Extracts from the Centre of Meda Monitoring’s report, State of British Media 2025, Reporting on Muslims and Islam,
| “The data reveals not isolated incidents of poor journalism, but structural patterns of bias embedded across British media, with profound implications for social cohesion, public perception, and the lived experiences of Muslim communities in the UK [. . .].” |
Selected examples from the report
| Donald Trump’s claim at the UN that London is “wanting to go to Sharia Law” Right-wing media outlets amplified Donald Trump’s false claim that London is governed by “Sharia law.” Although The Telegraph initially labelled the claim as false, it simultaneously ran coverage referring to so-called “Sharia courts” thereby generating confusion and indirectly reinforcing the broader narrative. |
Teacher who targeted Muslim Children
[. . .] pupils who used the school bathrooms to perform ablution before prayer were told by their teacher that the school was not a religious institution and that they could attend an Islamic school a mile away if they preferred. He also stated that “Britain is still a Christian state” and noted that the King is the head of the Church of England. The story was reported by GB News, The Daily Mail, and The Telegraph. Rather than focusing on the rights and welfare of the children involved, the reporting reframed racist abuse as a matter of free speech and personal grievance, positioning the teacher as the primary victim.
“The Truth About Halal Slaughterhouses”
The Telegraph published an article titled “The Truth About Halal Slaughterhouses” which claimed that abattoirs performing halal slaughter particularly those that do not stun animals before killing were much more likely to have poor hygiene and animal welfare records compared with other slaughterhouses. The article reported an analysis of Food Standards Agency (FSA) inspection data suggesting that a significantly higher proportion of non-stun facilities received lower ratings for hygiene and welfare than conventional slaughterhouses. The coverage was problematic for several reasons. The article failed to explain that Food Standards Agency (FSA) inspection grades cover a wide range of factors (including hygiene systems, packaging, and procedural controls) and that lower audit scores do not necessarily indicate breaches of animal welfare law, a distinction made in the FSA’s own data. It also omitted important context about pre-stunning practices: surveys conducted in 2024 showed that around 88% of halal chicken meat in England and Wales was prestunned before slaughter.
Coverage of Bondi Beach attacks
The media coverage following the Bondi Beach attack in Sydney in December 2025 demonstrates a troubling pattern of reporting that exploits a tragic incident involving Jewish victims to advance a broader anti-Muslim narrative while simultaneously delegitimising protests against military actions in Gaza [ . . ] The Daily Express exemplifies this problematic approach by suggesting pro-Palestine demonstrations in London are “directly linked” to the Bondi attack, describing protests as a “sinister cloak for antisemitism” that emboldens “racist murders” and “terrorists.”
| “Across the reporting period, 70% (28,455 articles) were assessed as affirmatively highlighting negative aspects of Islam or Muslims, making this one of the most prevalent patterns identified in the dataset. At face value, this figure suggests a dominant tendency within media coverage to frame Islam and Muslim communities through a negative lens, often in connection with social problems, security concerns, or cultural conflict.” |
To download the report,click here.