and all the mechanisms are designed for this purpose and many have been implemented against the wishes of many peoples right across Europe.Because it is undemocratic the EU and it has already started will start to apply censorship and oppression to keep its power and prevent the whole fraudulent nature of it being undermined.No favourites, BREXIT or really the referendum revealed the whole undemocratic nature of the British government for me, no different to the EU because those controlling it are the same breed. As they apply censorship, it has started already as the recent criminal home secretary openly stated the oppression will come to.Their actions alone prove that we are no more than slaves to them but they did not get to throw the EU concealement over it which is what they have been pretending all along. To late for them to hide it now even cancelling BREXIT makes no difference WE KNOW WHAT THEY ARE!POGROM.

In reply to by Ghordius

Gerrilea Ghordius Fri, 10/27/2017 - 08:33 Permalink

Here's the definition from the dictionary: Fascism: 1 often capitalized :a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition I'm missing your alleged point of "disinfo".  Let's review, "a centralized autocrtic government headed by a dictatorial leader and forcible suppression of opposition."Maybe corporatism would apply as well.  It's the economic system Fascists use to control everyone, everything, everywhere.For my understanding, Fascism and Corporatism are the same. The "free flow of people, products & services" is what you said.  The merger of State and Private Industry with one goal, to increase the power and scope of our corporate overlords.

In reply to by Ghordius

Atomizer Fri, 10/27/2017 - 02:54 Permalink

Jewsusan, keep up the good work in dismantling your platform. I don't even have a Google account or JewTube. It's hilarious to watch the demise of alphabet parent company. 

Kina Fri, 10/27/2017 - 03:06 Permalink

Twittter, Google, Facebook must be made to follow the same freedom of speech laws that apply to all public spaces as they have become 'public spaces' themselves.The laws that apply to the public space thus should apply equally to these.