Europe’s Far Right Is Winning the Culture War — Because the Left Keeps Playing Defence

It’s never a good sign when Nigel Farage looks like he’s having fun. There he is again, pint in one hand, culture war in the other, grinning like a man who’s just discovered xenophobia is tax‑deductible. Across Europe, from Italy’s Giorgia Meloni to Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), the right has stopped pretending to govern and started performing — and somehow, it’s working.

The new politics of the continent is less about policy than vibes: who can be the most offended by progress. In Germany, AfD recently polled around 15.9 % in the 2024 European Parliament elections and is now a serious contender ahead of national polls. In Italy, Meloni’s party, Fratelli d’Italia (FdI) secured over 27 % of the vote in EU elections, making it the largest single party in a major Western European country. France’s Rassemblement National (RN) under Marine Le Pen got upwards of 30 % in recent polls, becoming the first‑place party in several regions. And in Austria it’s the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) bidding high in national votes.

Their secret? Fear. Not even sophisticated fear — just the reheated stuff: immigrants, Muslims, “woke” culture, “elites”. It’s populism as pantomime, and every villain needs a boo‑hiss target. When the economy flatlines, blame the refugee in a dinghy. When public services crumble, blame the pronouns. It’s distraction politics, and it’s catching because it’s easy.

But the greater tragedy is that the left keeps showing up to this brawl armed only with apologies. Across Europe, progressive parties seem convinced that moral clarity is impolite. The far right screams that Western civilisation is collapsing, and the UK’s Labour Party responds with a carefully costed plan for modestly expanding bus routes. You can’t out‑accountant a fascist.

Keir Starmer’s Labour is a perfect case study in political self‑neutering. Faced with Israel’s relentless bombardment of Gaza, the party that once marched for peace could barely whisper for a ceasefire. The moral vacuum was deafening. Had Labour taken a firm, human stance — not a mealy‑mouthed one — it might have drawn a line between genuine leadership and moral cowardice. Instead, Starmer opted for “caution,” which apparently now counts as ideology.

Meanwhile, Europe’s centre‑left parties are terrified of being called “soft on immigration” as if empathy were a communicable disease. They try to mimic the right’s talking points in the hopes of appearing “tough” — not recognising that you can’t out‑tough a demagogue. For every Farage photo‑op in a pub, there’s a Labour press release reaffirming “the concerns of ordinary people about migrants”. You won’t win by copying the villain.

The irony is that the far right claims to champion “the working man,” but wouldn’t recognise him unless he came gift‑wrapped in a flag. It’s pure theatre: rage at Brussels while voting for corporate tax breaks; promise sovereignty while selling national assets to billionaires; cry about free speech while banning books. Even in rural Italy, in a town like Salizzole, support for Meloni topped 50 % in areas hit hardest by factory closures and immigration – the perfect storm of economic anxiety meets cultural resentment. The left’s mistake has been to treat this as a debate of ideas rather than a con job.

And yes, the culture war is a con — one that preys on exhaustion. Since the 2015 “migrant crisis” (over 1.3 million asylum seekers entered Europe) the far right has had a playing field. After years of austerity, pandemic chaos, and cost‑of‑living panic, people are angry and scared. The right gives them villains to blame; the left gives them spreadsheets. You can’t fill a moral vacuum with PowerPoint.

What Europe’s progressives need isn’t another focus group — it’s a backbone. Stop apologising for compassion. Stop equating decorum with substance. Call racism racism. Call war crimes war crimes. And for the love of social democracy, rediscover solidarity. Working people don’t need another lecture about fiscal responsibility; they need someone to say clearly, “you are being conned by people who hate you, or at the very least are indifferent to your suffering.”

Farage will keep laughing, of course. He’s made a career out of pretending he’s not part of the establishment while being on first‑name terms with everyone in it. The culture war is his game, and he’s winning because the left refuses to play anything but defence.

But here’s the thing about defending forever: eventually you forget what you’re defending. Europe’s right wing thrives on nostalgia for a past that never existed. Maybe it’s time the left started offering a future that actually could.

Scotland’s Missed Goals: How Inclusion Could Be Football’s Greatest Win

Inclusion, integrity, progressive. These are the words often used to highlight Scotland’s supposed moral distance from its southern neighbour, a nation priding itself on social conscience, from climate policy to public services. And yet, nowhere is this self-image more clearly contradicted than in Scottish football. 

That this nation, so proud of egalitarian values, has failed so markedly to extend them to its national sport is more than ironic—it’s shameful. The first ethnic minority player to don the Scotland shirt was Andrew Watson in 1881. Over a century later, the list of successors remains painfully short. Che Adams and Nigel Quashie are often named as signs of progress, but neither was born or developed in Scotland. Their inclusion only highlights the problem, Scottish football isn’t producing these players through its own system, and often when there is an example the players are borrowed. 

Consider this: across the top four divisions in Scotland, roughly 1,200 professional footballers are registered. Of those, only seven or eight come from ethnic minority backgrounds—a staggeringly low 0.6%. This figure is wildly out of sync with the demographics of modern Scotland, particularly in urban hubs like Glasgow and Edinburgh. Glasgow’s Pakistani community alone is four times larger than any other in the country. These are multicultural cities. Yet on the pitch, Scottish football remains monolithic. 

The exclusion is not new. Historically, even Catholic players of Irish descent—despite being born and bred in Scotland—were sidelined. When Celtic’s all-Scottish Lisbon Lions won the European Cup in 1967, they earned just 113 international caps between them. Rangers’ Protestant stars from the same era—Greig, Baxter, Jardine—won more combined. Culture, not merit, defined opportunity. 

The present isn’t much better. Denmark, with a similar population and ethnic breakdown, currently boasts nine national players from minority backgrounds. Scotland? Still clinging to tokenism. As Rob Webb described in Holyrood, there’s a “fit in or f*** off” mentality in Scottish football, both at grassroots and in boardrooms. For many young ethnic minority players, the dream of making it feels distant—not due to lack of talent, but lack of belonging. 

That’s where people like Yusuf Bamba step in. As the founder of Scoutable FC, Bamba is doing the work that the SFA should have been doing years ago: creating a platform for talent that’s often overlooked. 

“Scoutable has given a chance to players who’ve been overlooked by the system,” Bamba says. “These are talented young people who don’t always come through the usual routes—maybe because of where they’re from, who they know, or not having the right support system. We’ve created a space where their talent can actually be seen.” 

Through showcase matches and trials, Scoutable has connected these players to real opportunities. But Bamba is under no illusions: grassroots change is not enough. “Real change needs to happen at a higher level, like the SFA or SPFL,” he explains. “In England, platforms like Scoutable get backing from the FA. In Scotland, we keep hearing ‘you’re doing a great job,’ but there’s no real help. Words don’t create change—support does.” 

This lack of institutional buy-in isn’t limited to football’s governing bodies. Bamba recalls his attempts to secure sponsorship and media support with mixed success. “Some sponsors believed in what we were doing and were happy to contribute in the moment,” he says. “But when I pitched longer-term plans, it became more difficult. Even if they loved the idea in principle, they often pulled back with reasons why they couldn’t commit.” 

As for media attention, Bamba acknowledges the exposure but questions the intent. “With the BBC, I felt the interest was driven by finding a story that fit their narrative at the time. I didn’t necessarily get the sense there was a long-term commitment to action.” He singles out broadcaster Jean Johansson as a rare exception—someone who followed up and genuinely tried to help. “Whether it was deeply heard or not, I can’t say,” Bamba adds, “but it hasn’t discouraged me. I’ll keep finding ways to make this issue heard.” 

And the issue is continuously swept under the rug. Kevin Harper, who became the first black player to sign for Hibernian in the ’90s, recalls racial abuse without institutional support. “That was 30 years ago,” he said. “But I don’t think we’ve moved that far forward.” Today, Marvin Bartley stands alone as the only black coach in the Scottish leagues. Meanwhile, two white managers have faced public accusations of racism. The arithmetic speaks volumes. 

Worse still is the silence from those in power. When approached by Holyrood to comment on racism in the game, both the SFA and SPFL refused. The SFA offered a customary equality framework. The SPFL outsourced the inquiry to a PR firm. Neither engaged directly. As Jordan Allison of Show Racism the Red Card put it: “If there are no people of colour at the decision-making table, how can these organisations understand the lived experiences of those they’re excluding?” 

Scotland cannot expect to compete internationally while ignoring the full breadth of its talent. Inclusion isn’t just morally right—it’s strategic. Until football in Scotland looks like Scotland itself, success on the world stage will remain a distant dream. 

Yusuf Bamba and Scoutable FC player speaking to Sky Sports

Barriers, Belief and Belonging: The Mouhamed Niang Story

Mouhamed Niang, better known in Scottish football as Sena, has built a reputation as one of the most quietly resilient figures in the lower leagues. Born in Dakar, Senegal, in 1999 and raised between Manchester and Glasgow, Niang’s story is as much about belonging as it is about football. Over the years he has worn the colours of Rangers at youth level, Partick Thistle, Hartlepool United, Cove Rangers, and now Clyde FC — but the real victories have come off the pitch, in his fight for opportunity and recognition in a system that too often overlooks players like him.

When Sena moved from the streets of Dakar to Manchester aged five, then on to Glasgow, he found more than a new home. He found a love of football — and years of hurdles that would shape him into the player and man he would become.

“I was born in Dakar in 1999... I was a young five-year-old at first when I got to the UK. I was in Manchester from 2004 to 2007 then moved to Glasgow,” he recalls. “Scotland was good from the get-go, there weren’t many Black people back then, but they were good people, you know, everyone was helpful and it definitely made me the man that I am today.”

The move, motivated by his father’s hope for a better life abroad and family in Manchester, offered promise but no guarantees.

“It’s made me realise that there’s people that are going through way worse than you, like you never see people walking barefoot here,” he says, reflecting on the contrast between Senegal and the UK. That perspective would later help him endure one of the toughest tests of his young life, far more complicated than settling into a new culture.

As a near teenager, Niang’s ability caught the attention of Rangers F.C, this was after spending a few years back in Senegal to learn the language and culture. “I trialled with Rangers for two weeks and they wanted to sign me, but I wasn't able to play,” he says. “I got back from Senegal when I was 11 and I didn’t find out till I was 15 what was stopping me from playing.”

The problem wasn’t football — it was paperwork. During his time back in Senegal, a visa overstay had left Niang without the right documentation to play or work in the UK. “When I came back, I just went through hell. I couldn’t do a lot of things. I had to wait until the Home Office got back to me with the permit. It absolutely jeopardised the start of my career.”

For four crucial years, while his peers were developing in academies, Sena was stuck in limbo — considered at that point good enough for the country’s biggest club, but unable to step on the pitch. “Knowing that you’re good enough for a team like Rangers to be interested in you and not signing for them because of things out with your control. It’s really, really, tough.”

He didn’t give up. Playing with Pollok FC in the juniors kept him connected to the game. Then came help from a mentor.

“There was a guy called Bill Resite at Pollock, he’s a big figure in my life. He helped with a lot of things. Writing to the Home Office, everything he could.” Bill’s persistence paid off. In 2018, Niang signed for Partick Thistle, officially beginning his professional career.

Since then, he has been the definition of determination. At Thistle, he helped win Scottish League One in 2020–21, before moving to Hartlepool United in England and later returning north to join Cove Rangers and now Clyde. Each move marked another small triumph over the obstacles that once blocked his way.

“If it wasn’t because of those tough times, I wouldn’t be who I am today,” he says. “One thing is I’ve always remained the same, and because of that I've always felt love and respect regardless.”

But Niang’s journey speaks to a broader issue within Scottish football: the lack of support for immigrant, ethnic minority, and refugee players trying to navigate a system not built for them. Yes, Sena showed an indestructible resolve fighting these injustices, but that isn’t everyone. Not every child in a similar position has the mentality or the environment to support them.

“The governing bodies could have helped me more but that wasn’t the case at the time,” he admits. His experience shows how even the most talented young players can be left behind when bureaucracy and bias collide.

“For a lot of players, it’s very important they get support,” he says. “I’ve got a lot of things in mind to help the next generation stand tall.”

He wants to create pathways for kids who, like him, arrive in Scotland full of talent but unsure where to turn. Something he already has a part in with Scoutable United – a team created to give released academy and ethnic minority players a chance.

His message to them is simple but powerful: “Every kid should be given a fair chance regardless of colour, religion, or the country they’re from. It would have been easy for me to just turn my back and stop, but you will get over it, you just need to be strong mentally and keep going.”

Now 26, Niang has carved out a place for himself in the Scottish game. But his story remains a reminder — to the clubs, the associations, and the government — that talent alone isn’t enough without opportunity.

Because when the ball drops and the whistle blows, it should be talent that decides who gets to play, not paperwork.

Mouhamed “Sena” Niang signing for Partick Thistle - 2018

Five Blunders That Prove “New Labour” Is Just Old Conservatism in a Red Tie

Depending on how you squint, Keir Starmer’s Labour government could be viewed as a “calm” alternative to the chaotic reign of the Conservatives—a so-called return to stability.  

But that’s a dangerously low bar. Because while the Tories broke the country, Labour’s current leadership is, in many ways, refusing to fix it. In fact, they’re actively reinforcing the same systems of cruelty, hierarchy, and deference to capital they once claimed to oppose. 

Here are five of the most damning failures of the Starmer’s administration so far—failures that don’t just mirror Conservative policy, but amplify its worst instincts. 

1. Conditional Promises on Welfare & Workers’ Rights — Vague Reform, Meaningless Waiting 

Labour has repeatedly promised reforms for workers—ending qualifying periods for rights, protecting gig workers, restoring union powers—but always with disclaimers like “when resources allow” or “subject to fiscal constraints.” 

Take the two-child benefit cap: a Conservative-era policy Labour has said it wants to scrap “eventually.” Meanwhile, it remains in place, punishing working-class families and pushing children into poverty. 

Think tanks estimate lifting the cap would cost around £3–4.5 billion per year and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. Yet Labour suspended MPs who voted to scrap it and still refuses to make it a priority. 

What a competent government would do: Repeal the cap immediately as a moral necessity. Fund it through wealth taxes, closing corporate loopholes, and embed child poverty reduction targets into law so governments can't delay or dodge responsibility. 

2. £13.4 Billion for Defence, While Aid & Services Crumble 

Starmer has committed to raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, costing an extra £13.4 billion annually. Even if inflation-adjusted estimates put it closer to £6 billion, that’s still a staggering rise. 

To help fund this, Labour is cutting international aid from 0.5% of Gross National Income to 0.3%. 

Meanwhile: homelessness is rising, mental health services are in crisis, schools are underfunded, and poverty deepens. The promise to reduce child poverty is pushed aside while arms manufacturers profit. 

What a moral government would do: Invest first in public health, housing, education, and mental health. Defence spending should never starve essential services. Aid should grow, not shrink. Foreign policy should prioritise peace, not preparation for war. 

3. Gaza: Silence, Complicity, or Worse 

Labour’s position on Gaza has been indefensible. Even after UN findings claiming Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide, the party has remained largely silent—or worse, complicit. 

Starmer previously defended Israel’s “right” to cut off water and power to Gaza—actions considered collective punishment under international law. Arms export licences to Israel still stand in many cases, despite catastrophic humanitarian consequences. His performative recognition of Palestine as a state doesn’t fool anyone free of the Netanyahu tinted glasses.

What a principled government would do: Suspend all arms exports to Israel immediately. Recognise Palestine fully—not when politically convenient. Fund humanitarian aid and stand firm for international law, even when it challenges allies or threatens donor relationships. 

4. Authoritarian Discipline & Breaking Promises 

Labour has adopted a culture of internal authoritarianism. MPs who voted to scrap the two-child cap had the whip suspended. 

The 2024 manifesto promised an “ambitious strategy to reduce child poverty” and end “mass dependence on food banks.” But keeping policies like the two-child cap and real-terms welfare cuts shreds those promises. 

What a competent and democratic government would do: Embrace internal debate, allow ethical dissent, and uphold its own manifesto. Policy must be shaped with input from communities, unions, and the people affected—not imposed top-down from Headquarters. 

5. Kissing Trump’s Ring & Serving Empire Over People 

Labour’s defence and foreign policies increasingly echo the Conservative obsession with aligning tightly to U.S. geopolitical interests—regardless of moral cost. 

Raising defence spending to meet NATO targets while cutting international aid mirrors exactly the kind of Trump-era militarism that many hoped Labour would reject. 

And yet: homelessness, poverty, mental illness—Labour claims we “can’t afford” to address these properly. But we can afford warships and F-35s? The contradiction is grotesque. 

What a responsible government would do: Build a foreign policy rooted in human rights and diplomacy. Fund domestic crises first—housing, health, education. Say no to U.S.-style militarism and yes to independent, compassionate international leadership. 

The Alternative Is Not More of the Same  

These five failures show Starmer’s government has not so much cleared away Conservative damage as adopted much of its playbook—cutting social supports, deferring reform, pouring money into war and defence, and protecting power from below.  

For those disillusioned, there are alternatives: The Green Party, under its new leader Zack Polanski, promises stronger action on climate, housing justice, wealth redistribution, anti‑imperialist foreign policy, and radical welfare reform.  

“Your party” under Sultana & Corbyn would (in principle) restore universal welfare, oppose arms exports that violate international law, emphasise mental health and housing as moral priorities, and re‑centre democracy both domestically and internationally.  

All this despite the current inner-party conflicts, which yes don't look great optically, but do not define the movements ambition.  

If you believe politics must be more than administration—if you believe it should carry moral weight in every decision—then these alternatives matter. Because the real choice isn’t between “Labour vs Conservative” in name; it’s between those who govern for the rich and powerful, and those who govern for the vulnerable and the many. 

Starmer’s real motivation

Alfie Robinson

Billionaire Media Moguls: How Wealth Controls Truth and Threatens Democracy

Depending upon which side of the political spectrum you are perched, the word “billionaire” can just as easily denote immorality as it can achievement. It can, of course, be perceived as personal success, which by its very definition is what capitalist ideology strives for—albeit at the expense of others. However, with enough discernment, the entire concept can be recognised for what it truly is: the ultimate depiction of economic anarchy, concentration of power, and the erosion of social responsibility in favour of individualism. 

In Albert Einstein's book “Why Socialism” he broaches all these ideas. One term he uses, which seamlessly describes our present political and social climate, is “control of information.” Or, to expound on the phrase—the idea that in a capitalist society (like the one we currently exist within), private capitalists often control the media and education, which limits the ability of individuals to make informed decisions and participate effectively in the political process. Or, to simplify: your bank account determines power, not merit. 

This creates the dangerous possibility that personal agendas might get in the way of the spread of impartial information. Does this sound familiar? Charlatans like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Rupert Murdoch, or even Mark Zuckerberg already have an incredible monopoly on media, funded by a similarly incredible accumulation of money. And they don't exactly hide their political allegiances. They are a true-to-canon, contemporary image of precisely what Einstein discussed over seven decades ago. It’s alarming. 

Twitter CEO Elon Musk is the most forefront example of wealth over merit. His hand isn’t in multiple proverbial cookie jars; rather, it's more like a game of whac-a-mole, where his hand is ruthlessly trying to hit the jackpot all over different sectors of society—just for success to slip away as soon as he arrives. His wealth and subsequent societal perception—as we all allow ourselves to be brainwashed by capitalism and treat billionaires like deities—have allowed him to open doors I imagine even he thought were childproofed. 

DOGE is not just the name of some meme coin that Musk used his massive influence to convince fans to buy so he could sell, run away with the money, and leave the buyers plotless. It is also a satirical reference to the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency,” a laughable but real agency, representing the growing crossover between private influence and public policy. In real terms, Musk has received increasing political influence, especially under politicians like Donald Trump, who have emboldened figures like him under the guise of “efficiency” and “innovation.” 

So, now that his influence and wallet have granted him political visibility in America, let's look at the job he’s done so far—and whether he possesses any political cognisance beyond the far-right, Trumpian talking points he so shamelessly regurgitates. 

He claimed to uncover fraud within the Social Security Department. From the looks of things, he supposedly found tens of millions of 150-year-old dead Americans receiving improper payments. So—job well done, Elon? It would be, if not for the fact that experts speaking to ABC News explained nothing could be further from the truth. He was simply misrepresenting the real numbers. In reality, of the 67 million individuals receiving Social Security, only 0.1% are over 100, and improper payments account for just 1% of all distributed funds. 

Okay, so politics may not be where his talent lies—but surely a businessman of his reputation has taken X (formerly Twitter) to new, soaring heights? Unfortunately, it seems he overpaid for the company, attempted to back out, and was then forced by the sellers to follow through—leaving him with $13 billion in debt from the outset. Not the most fruitful of beginnings, but certainly a platform as widespread as X has the potential to succeed. And with Musk’s business acumen, starting off sub-zero financially should have been just a hiccup. 

Yet once again, the lure of capital gain came before logic. His knee-jerk reaction to cut 75% of X’s staff to address the debt—many of whom handled the platform’s day-to-day maintenance—led to its value plummeting, according to American finance company Fidelity, which owns a stake in X Holdings. It’s evident that neither his political nous nor his business savvy earned him the positions he holds; rather, it is his billionaire status that has afforded him the power to influence both information and policy. 

Dr. Bruce Drushel, professor of media and journalism at Miami University, argues this is symptomatic of a much wider cultural problem. “In the United States, we seem to have confused the accumulation of wealth with merit,” he says. “We’ve reached a point where we assume someone who has amassed billions is smart, capable, and trustworthy—when in fact, that money often buys influence and control, not wisdom.” 

There is also the case of Rupert Murdoch, who owns such a vast disinformation media corpus across the Western world it’s frightening. And that accusation of disinformation is not baseless—Preston Padden, Ken Solomon, and Bill Reyner, three former high-ranking Fox News executives, have all criticised the network. This is extremely dangerous, and it seems, in some ways, the system has won. 

Dominic Ponsford, Editor-in-Chief at Press Gazette, notes that while billionaire-owned media can be damaging, not all billionaire influence is inherently malign. “We have seen a massive shift from traditional media to digital platforms, and that space has been exploited by some for personal gain or political sway,” he said. “But it's important to also ask whether the public service journalism model can survive without patronage—because many advertisers have fled and digital ad revenue has mostly gone to Big Tech.” 

Indeed, while some billionaire owners may support journalistic freedom, the very structure of capitalist media still hinges on the decisions of the few. Drushel notes this contradiction: “Even when billionaire owners claim to champion press freedom, their influence is always latent. Editorial independence becomes something that can be given—and just as easily taken away.” 

This is not a billionaire smear campaign—regardless of whether that is justified. But highlighting their deficiencies illustrates the power of money in this socio-economic system. Social ownership, especially of media enterprises, is a necessity to diminish the power of private capitalists and would allow for more impartial information to be spread to the masses. 

In today’s world, individuals often seek knowledge through more modern means of news, like Musk’s X. Therefore, it is extremely problematic that the owner is someone who has a direct political agenda in relation to Trump—and this has been proven through the copious instances of misinformation on the platform, as well as what’s permitted. Like allowing misinformation maestro Alex Jones to be reinstated or alluding to the Democrats allowing illegal immigrants into the country for votes. Or even removing pro-Palestine supporters due to ‘Hamas affiliation.’ 

It is no surprise then, that within minutes of accessing the app, the pro-Israel stance taken by Trump and Musk is pushed through hasbara and Islamophobic, anti-immigrant content. What does this lack of critical analysis and diminishing reliance on empirical evidence to form opinions mean for journalism? 

Cartoonist Ana Tenales resigned from The Washington Post after her cartoon was rejected due to the critical nature in which it portrayed Washington Post owner, Jeff Bezos (another friend of Trump). Since when did the depth of your pockets, and the breadth and significance of your affiliates, shield you from criticism to this degree? 

There is a real threat that, through the sheer percentage of wealth owned by a few narcissistic egos like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, or Rupert Murdoch, true journalism and the dissemination of real facts backed by evidence could be at its climax—and in some ways, that threat has been realised. 

But the consequences of this reality go far beyond just media bias. “If a billionaire has control over the primary channels through which people get their news, their ability to shape discourse is virtually unchecked,” said Drushel. “It’s not just about shaping narratives—they can decide which stories are told, which aren’t, and how we perceive the world.” 

This power dynamic doesn’t just warp journalism—it warps democracy. A public increasingly dependent on billionaire-owned platforms for news becomes vulnerable to distortion, to curated truths, and to disinformation disguised as dialogue. And while tech billionaires style themselves as visionaries disrupting legacy systems, many of them are, ironically, reinforcing the oldest trick in the book: controlling the story to control the society. 

The answer isn’t simple. Publicly funded journalism, cooperative ownership models, and stronger media literacy education could each play a role in reshaping how information is created, consumed, and contextualised. But without a serious re-evaluation of how much control is too much, especially in media, we risk sleepwalking into an age where objective truth becomes optional, determined not by evidence, but by wealth. 

History offers a cautionary tale: In the early 20th century, media mogul William Randolph Hearst wielded his newspaper empire to whip up public sentiment for war with Spain, exaggerating stories to sell papers and shape policy. This "yellow journalism" not only distorted facts but helped push the United States into the Spanish-American War in 1898. It reminds us that concentrated media power can have dangerous consequences—when ownership dictates what people believe, democracy itself is at risk. 

As Drushel concludes, “In a world where media can be bought, truth becomes a commodity. And once that happens, the integrity of journalism—and the democracy it supports—starts to unravel.”

Cartoon: Donald Trump and Elon Musk enjoying the fruits of appeasing apartheid

Alfie Robinson 

Why is Islamophobia on the rise in the UK?

Islam has always been a misunderstood faith in the UK, and its followers have faced discrimination ever since the first Muslims migrated here 300 years ago from India. Although we like to believe that three decades of progress have helped us move toward understanding and integration, the reality for modern Muslims within the UK remains one of subliminal prejudice, inaccurate preconceptions, and, ultimately, fear. 

This fear is not unfounded. The Home Office reports 3,866 religiously motivated hate crimes against Muslims in the year ending March 2024. This makes up 40% of all hate crimes of this kind, meaning Islam is the most affected religion by a large margin. Government reports on hate crime over the past five years show how disproportionate these crimes are toward the Muslim community. Muslims have topped the list each year, with the percentage steadily increasing. 

Omar Afzal, Outreach and Communities Coordinator for Glasgow Central Mosque, describes the fear: "The fear is heightened, particularly after the riots in England, which vividly show the effects of Islamophobia rising. It shows how quickly Islamophobia can become violent, leaving Muslim communities living in fear. But since 9/11, there’s been a shift in how Islamophobia manifests. Before, someone might have insulted you based on your race, but now it’s more about your Muslimness. An Asian man with a long beard or a woman in a headscarf becomes an easy target. And women tend to be victims more often, probably because they’re more visibly Muslim." 

The rise of Islamophobia after the 9/11 attacks didn’t happen in isolation. Western media, particularly networks like NBC and ABC, played a significant role in shaping public perception of Islam. Kimberly A. Powell, in Communication Studies, explains how these outlets, along with powerful governmental figures, framed the attacks as a war on America by Islam, presenting it as an existential threat. This portrayal linked an extreme act of terrorism to an entire religion, further solidifying the stereotype of Islam as a religion of terror.  

The media’s biased use of the term “terrorism” also plays a role. When was the last time we heard the term used for a white American school shooter or someone like Greg McMichael, who killed a Black jogger in 2020? The term seems to apply only to attacks by non-white, Muslim individuals, while white perpetrators are often portrayed as troubled or mentally ill and attributed reason, highlighting a stark double standard. 

Fast forward to today, and these framing methods persist. Charity Tell Mama documented a sharp rise in Islamophobia in the UK in the four months following the Hamas-led October 7th attack. This uptick coincided with coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, a connection hard to overlook, especially when considering the portrayals in British outlets like the BBC. 

One such example involved Maccabi Tel Aviv fans travelling to Amsterdam for a football match. They ripped down Palestine flags, attacked locals, and spread anti-Islam hate. Yet, the BBC downplayed the incident, describing it as "Youths on scooters attack Tel Aviv fans" and emphasizing the need to combat anti-Semitism. This characterization, avoids acknowledging the full scale of Islamophobic behaviour present in such actions, underscoring how media framing can serve political or ideological goals. 

Professor Tahir Abbas, a scholar on radicalization and Islamophobia at Leiden University, argues that Western media plays a significant role in shaping public discourse surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict. He explains that "media coverage often perpetuates orientalist paradigms and colonial power relations" through selective framing of events. These biases are not just isolated to news reporting but reflect deeper institutional practices that stem from historical power dynamics, colonial legacies, and political-economic interests. 

Abbas emphasizes that these biases aren’t simply the result of poor journalistic standards. They are embedded in the very structures of media institutions. "The concentration of media ownership and control," he notes, "reinforces dominant cultural narratives and systematically excludes diverse voices from decision-making positions." This leads to a self-reinforcing cycle where biased reporting continues to perpetuate prejudice, making it harder to challenge existing power structures that disadvantage Muslim communities. 

So, what can be done to shift the narrative and reduce Islamophobia in the UK? 

For Abbas, addressing the issue requires a comprehensive approach: "It’s about structural interventions at multiple levels. This includes robust hate crime legislation, media reform, and better diversity in public institutions. At the individual and community level, we need critical media literacy, inter-community dialogue, and support for grassroots Muslim organizations." 

Omar Afzal adds that meaningful change also requires a legislative shift. "The government needs to improve reporting on how Islamophobia manifests in different sectors, and they need to adopt a formal definition of Islamophobia. Without acknowledging that a problem exists, you can't begin to strategize a solution." Afzal also points out that education plays a crucial role in challenging the narrative around Muslims in the UK. "We need to teach the true history of Muslims in this country—their contributions to science, medicine, and technology—and provide a counter-narrative to both the media and the far-right." 

Afzal further emphasizes the importance of allyship in fighting Islamophobia: "As individuals, we need to call out hate crimes, support victims, and report incidents to the authorities. It’s also important to take the time to learn about the religion itself." 

Media coverage will always influence public opinion, that much is clear, and the biases present in that coverage seep into broader societal dialogues. It’s crucial, therefore, that facts take precedence over feelings when it comes to representing Islam and Muslims. As Afzal concludes, "To create a fairer and less discriminatory environment, we must confront Islamophobia head-on and challenge the narratives that sustain it." 

Anti-immigrant demonstration in England

Alfie Robinson

Blog Post Title Four

It all begins with an idea. Maybe you want to launch a business. Maybe you want to turn a hobby into something more. Or maybe you have a creative project to share with the world. Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

Don’t worry about sounding professional. Sound like you. There are over 1.5 billion websites out there, but your story is what’s going to separate this one from the rest. If you read the words back and don’t hear your own voice in your head, that’s a good sign you still have more work to do.

Be clear, be confident and don’t overthink it. The beauty of your story is that it’s going to continue to evolve and your site can evolve with it. Your goal should be to make it feel right for right now. Later will take care of itself. It always does.