Comparing Media Reactions: Shamima Begum and Rhianan Rudd
Listen to this article at: https://youtu.be/OIUqcyWZXSU
For the first edition of a new series on this website called 'Comparing Media Reactions', I decided to focus on how British news sites approach radicalised British teenagers; specifically focusing on Shamima Begum and Rhianan Rudd. Shemima Begum was a British schoolgirl who was radicalised to join the terror group Islamic State (IS) in 2015. Following the collapse of IS, she attempted to return to the UK, starting an ongoing debate on the return of Brits from IS and resulting in the loss of her British citizenship. Rhianan Rudd was a British schoolgirl radicalised by far-right extremists online. Subsequently, she was charged with terror offences before sadly taking her own life as a result of the events. With this small bit of context, we can now approach the news sources and assess how they have approached this seemingly difficult situation.
The BBC
(1): From a 2019 Article (2): From a 2023 Article
Side by side, we can quickly see how these articles begin to tell two very different stories. Shamima's article is quick to frame her as an adult that made conscious decisions that she stands by. The bold subtext reinforces this idea and we are told in the main text that she is now 19 (how old she was when she left only features in the caption of the image and is not mentioned until further down). However, Rhianan is instantly (and rightly) presented as a victim of grooming, with the initial text of the article emphatically stating that MI5 had prior knowledge of this and thus inferring that they have a part to play in her death. The BBC's further lack of nuance towards Shamima is evidenced by the quote:
"But she's now an apparently unrepentant adult - and that means she would have to account for her decisions, even if her journey is a story of grooming and abuse." (Dominic Casciani, BBC Home Affairs Correspondent).
The statement is inherently oxymoronic. Acknowledging that Shamima was groomed as a child but not touching on the repercussions that would have on an adult shows the lack of awareness (or sympathy) that all victims of abuse should be afforded. This is furthered by Casciani's claim that "the UK could temporarily ban her from returning until she agreed to be investigated, monitored and deradicalised." The idea that a victim of grooming and abuse (as stated by Casciani himself) should be the one to willingly accept UK intervention highlights either a lack of understanding or compassion (or both). People groomed into radicalisation are often 'led down the rabbit hole' and transformed without any consideration that what they now believe is wrong. Admitting that Shamima was influenced by others is an admission that she is a victim and thus should be treated as such. These issues are better tackled in the second article, with Rhianan's mother acknowledging that:
"her daughter was taking in extreme views 'like a sponge'. 'She was changing herself, that's not Rhianan,' she says. 'She was a child who fixated on things.' "
Rhianan's article poignantly deals with the emotional repercussions of radicalisation thanks to the inclusion of her mother's testimony.
The image above shows the earliest articles regarding Shamima available on the BBC website. All the headings don't mention her name, but instead, label her as the IS teen/schoolgirl/runaway. So the question is; has the BBC changed their approach to Shamima from 2019 to 2023? Well, this section from the latest BBC article sheds some light on this.
"Former children's minister Tim Loughton told the BBC it was still not clear why Ms Begum joined IS as a teenager and "what forces brainwashed her", but he said public sympathy for her when she first went missing had increasingly been replaced by anger. He said many people were justifiably suspicious that she was now "putting on act" in appearing to "transition from a heavily veiled Muslim young woman to somebody wearing Western clothes" as if she had "stayed in east London as a normal British teenager".
"I think most people will say that, frankly, we owe her nothing. She got herself into this mess and frankly it's down to her to work out how she's going to get out of it," he said.
According to Ms Begum's account, the preparation for her and two other girls from Bethnal Green to join IS in Raqqa involved their own research as well as explicit instructions from the terror group's members. One of the girls later died and the other is also believed to have been killed in Syria." (3)
Here we have evidence that the BBC's problematic approach remains. Instead of applying any nuance to Tim Loughton's statement, they reaffirm it by using "Ms Begum's account". Again I remind everyone that they are talking about a 15-year-old girl here. If the BBC can acknowledge that Rhianan sponged ideas, why can't they even suggest the idea that Shamima did the same? The BBC's incoherent approach to radicalisation and grooming is clear to see. But why this is the case is the more troubling development. We have to consider the possibility that Shamima is a victim of xenophobia. It is (seemingly) easier for the BBC to acknowledge Rhianan as the victim, despite both individuals undergoing the same process of radicalisation.
The Guardian
(4): From a 2019 Article (5): From a 2023 Article
When we turn to the Guardian, the difference is immediately noticeable. Importantly, the articles are consistent in reminding us that we are dealing with teenagers that are victims of being groomed into terrorism. Shamima's article states that:
"But to see Begum in isolation to past events serves no purpose. The brainwashed child she was has everything to do with the brainwashed young woman she has become."
The author of this article (Michael Segalov) perfectly frames what it means to be groomed. Shamima's ideology does not dissipate magically upon the collapse of IS but remains as a result of years of influence. The article remains aware that Shemima is in need of help, not gratification. It ends with the assertion that rehabilitation and reintegration are what is needed for the sake of being humanitarian. Alongside the article focusing on Rhianan, we can see a clear and consistent message from the Guardian. The article focuses on how Rhianan's tragic circumstances need to be a "wake-up call" for everyone, speaking about the ease and accessibility people have to radicalise children. Overall, the Guardian remains consistently aware that the issue at heart is the safety of children and therefore continuously advocates for their best interest.
The Daily Mail
(6): From a 2015 Article (7): From a 2023 Article
The Daily Mail's contribution to this situation could perhaps be seen as the missing link in our understanding of why news sources such as the BBC have reacted in this way. Following the immediate disappearance of Shamima and her friends, the focus of the article is on the emotional concern and exploitation of a child, following similar concerns shared in the article about Rhianan. Both articles focus on grooming and appeal to the emotive side of the reader, rightfully painting the girls as victims. However, a more recent article from the Daily Mail shows just how much that has changed.
(8): From a 2022 Article
The article in question (written by Dan Wootton), goes beyond the BBC's issues and fully adopts the opposing position (i.e. she's a liar and a terrorist). So, what is the difference between the two articles? And how do we use this to reconcile all these articles to create a rounded understanding of the situation?
Empathy and Abuse: We Aren't Quite There Yet
The fundamental difference between Shamima Begum in 2015 and 2023 is that she is now here to give 'her side of the story'. In 2015, Shamima and Rhianan were one and the same, in the fact that their story was written by others, with the purpose of providing a narrative of abuse and grooming. Since then, Shamima has been able to 'distort' that narrative with a supposed lack of empathy and remorse. However, with a little bit of critical thinking, we should be questioning the narrative that Shamima herself is giving us. Understanding abuse is not just about knowing what happened, but it's also about being able to recognise that the abused individual is still under that influence, hence the whole purpose of deradicalisation in any case. I certainly believe that an element of racism has played its part in this story. The ability to make Shamima non-British has certainly helped many flick the empathy switch off. Distancing her from the UK does not change what has happened, however. It just appears that we are making it easier for ourselves when we aren't even the ones that have been abused. The BBC make is easier by using Shamima's own testimony as 'proof' (in a way) that she is indeed guilty of causing this 'mess' herself, but yet will at the same time reference that she was groomed and fed lies. At the minimum, a small amount of nuance to the situation would at least cast doubt on such a narrative. Whilst, by no means, does everyone have to agree with the narrative of this story, the media (and most certainly the BBC) should at least be considering multiple approaches. Eventually, it will set in that all forms of child radicalisation are dependent on abuse and manipulation, but until then we will see these same arguments play out over and over, regardless of testimony, evidence and ultimately compassion.
Bibliography and Notes:
1: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47229181
2: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63736944
3. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64222463