Framing of Bangladesh in U.S. Media: A postcolonial analysis

Abstract

This study examines how Bangladesh, a Muslim-dominated country located in the global South, has been portrayed in leading U.S. media over the past five years (2011–2015). Investigating the process of media framing from a postcolonial theoretical perspective, this study analyses 240 stories (reports, editorials, opinion pieces, etc.) in two U.S. media outlets (The New York Times and The Washington Post) to understand the framing of Bangladesh. The findings indicate that negative attributes frequently come to construct the image of Bangladesh and describe the moral state of the nation. Violent Islamic extremists, disastrous country, and human rights violations emerge as the dominant frames to describe Bangladesh. Drawing on postcolonial theory, the article argues that these stereotypical frames of Bangladesh are important to sustaining the binary opposition of the West with its other. I conclude by calling for a democratic media representation globally.

Keywords

Bangladesh global media ethics global South media framing postcolonialism

Introduction

News is an important discursive site for media and communication researchers to understand what framing is and how it works (D’Angelo and Kuypers, 2010; Sosale and Rosas-Moreno, 2016). Studies (Abbas, 2001; Ali et al., 2013; Fahmy, 2010; Ha and Shin, 2016) suggest that U.S. media coverage of other nations, especially developing countries, tends to emphasize violence, political unrest, extremism, disaster, famine, and confrontation. The U.S. media predominantly depicts Third World countries negatively by using government sources of information while covering their issues (Ali et al., 2013). As a result, readers/audiences get only episodic information and a partial view of developing countries. The narratives produced using government sources typically stereotype Third World nations as irrational, violent, cruel, and barbaric places (Abbas, 2001). In addition, news stories about these nations tend to be brief and overly simplistic. The U.S. news media’s formulaic, simplistic, and stereotypical depictions of the Third World and focus on disasters and crises in these areas construct Third World countries as unstable and incapable of rational self-governance.

Bangladesh is a majority Muslim country in South Asia. It is the world’s most densely populated nation and the eighth most populous country overall, with 168 million residents (Lewis, 2011). Numerous studies have explored media depictions of Third World countries (e.g., Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mongolia) and regions (e.g., South-Asia, Asia, Africa, Arab), as well as news portrayals of religions (e.g., Islam), conflicts, (e.g., the war in Darfur), movements (e.g., Arab Spring), and political leaders (e.g., Saddam Hussein) in the Third World. However, little research has focused on the relationship between the state and its media policy. Furthermore, few studies on these topics have evaluated U.S. media from a theoretical perspective.

Although few academic researchers have problematized media portrayals of above-mentioned countries/regions, particularly Arab countries in U.S. media, no research has been conducted on the construction of Bangladesh in U.S. media. Studies on Bangladesh are particularly relevant, given that a recent article (Ahmed and Matthes, 2017) suggests that further research is needed on the media portrayal of Islam in geographic regions outside of Arab countries. Bangladesh may have been excluded from prior scholarship because Western media give less focus to ‘moderate Muslim’ countries like Bangladesh, instead concentrating coverage on Muslim countries experiencing conflict (Ahmed and Matthes, 2017), as these countries are considered threats to national security and directly connected to U.S. geo-political and economic interests. Therefore, by focusing on U.S. media depictions of Bangladesh, this study addresses an important gap in literature on Western news coverage of Muslim majority nations.

Studies (Reta, 2000; Saleem, 2007; Yang, 2003) indicate that U.S. media frames images of foreign countries positively when this framing benefits U.S. economic and political interests. Thus, this research has an aim to investigate how Bangladesh, a moderate Muslim country where there is not significant U.S. interest, is framed and represented by two of the leading U.S. national news outlets: The New York Times and The Washington Post. To do this, 240 stories which include reports, editorials, commentaries, and opinion pieces were drawn upon. I chose to include editorials and opinion pieces because these stories are not governed by the principles of news ‘objectivity,’ meaning that authors’ ideological perspectives are manifested more explicitly (Ha, 2017).

Below, I briefly sketch an outline of the relationship between the United States and Bangladesh. Next, I review literature on communication research on news media coverage, postcolonial scholarship as a theoretical framework, and media framing as a research method.

Bangladesh and the United States: A relational sketch

Bangladesh is viewed as a moderate Muslim country by the U.S. government (U.S. Department of State, 2018) and the nations have a long-standing good relationship regarding the issues of regional and global security, climate change, and counter-terrorism. The key U.S. interests in Bangladesh involves, as described by the U.S. Department of State (2018), economic reform, market opening, counterterrorism, political stability, democratization, good governance, environmental issues, and human rights development. Bangladesh and the United States are also important economic partners, as the United States is the largest export market for Bangladesh (Lewis, 2011). Bangladesh is also one of the largest sources of foreign direct investment for the United States. The International Trade Administration (2017) organized by the U.S. Department of Commerce, identifies Bangladesh as an excellent potential market for U.S. exports. The largest U.S. investment in Bangladesh is the operations of Chevron which produces 50% of Bangladesh’s natural gas (Naser, 2016). Bangladesh is the second largest apparel exporter in the world after China and ranked third in the list of RMG exporters to the USA (Textile Today, August 7, 2018). Thus, Bangladesh provides an excellent case study of U.S. news coverage of a Muslim majority nation with which the United States is an economic partner and political ally.

Relevant literature: A review

This section illustrates how geo-political and economic interests of the U.S. motivate media portrayal of developing countries, particularly in Asia and South Asia. Studies (Hafez, 2000; Reta, 2000; Yang, 2003) show that U.S. media generally highlight national interests and policies while framing other countries. Protection and projection of national interests by U.S. media are more pronounced when it comes to competing powers such as China and Russia. Bukhory’s (1989) analysis shows that the American press covered positively only those Asian countries where it has political, economic, and military interests, such as China, Korea, Philippines, Japan, and Pakistan. Corporate influence on media organizations, as Saleem (2007) argues, compels journalists to frame a friendly image of countries when American economic interests are involved.

In contrast, guided by these strategies of media framing, the media coverage of less affluent South Asian countries by the U.S. media has been marginal (Poornananda, 1998) and negative (Bukhory, 1989). Poornananda’s (1998) analysis demonstrated that two leading newspapers, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times, provide very little coverage to South Asia. When they do publish stories on these areas, articles generally focus on crimes, disasters, conflicts, and the failures of governments and other institutions, while areas including science, arts, and culture were significantly ignored (Bukhory, 1989; Stevenson and Shaw, 1984). When the relationship between the United States and the country in question is tense, the U.S. media frames the country negatively. Other factors are also considered important for selecting international news by the USA media, such as if the country is considered a threat to the United States and world peace, the anticipated reader interest, the timeliness, United States involvement, and loss of lives and property (Chang and Lee, 1992, cited by Bazaa, 2009).

A historical analysis of media framing strategies in U.S. media related to South Asian countries show that a political relationship with other countries has been influential to media portrayal of Third World countries for hundreds of years (Shabir et al. (2011)). Shabir et al. (2011) found that two leading American news magazines, Newsweek and Time, represent Afghanistan as the home of the Taliban and extremism, a penitentiary for women, a narcotics den, a center for Islamization, and a haven for Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden. The proportion of negative coverage (57.08%) was greater than the positive coverage (6.08%) for Afghanistan. These two magazines also depict Pakistan as a country of political unrest and a base of religious terrorism (Ali et al., 2013). These examples illustrate how Islam gets constructed in Western media. Western media is not only critical towards Islam but also promotes stereotypes about the Muslim world and Islamic values (Bukhory, 1989; Poole, 2000). Bukhory (1989) suggests that depictions of Islam as dogmatic and bigoted serve to construct Christianity as a symbol of tolerance. Said argues ‘In the west, the Arabs are frequently presented as a menace, a terrorist, a shadowy figure that operates outside of the accepted value system and is, therefore, to be feared and mistrusted’ (1981: 15). This resonates with Duranni's, (2005) argument of ‘Islamic fundamentalism as the 9/11 tragedy and the consequential events exacerbated the situation beyond control, causing a vitriolic backlash of the hostility from Western media towards all that is Islam’ (p. 21). The following section discusses the theoretical underpinnings of this study before moving on to an examination of media framing techniques.

Postcolonial studies: Theoretical underpinnings

Postcolonial scholarship focuses on how the West and the ‘Other’ are constitutive of one another and intervenes in communication discipline by problematizing the notion of communication that is ‘rooted in the West and is largely inﬂuenced by modernist intellectual and institutional structures’ (Shome and Hegde, 2002: 261). The postcolonial approach to global media ethics urges to take into account the historical context and local epistemologies of non-Western terrains. This project particularly employs Said’s (1979) concept of Orientalism and cultural representation as presented by Stuart Hall (1997) to problematize the Western framing of global South. For Said, Orientalism can be viewed as ‘a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient’ (1979: 3). The reality created by media results in lasting images and stereotypes about groups, religions, and peoples (Markham and Maslog, 1971). Framing of media affects how the public learns, understands, or thinks about an issue (Jamieson and Waldman, 2003). Said (1981) argues that the production of knowledge that fosters stereotypes is very much ingrained in the modern Western imagination and their psyche. Stereotyping becomes a key instrument for maintaining cultural dynamics between the West and outsiders.

For Hall (1997), binary oppositions are crucial for maintaining a difference and oppositional relationship. The binary of civilized vs. uncivilized, for example, plays a fundamental role in producing cultural meaning. Throughout the history of the West, Hall says, negative depiction of non-West has played a significant role in colonial projects. These representations, constructed by Western media, form a bridge between the ‘imperial eye’ and the domestic imagination, greatly influencing how Western audiences understand outsiders. The relationship between knowledge and power is fundamental to the process of cultural representation. Binary logics of knowledge production spawn a particular way of knowing and understanding, which is based on Western epistemology (Loomba, 2005). In consequence, as Young (2003) articulates, postcolonial scholarship works to challenge the universalization process by questioning the politics of dominant knowledge production as an outcome of uneven power relations between nations that are rooted in the colonial past and postcolonial present.

Framing analysis: A means of postcolonial investigation

Postcolonial theory and frame analysis can inform one another in several ways. ‘Framing’ refers to the way that information is organized and presented in media and plays a significant role in the creation and distribution of ideologies. To Entman, framing ‘essentially involves selection and salience. The word salience means making a piece of information more noticeable, meaningful, or memorable to audiences’ (1993: 51). Framing analysis provides a theoretical basis for examining this process. It encompasses a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives on how people, perceive, construct, and communicate about reality. Scholars (Coleman, 2010; Dimitrova and Lee, 2009; Entman 1993, 2007; Gamson, 1989; Grancea, 2014; Matthes, 2009; Messaris and Abraham, 2001; Rodriguez and Dimitrova, 2011; Scheufele, 1999) have used framing as a means to interpret the media coverage in myriad ways. Media frames may affect what audiences think about an event and even how they think (Godefroidt et al., 2016).

From a postcolonial position, theory itself is not neutral but rather ideologically charged and ‘always already positioned within networks of power.’ Therefore, postcolonial approaches aim to critique ‘existing forms of knowledge and the circumstances of its production’ (Rao and Wasserman, 2007: 36). Postcolonial approaches, then, attempt to unfold the re/production of knowledge regulated by (neo)colonial West and challenge the dominant discourse of global media ethics using techniques like framing analysis, but also reflecting on the values and ideologies embedded within this method.

Postcolonial framing analysis interrogates dominant ethical frameworks in media and advances new approaches to global media ethics (e.g., Rao, 2010; Rao and Wasserman, 2007; Wasserman, 2006, 2010). The dominant ethical framework of media/journalism is identified as ‘North Atlantic’ and rooted in liberalism. Here, Western media leaders set universal principles for journalism professionals which are imposed on journalists in the non-Western world (Massey and Chang, 2002; Rao, 2010). Rather than relying on a set of universal principles, postcolonial ethics ‘speak to Western paradigms in the voice of otherness’ (McEwan, 2003, p. 347). Thus, postcolonial scholarship challenges dominant Western production of knowledge and critiques ‘prevailing normative media frameworks and the traditions from which they derive’ (Wasserman, 2010: 81).

To take an example, Wasserman (2010) argues that by applying the Western ethical framework uncritically to the African context, Western media often impose negative attributes onto African people. Quoting Ndangam, he notes, ‘In many African countries, the low salaries and insecure conditions of employment of journalists have resulted in journalists accepting payment from news sources in return for coverage’ (Wasserman, 2006: 82). Therefore, Wasserman suggests that instead of framing that practice as ‘bribery’, Western media need to understand the context behind journalists’ choices. Consequently, postcolonial scholarship becomes important that can ‘be used as a framework within which local practices, values, and concepts from outside the West may be explored (Rao and Wasserman, 2007: 34).

In addition to these theoretical contributions to framing analysis, postcolonial theory brings to fore how a distorted reality regarding the global South is produced, reproduced, and distributed through Western media framing. In particular, postcolonial informed framing analysis demonstrates the ways in which the global South is depicted as inferior, backward, violent, and so on. The framing of international events is especially important since the audience has no firsthand knowledge of those events. Western media often fail to provide an appropriate context of a non-Western issue and thus non-West is framed and presented from ‘out-of-context’ to Western audiences. As Ward and Wasserman explain, ‘Unless reported within its proper context, North American readers may fail to understand the causes of violence in the Middle East, or ethnic conflict in Africa. Jingoistic reports can portray the inhabitants of other regions of the world as a threat’ (2010: 1). In sum, framing analysis is an effective tool in the area of postcolonial investigation for (1) unfolding the misrepresentation of postcolonial subjects and (2) considering the local construction of meaning for the formulation of a global media ethics.

Method

Integrating postcolonial theory and media framing analysis, this research analyzes media coverage of Bangladesh in two leading U.S. newspapers, The New York Times (NYT) and The Washington Post (WP). The research question that guides this study is: How do NYT and WP discursively frame Bangladesh? The Lexis Nexis Academic database was used to select reports on Bangladesh. First, the search words ‘Bangladesh’ in ‘headline and lead paragraph’ sections were used to retrieve reports from the last five years (2011–2015). The search provided 240 stories (reports, editorials, commentaries) in total—179 from NYT and 61 from WP. The reason for selecting this time frame (2011–2015) is that, as mentioned earlier, the U.S. media gives more attention to developing countries when crisis and conflicts take place there. During those years, Bangladesh drew global attention, particularly in the United States, for a number of reasons, including religious extremism, political unrest, several national movements (e.g., Shahabagh, Shapla), the killing of bloggers, a war crimes tribunal, extra judicial killings, and disasters in the garment sector. For instance, the Rana Plaza collapse on 24 April 2013 was a structural failure of an eight-story garment building in Bangladesh that became the deadliest garment industry disaster in world history. Causing 1,130 deaths and 2,500 injuries, this disaster drew global media attention.

This project examines Orientalist tropes within the reports of NYT and WP regarding Bangladesh. Reports from NYT and WP retrieved through my search process were grouped and regrouped in terms of categories and emerging frames with the goal of understanding the discursive constructions of Bangladesh. I ultimately identified three broad frames which are elaborated in the next section: (a) violent Islamic extremists; (b) disastrous country; and (c) human rights violations. These represent how the analyses evolved from identification of Orientalist metaphors and tropes to an engagement with the broader global context within which these textual representations were made.

Recurring frames

Violent Islamic extremists

Bangladesh is a Muslim majority country. As of 2011, Muslims constitute 90% of the total population. A study of the Pew Research Center (2011) indicates that it is the fourth most populous Muslim country in the world. The country’s dominant Muslim identity and the associated stereotypes emerge as dominant frames in the selected U.S. newspapers. In line with stereotypes of Muslim identity, Bangladesh was frequently bracketed with ‘Islamist fundamentalist’ (NYT, 7 May 2013), ‘a rare Muslim democracy’ (NYT, 11 January 2014), ‘Talibanization’, ‘orthodox Muslims’, and ‘emergence of Islamic nationalism’ (WP, 27 April 2013). Apart from ethnic strife and religious fundamentalism, challenges of contemporary Bangladesh are reported in WP as ‘…extreme poverty, overcrowding, and flooding that frequently renders large numbers of people homeless. The country’s Muslim majority is the target of Islamist radicalization’ (6 February 2011). Referring to an analyst, WP reports (22 March 2014), ‘although Bangladesh’s legal code is secular, more citizens are embracing a conservative version of Islam, with some pushing for Sharia law’. The Muslim identity of Bangladesh becomes problematic due to religious violence and unrest in the Bangladeshi. For example, NYT categorized a political activity of some Islamic parties as a ‘deadly crackdown on Islamist protesters’ (13 August 2013). These reports in NYT and WP frame ‘Muslim identity’ as a primary source of the violence, fundamentalism and terrorism in Bangladesh. This echoes with previous research which has shown that Muslims are often framed as ‘militants and terrorists’ (Ewart, 2012; Powell, 2011) and brutal, uncivilized, heartless, religious fanatics (Shaheen, 2009). By selecting and highlighting limited information regarding Bangladesh (e.g., overpopulation, crowding, Islamic identity, floods, poverty) in a particular manner, what Entman (1993) says, as ‘selection and salience’, while erasing other characteristics about the nation (e.g., second highest garment exporter country, second most gender equal country in Asia, eighth largest remittance receiving country), consciously or unconsciously, NYT and WP perpetuate frames where negative, stereotypical pieces of information about Bangladesh become ‘more noticeable, meaningful, or memorable to audiences’.

As an example, the murder of four online bloggers-activists in 2013–2015 as a violation of freedom of speech received widespread U.S. media coverage, even though attacks on foreigners are rare in Bangladesh. A reporter of NYT wrote: ‘The killings of the bloggers have hit a nerve in Bangladesh, with its deepening divide between secular thinkers and conservative Muslims over the question of whether Bangladesh should be a secular or an Islamic nation’ (13 March 2015). Although NYT mentions ‘secular thinkers and conservative Muslims,’ it is implicit that Islam is an obstacle of free thinking, and the bloggers are secular thus progressive. A report of WP (27 February 2015) wrote that threats or fatwas have become coldblooded killings on crowded streets. Some described the murders as acts of ‘copycat violence’, imitating similar attacks by fanatics elsewhere and part of the globalization of Islam. Continuous focus on such violence constructs a fearful situation in Bangladesh, characterized by extremist religious fundamentalism and a lack of security and internal disciplinary control.

There is also a tendency of the U.S. newspapers to connect violence, Islam, and Pakistan. For instance, one NYT report read, ‘In 2013, Ahmed Rajib Haider, an atheist blogger, was killed by machete-wielding Islamic radicals. In both of these cases, the attackers demanded that the government pass a law against blasphemy, similar to the one that exists in Pakistan’ (13 March 2015). The same narrative is shown on WP’s report headlined ‘Secular vs. Islamist State’ which says: ‘That split has existed since the secularist side won independence for Bangladesh in a war with Pakistan in 1971 … led to worries that Bangladesh could wind up like Pakistan, where Islamist extremists threaten the state’ (23 March 2014). Here the war in 1971 between West Pakistan and East Pakistan (currently Bangladesh) is framed as a war that took place between secularism and Islam, which is incorrect. In truth, it was East Pakistan that fought against West Pakistan to achieve politico-economic emancipation.

Additionally, by saying that Bangladesh is becoming religiously conservative from its previous moderate form of Islam, WP reported, ‘More mosques have opened, as have shops selling head-to-toe black abaya robes for women’ (22 March 2014). Quoting Salil Tripathi, a WP report said, ‘Bangladesh is becoming a land where assassins feel emboldened’ (27 February 2015). One NYT article reported that stores increasingly sell black hijabs with signs on the front windows reading ‘For True Muslim Women,’ indicating a shift in the country’s tolerance toward secular nationalists. While news stories cover an issue with some implicit assumptions, editorials and opinion pieces reinforce those by supplementing additional information and arguments. For example, syncing with the news report, NYT published an opinion piece of Linika Pelham headlined ‘End of a Secular Bangladesh?’ which says: ‘Bangladesh has changed ……. Are there no women in Dhaka? Looking around, I realized that most women were covered in black burqas or hijabs – a style that I had seen in such large numbers only in the Middle East’ (5 March 2015). This opinion piece assumes that burqa/hijab (veil) is a symbol of sexist oppression in Middle Eastern countries and contradicts the image of Bangladesh as a secular state. This echoes Ahmed and Matthes (2017) argument that Islam is portrayed by the dominant media as a religion of irrational violence that subordinates women. This stereotypical assumption reinforces a notion of Western/White feminism which suggests that Third World Muslim women are oppressed due to their religion, a position which is contested by Mohanty (1984). Additionally, Berger (1998) argues that wearing a veil is now considered as an act as a power statement of pride in religion, femininity, and sexual identity and can be viewed as a symbol of Islamic freedom.

In sum, the portrayal of ‘Muslim identity’ becomes synonymous with ‘cultural backwardness’ in most NYT and WP reports. Bangladesh produces the second most textile goods in the world. As female labor is cheaper than male, international giant textile companies (e.g., Wal-Mart, Target, JCPenney) import garment products from Bangladesh made by women. In the last few decades, a large number of women (around 80% of total laborers according to a report of NYT published on 14 May 2013) became involved with this sector. This has created a socio-economic transformation in Bangladeshi society. WP describes this societal advancement as ‘a dramatic cultural shift in the predominantly Muslim nation’ (17 May 2013). The report implies that women are typically confined to doing only household work in the Muslim culture. Because of the advent of the garment industry, women secured an opportunity to step outside of the home, promoting ‘a dramatic cultural shift’.

Violence comes across as a dominant frame in both newspapers’ representation of Bangladesh as a ‘country with a tradition of stormy protest’ (NYT, 11 January 2014). Reports on acid attacks, domestic violence, political turmoil, social movements, religious extremism, resistance and murder, among other issues, can be identified as persistent frames used in these newspapers. These patterns in news reporting not only set up violence as a dominant frame but also construct Bangladesh in a particular negative manner. Romantic rejection, gang rivalry, dowry solicitation, and misogyny are some of the motives cited for acid attacks on women. Domestic violence reports point out the contradictions in the Bangladesh Constitution, as it guarantees the equal rights to citizens while allowing women’s lives to be restricted by Shariah (Islamic) law. One NYT opinion piece (5 March 2014) argues that the quarrel between ‘women’s formal rights in the public sphere and their deprivation of rights in the private one is not just an issue of assets, property and child custody; it also has a strong bearing on women’s security within the home’. While these critiques are partially applicable, it is important to acknowledge that these acts of violence are a global phenomenon. It is also important to emphasize that women have been at the helm of Bangladesh’s political tradition for decades. As of 2019, Bangladesh has been led by female prime ministers for 29 years; the nation provides a unique example of women’s empowerment. The World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index 2018 reports that Bangladesh is the second most gender equal country in Asia. Yet, American newspapers single out Bangladesh for violence on women by framing it as an obstacle to its social progress. The following section focuses on how a ‘disastrous country’ frame becomes a prominent frame for Bangladesh in the NYT and WP newspapers.

Disastrous country

Bangladesh has generated global journalistic attention because it is considered one of the most vulnerable countries to global warming. It is depicted as a ‘disastrous country’ in the U.S. press in numerous ways. Reports on climate change, global warming, famine, flood and mass migration, garment collapse, and fire bring Bangladesh to the forefront of Western media. While introducing Dr Muhammad Yunus, a Nobel laureate from Bangladesh and the founder of Grameen Bank, WP wrote, ‘Dr. Yunus became a folk hero to Bangladeshis, who changes the face of a nation better known for cyclones, floods, and famines’ (15 January 2011). In another report, WP wrote: ‘Once known for sweatshops and cyclones, Bangladesh has emerged in recent years as a fragile democracy with an expanding economy’ (22 March 2014). Such media statements highlight a select few attributes and essentialize a whole nation in terms of those few categories. Then, there are reports on the Pentagon having limited capabilities ‘to provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, airlifts, maritime intelligence, and port reconstruction’ (WP, 6 February 2011), further reinforcing Bangladesh as a country in need of constant support.

‘Poverty’ and ‘over population’ are two other categories which are repeatedly highlighted in the U.S. media. For instance, one report said, ‘Bangladesh is beset by extreme poverty, overcrowding’ (WP, 6 February 2011). Another report from the same newspaper mentioned, ‘Inexpensive labor in population-dense Bangladesh has encouraged Western companies’ (2 May 2013). A report from NYT presented Bangladesh as one ‘of the world’s poorest countries’ and ‘an already poor country’ where capital is ‘congested’ and ‘overcrowded’ (28 July 2013). Due to the extreme poverty, as WP reported, ‘many Bangladeshis already try to flee to India, either to escape the periodic floods or to seek jobs. The deluge of people is so great that the Indian government has built a border fence and plans to electrify it’ (WP, 6 February 2011). This article does not consider any of the many other reasons India may tighten its border, including religious tensions, extremist activities, and security concerns. The WP article also ignores a recent report that gives the opposite view: ‘Bangladesh becomes 4th largest remittance source for India, remitting about $10.00 billion in 2017’ (Daily Industry, 2 July 2018) while at least one million Indian people are now working in Bangladesh, most of them being illegal migrants and refugees.

The frame of political instability has been quite salient as well. After independence in 1971, Bangladesh has faced political stalemates at different times. Since 1990, it has been under a democratic political system with some internal limitations and nominal disruptions. However, a report of WP presents Bangladesh as a country of political instability that includes ‘more than 22 coups and countercoups’. These labels exaggerate the internal problems, while claims of internal unrest (of Bangladesh) spilling into neighboring India (WP, 6 February 2011) misleadingly suggests that Bangladesh poses a threat to nations beyond its borders. Concerns about political unrest are linked with questions regarding Bangladesh’s economic stability. Media reports estimate possible economic losses and speculate about which sectors are likely to be affected by political upheavals.

For the past 30 years, control of Bangladesh has been largely in the hands of two women (Sheikh Hasina and Begum Khaleda Zia). U.S. media frequently portrayed them as stubborn, autocratic ‘Battling Begums’ of a ‘shaky democratic country’ who rarely speak to each other. An opinion piece from NYT described their animosity—‘The grievances are, in a way, an outgrowth of dynastic politics. Both women were thrust into politics by violence’ (11 January 2014). It continues, ‘In 2007, Bangladeshi generals grew so frustrated by the friction that they jailed both women on corruption charges, a plan that was known as the “minus two solution”’. Here NYT criticizes two top women political leaders and justifies the fake corruption allegations against them. These allegations were levied by an unelected apolitical government backed by the army and were later disproven. NYT’s framing of this issue has two main effects: (1) it encourages apolitical systems instead of democratic political processes and (2) it implies that because the top two leaders are female thus battling which is a feminine act that also reinforces a patriarchal stereotype. Although some reports occasionally write about the political tradition epitomized by the ‘dueling matriarchs’, the dominant presence of women in power is never juxtaposed with the discourse surrounding the deprivation of women’s rights. The latter is selectively highlighted while completely erasing and undermining women’s accomplishments.

News reports appeared in NYT and WP on general strikes ‘paralyzing’ Bangladesh, deaths in violent clashes between rival political factions, the arrest of opposition leaders and human rights activists, and possibilities of sanctions from the international community represent Bangladesh in terms of conflict and crisis. A positive representation will occasionally appear in the U.S. media. For instance, while reporting on what is perhaps Bangladesh’s worst political violence which claimed 50 lives in December 2013, WP wrote that the event ‘tarnished the image of a country that, while still poor, has made remarkable gains in life expectancy, literacy and gender equality’ (WP, 22 March 2014). It can be noted that the positive aspects appear only fleetingly, never make headlines, and contradict the dominant media representation. Instead, what stands out are statements such as this: ‘the wave of violence engulfing the country risks spinning out of control’ (NYT, 12 February 2015).

The highest number of reports about Bangladesh from NYT and WP focused on disasters, fires, collapses, etc. in Bangladesh’s garment industry. A garment factory collapse in Bangladesh in early 2013, which caused more than 1,500 deaths, received significant attention and coverage from NYT. The newspaper described the accident as ‘deadliest disaster in the history of the garment industry’ and said the collapsed building was ‘constructed with substandard materials and in blatant disregard for building codes’ (23 May 2013). Reports from NYT focused global attention on ‘unsafe conditions in the garment industry in Bangladesh’ (23 May 2013). Referencing The Economist, NYT argued, ‘the disaster in Dhaka makes it hard for any company to claim credibly that it can be sure that its products are “ethically sourced”’. Taking no responsibilities to improve working conditions, some large companies planned to move their factories and scapegoated the Bangladeshi government. As NYT reported, ‘The Bangladeshi government has been reluctant because that would drive up the cost of products and encourage Western companies to move to other countries with cheap labor’ (5 May 2013). This line of thinking ignores the idea that multinational companies profit by exploiting Third World labor and that corporations can do much more to reduce the dangers of the work places where products are made. I now turn to an examination of how the U.S. media engages with issues of human rights in Bangladesh.

Human rights violations

It is evident from the number of reports that human rights violations in Bangladesh are an important topic that is frequently discussed in U.S. media. Many articles use terms like ‘dark spots’ to describe Bangladesh’s human rights record: ‘The recent arrest of Bangladeshi human rights activist is yet another dark spot in the continuing struggle over the identity of Bangladesh’ (NYT, 13 August 2013). This framing implies that Bangladesh is associated with a number of other dark spots where human rights are concerned. This report also talks about attacks on journalists and activists which endanger Bangladesh’s struggling democracy. An editorial in NYT reads, ‘Journalism is a dangerous profession in Bangladesh. Local journalists have been physically attacked, and even killed, for reports that the government or Islamist extremists found offensive’ (23 December 2014). This indicates that both the government and Islamist forces in Bangladesh are enemies to freedom of speech. Identifying Bangladeshi culture as a ‘culture of repression’, a report in NYT said, ‘Bangladesh’s treatment of minorities has fundamentally changed. The Chittagong Hill Tracts, which is home to a large indigenous population, remains heavily militarized, with outbreaks of violence on a regular basis. There is a culture of repression in the legal system, too, that is alarming’ (9 February 2015). An NYT piece on the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), an elite counterterrorism squad in Bangladesh, noted, ‘For years, domestic and international rights organizations have documented abductions and extrajudicial killings and torture by Bangladeshi security forces, including the Rapid Action Battalion’ (10 April 2015).

Child marriage is another phenomenon that violates human rights. Quoting Human Rights Watch, WP reported, ‘the country has the fourth-highest rate of child marriage in the world, with 29 percent of Bangladeshi girls married before age 15 and 65 percent before age 18’ (28 August 2015). This is because marriage is seen as a way to achieve respect and protection for women by reducing the risk of being sexually active outside the house or being harassed while commuting, according to the report. This logic presents the issue as a cultural problem, but there is negligible critical discussion available. The Human Rights Watch report also writes that Bangladesh has made significant achievements in reducing maternal mortality and poverty, developing gender parity in enrollment in primary and secondary schools, and improving its record on women’s rights. However, these improvements are lost in the WP article, and child marriage as a human rights violation remains salient. Situating child marriage in the context of the other social problems that the government has worked on not only provides comprehensive reporting but also indicates that the government is not impervious to social issues. All it says is that the government is struggling to tackle child marriage and has raised some awareness. One NYT report (6 March 2014) did quote Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate and economics Professor of Harvard University, who praised Bangladesh record on gender equality by stating that Bangladesh surpasses even India’s record ‘in every aspect of the human development index’. While this comment by a leading economist was mentioned, it did not make a headline in NYT.

Occasionally, there are soul-searching commentaries that are not written merely to label a country in a particular manner but to raise critical questions. An opinion piece of Tahmima Anam in NYT is one such article (2 September 2014). It starts with a quote from Susan Sontag in Regarding the Pain of Others: ‘being a spectator of calamities taking place in another country is a quintessential modern experience’. Anam then writes:

In Bangladesh, it appears that we are the spectators of – and collaborators in – our own calamities. Every few months, we witness a major tragedy, knowing all the while that once the dust has settled on the terrible thing that just happened, it is only a matter of time before another one is splashed across the front pages of our newspapers … We have become a country that takes disaster in its stride … At some point, someone, or a collection of people, have made the decision that the cost of upgrading, maintaining and regulating our transportation infrastructure is higher than the cost of the lives that will be lost if things continue as they are … When we watch another person in pain, an image meant to provoke empathy, we are also acknowledging that this person is not us. The greater the tragedy, the more we feel ourselves separate from it, because we would never be on that ferry, or in that garment factory when it collapsed, or on the side of that road when the car struck. To paraphrase the aesthetician Elaine Scarry, in ‘The Body in Pain,’ the larger their pain, the greater our power. The question remains: What do we do with this power?

This article stood out from the many others that I analyzed, as the description provided by Anam (2014) is imbued with empathy and an understanding that does not naturalize or de-politicize human suffering. Rather Anam claims that the loss of lives of marginalized members of society (the ferry riders and the garment workers) is due to the negligence of the dominant system of power and situates this problem on a global register.

In sum, some NYT and WP reports posed important questions on issues of democracy in Bangladesh, but their overwhelming focus on negative portrayals and their lack of critical engagement with these issues served to stereotype Bangladesh in terms of a few negative attributes.

Conclusion

Drawing on the process of media framing from a postcolonial theoretical perspective, this study reveals that violent Islamic extremists, disastrous country, and human rights violations emerge as the dominant frames to describe Bangladesh in two American newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post. A postcolonial reading of these stories through the lens of Orientalism offers opportunities to understand how Orientalist discourses work to carry out a cultural logic of the Western hegemony. The themes from the analysis demonstrate that the framing of Bangladesh relies heavily on and perpetuates the ‘commonsensical’ First World/Third World, civilized/backward, and modern/primitive binaries by serving the interest of the United States, which ultimately creates a sense of cultural superiority over the global South. Even after four decades of Said’s (1979) influential idea of Orientalism, this analysis demonstrates that the relevance of Said’s writing has not diminished.

Framing in the selected U.S. newspapers takes place in numerous ways. The U.S. media select and frame issues (such as child marriage and domestic violence) that bring negative images of Bangladesh to the forefront and keep other positive issues out of discussion. Hence, framing functions as a process of exclusion that Ha (2017) terms as ‘framing through exclusion and omission’. Nadeem Qadir, a senior journalist of Bangladesh, also claims the same regarding the coverage of Bangladeshi issues by The Economist. He says that The Economist ‘continuously choose to publish write-ups that negatively portray Bangladesh and ignore ones that are positive’ (Qadir, 2016). Likewise, while discussing issues of women empowerment, U.S. media hardly talks about the positive development that has taken place in recent years in Bangladesh.

The lack of investigative and interpretative reports and negative framing of coverage in U.S. media often provide a partial and superficial view of Bangladesh to global audiences. Leading U.S. newspapers frame Bangladesh as a disastrous country due to frequent garment collapse and fire but hardly publish comprehensive reports regarding those issues or exposing the exploitative relationship between buyer and supplier countries, presently the United States and Bangladesh. Regarding human rights violations, the papers reported on extrajudicial killings by the Bangladesh RAB, but failed to mention that RAB was directly trained by the British government (Karim and Cobain, 2010). News analysis must examine the contributions of influential Western countries to human rights violations in the Third World; otherwise, audiences may believe these violations are a problem unique to the global South. The U.S. media also fail to provide critical analysis of environmental issues when reporting on Bangladesh, one of the countries to suffer most from climate change. NYT and WP articles ignore that Bangladesh contributes almost nothing to warming the planet, while the United States is responsible for more than one-fourth of carbon emissions since 1850 and has contributed more than double as much carbon as any other country (Ge et al., 2014).

The Islamic identity of Bangladesh often takes place as a problematic frame in the newspapers analyzed for this project. Articles create a secular/progressive vs. religious/conservative binary, where Islam is framed as a member of the latter category. If an accused person/group is involved with Islam, it is very likely that the U.S. newspapers will assign blame to Islam itself. This narrative reinforces Ahmed and Matthes’s (2017) position that, after 9/11, Islam has been narrowed to an Orientalist discourse (Saeed, 2007). This is achieved through the construction of a ‘secular’ vs. ‘conservative’ frame, described from the perspective of a ‘white man’s world’ which categorizes Muslims as a ‘them’ who are a threat to ‘us’ (Osuri and Banerjee, cited by Ahmed and Matthes, 2017).

The framing of Bangladesh by the U.S. media as an abode of conflict, crises, disaster, human rights violations, political unrest, killings, and extremism emerges as a quintessential Orientalist discourse, where Bangladesh as an Orientalist figure is placed in binary opposition to the superior West. This reality historically and consistently created by two powerful U.S. media outlets has the potential to produce lasting images and stereotypes about a whole nation, religion, and people. It is important to disrupt such media constructs to shape public opinion in a more comprehensive manner. The construction of the Third World country as inferior has always been important in the American imaginary to enable the West to maintain its superiority in the production of power.

Drawing from Hall’s (1997) idea of binary opposition being crucial for all classification for maintaining oppositional relationships, I argue that the stereotypical and ethnocentric media portrayals of Bangladesh are important to create fear and discomfort so as to differentiate the other for the purpose of controlling the other. Therefore, the coverage of two leading newspapers in the United States can be seen as a neocolonial move enabling the West to advance its imperial ideology and as a mechanism of discipline and control over countries in the global South. The frames identified in this analysis of NYT and WP thus perpetuate white supremacy and/or Western hegemony over Third World countries in the post-colonial era and reinforce an Orientalist colonial image of Bangladesh. Hence, this study attempts to challenge Western, particularly U.S., media representations of Bangladesh in order to question the politics of knowledge production. This study, further, calls for a postcolonial approach to global media ethics that takes into account the historical context, local epistemologies, the colonial past, and neocolonial present of the global South.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abbas

(2001) Media capital and the representation of South Asian Muslims in the British press: An ideological analysis. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 21(2): 245–257.

Ahmed

Matthes

(2017) Media representation of Muslims and Islam from 2000 to 2015: A meta-analysis. International Communication Gazette 79(3): 219–244.

Ali

Jan

Saleem

(2013) Portrayal of Pakistan by US leading news magazines. Science International 25(4). Available at: https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A362017055/AONE?u=tamp44898&sid=AONE&xid=42cc0fcc (accessed 30 July 2019).

Bazaa

(2009) International media coverage: Mongolia in the New York Times 1989–2008. PhD Dissertation, University of Kansas. Available at: http://search.proquest.com/docview/304916242 (assessed 20 December 2017).

Berger

(1998) The newly veiled woman: Irigaray, specularity, and the Islamic veil. Diacritics 28(1):93–119.

Bukhory

(1989) Asian news in four Newspapers. Media Asia 16(4): 223–232.

Coleman R (2010) Framing the pictures in our heads. In D'Angelo P and Kuypers JA (eds.) Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives. Routledge, pp. 233–261.

Daily Industry (2 July 2018) Bangladesh becomes 4th largest remittance source for India. Available at: www.dailyindustry.news/bangladesh-becomes-4th-largest-remittance-source-india/ (assessed 3 February 2019).

D'Angelo P and Kuypers JA (2010). Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives. Routledge.

10.

Dimitrova DV and Lee KS (2009) Framing Saddam's execution in the US press. Journalism Studies 10(4): 536–550.

11.

Durrani

(2005) Comparison of pictorial image of Pakistan and India in Newsweek and Time (pre and post-9/11). Masters Dissertation, University of the Punjab, Lahore.

12.

Entman

(1993) Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4): 51–58.

13.

Entman

(2007) Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power, Journal of Communication 57(1): 163–173.

14.

Ewart J (2012) Framing an alleged terrorist: How four Australian news media organizations framed the Dr. Mohamed Haneef case. Journal of Media and Religion 11(2): 91–106.

15.

Fahmy

(2010) Contrasting visual frames of our times: A framing analysis of English- and Arabic-language press coverage of war and terrorism. The International Communication Gazette 72(8): 695–717.

16.

Gamson

(1989) News as framing: Comment on Garber. American Behavioral Scientist 33(2): 157–161.

17.

Ge M, Friedrich

Damassa

(2014, 25 November) 6 graphs explain the world’s top 10 emitters. World Resources Institute. Available at: www.wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world-s-top-10-emitters (assessed 7 February 2019).

18.

Grancea

(2014) Visual rhetoric and framing strategies in advertising word-based product categories. Argumentum: Journal the Seminar of Discursive Logic 12: 146–162.

19.

Godefroidt

Berbers

d’Haenens

(2016) What’s in a frame? A comparative content analysis of American, British, French, and Russian news articles. International Communication Gazette 78(8): 777–801.

20.

(2017) Tailoring the Arab Spring to American values and interests: A framing analysis of US elite newspapers’ opinion pieces. International Communication Gazette 79(3): 276–297.

21.

Shin

(2016) Framing the Arab Spring: Partisanship in the news stories of Korean Newspapers. International Communication Gazette 78(6): 536–556.

22.

Hafez K (2000) Islam and the West in the mass media: Fragmented images in a globalizing world. New York: Hampton Press.

23.

Hall

(1997) Representation: Cultural representation and signifying practices. London: SAGE publications.

24.

International Trade Administration (2017) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bangladesh – Market overview. Available at: www.privacyshield.gov/article?id=Bangladesh-Market-Overview (assessed 13 December 2018).

25.

Jamieson

Waldman

(2003) The Press Effect: Politicians, Journalists and the Stories that Shape the World. USA: Oxford University Press.

26.

Karim

Cobain

(2010) WikiLeaks cables: Bangladeshi ‘death squad’ trained by UK government. The Guardian, 21 December. Available at: www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/21/wikileaks-cables-british-police-bangladesh-death-squad (assessed 28 January 2019).

27.

Lewis

(2011) Bangladesh: Politics , Economy and Civil Society. New York: Cambridge University Press.

28.

Loomba

(2005) Colonialism/postcolonialism. New York: Routledge.

29.

Markham

Maslog

(1971) Images and the mass media. Journalism Quarterly 48(3): 519–525.

30.

Massey

Chang

(2002) Locating Asian values in Asian journalism: A content analysis of web newspapers. Journal of Communication 52(4): 987–1003.

31.

Matthes

(2009) What’s in a frame? A content analysis of media framing studies in the world’s leading communication journals, 1990–2005. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 86(2): 349–367.

32.

McEwan C (2003) Material geographies and postcolonialism. Singapore. Journal of Tropical Geography 24(3): 340–355.

33.

Messaris P and Abraham L (2001) The role of images in framing news stories. In Reese SD, Gandy JOH and Grant AE (eds.) Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 231–242). Routledge.

34.

Mohanty

(1984) Under Western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Boundary 2: 333–358.

35.

Naser

(2016). Chevron in Bangladesh delivering energy and empowering the community. The Daily Sun, 14 February. Available at: www.daily-sun.com/printversion/details/114028/Chevron-in-Bangladesh-Delivering-Energy-and-Empowering-the-Community (assessed 13 December 2018).

36.

Pew Research Center (2011) The future of the global Muslim population. 27 January. Available at:www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/the-future-of-the-global-muslim-population/#/Bangladesh (assessed 29 July 2019).

37.

Powell KA (2011) Framing Islam: An analysis of US media coverage of terrorism since 9/11. Communication Studies 62(1): 90–112.

38.

Poole

(2000) Framing Islam: An analysis of newspaper coverage of Islam in the British Press. In: Hafez

(ed.) Islam and the West in the mass media: Fragmented images in a globalizing world. New York: Hampton Press, pp. 157–179.

39.

Poornananda

(1998) Coverage of South Asia in two leading U.S. newspapers. Media Asia 23(3): 161–166.

40.

Qadir

(2016) The Western media and Bangladesh. Dhaka Tribune, 14 June. Available at: www.dhakatribune.com/opinion/op-ed/2016/06/09/western-media-bangladesh (assessed 12 February 2019).

41.

Rao

(2010) Postcolonial theory and Global Media ethics: A theoretical intervention. In: Ward

Wasserman

(eds) Media ethics beyond borders: A global perspective. New York: Routledge, pp. 90–104.

42.

Rao

Wasserman

(2007) Global media ethics revisited: A postcolonial critique. Global Media and Communication 3(1): 29–50.

43.

Reta MC (2000) US media coverage of the 1994 elections in South Africa. Gazette (Leiden, Netherlands), 62(6): 523–536.

44.

Rodriguez

Dimitrova

(2011) The levels of visual framing, Journal of Visual Literacy 30(1): 48–65.

45.

Saeed A (2007) Media, racism and Islamophobia: The representation of Islam and Muslims in the media. Sociology Compass 1(2): 443–462.

46.

Said

(1979) Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.

47.

Said

(1981) Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

48.

Saleem

(2007) U.S. media framing of foreign countries image: An analytical perspective. Canadian Journal of Media Studies 2(1): 130–162.

49.

Scheufele DA (1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of communication 49(1): 103–122.

50.

Shabir

Ali

Iqbal

(2011) US mass media and image of Afghanistan: Portrayal of Afghanistan by Newsweek and Time. South Asian Studies 26(1): 83–101.

51.

Shaheen JG (2009) Reel bad Arabs: How Hollywood vilifies a people. Brooklyn, NY: Olive Branch Press.

52.

Shome

Hegde

(2002) Postcolonial approaches to communication: Charting the terrain, engaging the intersections. Communication Theory 12(3): 249–270.

53.

Sosale

Rosas-Moreno

(2016) Framing cooperation among regional economic powers: The South in global spheres of influence. International Communication Gazette 78(8): 755–776.

54.

Textile Today (7 August 2018) Bangladesh remains 2nd largest RMG exporter accounting 6.5 percent market share. Available at: https://www.textiletoday.com.bd/bd-remains-2nd-largest-rmg-exporter-accounting-6-5-percent/ (assessed 21 April 2019).

55.

U.S. Department of State (2018) U.S. relations with Bangladesh. Available at: www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3452.htm (assessed 7 February 2019).

56.

Ward SJ and Wasserman H (2010) Media ethics beyond borders: A global perspective. New York: Routledge.

57.

Wasserman

(2006) Globalized values and postcolonial responses: South African perspectives on normative media ethics. International Communication Gazette, 68(1): 71–91.

58.

Wasserman

(2010) Media ethics and human dignity in the postcolony. In: Ward

Wasserman

(eds) Media ethics beyond borders: A global perspective. New York: Routledge, pp. 74–89.

59.

World Economic Forum (2018) The global gender gap report 2018. Available at: www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-gender-gap-report-2018 (assessed 18 December 2018).

60.

Yang J (2003) Framing the NATO air strikes on Kosovo across countries: Comparison of Chinese and US newspaper coverage. Gazette (Leiden, Netherlands) 65(3): 231–249.

61.

Young

CJR

(2003) Postcolonialism: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.