In the West, the representation of the Arab is done in such a way that the casual viewer is unaware of any manipulation or construction on behalf of the creators of this skewed representation, which on the surface seems ‘natural’ and part of ‘common sense’. Furthermore, the casual viewer is also largely unaware of the social context and also the internalized notions of the Arab world that the creator and the viewer alike hold without contestation due to their own misinformation that is directly attributed to the political aspirations of the West, whether it is America today or the colonialist powers before them. “Independence of the press is an admirable thing, whether in practice or in theory; but nearly every American journalist reports the world with a subliminal consciousness that his or her corporation is a participator in the American power which, when it is threatened by foreign countries, makes press independence subordinate to what are often only implicit expressions of loyalty and patriotism, of simple national identification” (Said, 1981, p. 47). Western Media, whether it is books, television, or cinema have consistently and uniformly defined the Arabs as a homogenized group, who all innately share the same characteristics, paying no attention to socio-political, cultural, ethnic, and religious differences amongst them.

The primary indicator of one’s ‘Arabness’ is Islam. The fact that not all Arabs are Muslim is not of any concern to the media powers, and this is why this paper will discuss representations of Arabs/Islam in the context of Western media. More precisely, this article will look at TIME magazine covers that ‘represent’ Arabs. The main argument is that even though the socio-political context changes over time, the representation of the Arab in the West remains static, regardless of the political climate of the time where it was produced. This is why, for the context of this article only; the political climate that surrounded all of these covers will not be discussed in detail. This is done mainly to prove that Arabs in TIME magazine have always been and remain to be the anti-thesis of everything American and what it supposedly stands for; democracy, human rights, and freedom.

Before tackling the issue of TIME magazine, a word must be said about journalism as a whole, whether it is found in the West or anywhere else around the world. “Like other forms of content, news is produced… news production is a form of storytelling…News reports, while based on actual events and real people, never simply ‘mirror’ reality, as some journalists would contend” (Gasher & Lorimer, 2001, p. 234). Therefore, when one takes into account the true characteristics of journalism as it relates to ‘news’, a better understanding will appear with regards to possible ‘misrepresentation’ and ‘misinformation’ that might and do arise in numerous media outlets often described as ‘new gatherers’.

In the December 2003 issue of TIME, the cover shows a picture of an ‘Arab’ insurgence fighter in Iraq (Plate 1: A). This is part of a story by TIME in an effort to better understand and explain the military situation in Iraq. What is important in this image is that although the face of the person is directly covered, he is unmistakably an Arab. This is because he is wearing traditional Arab headwear over his face, similar to the one worn and widely seen on the faces of Palestinians during the Intifada. The man clutches an old rusty and dirty bazooka that matches his own dirty hands and fingernails. The caption reads “The Hidden Enemy”. What this image holds in common with all the images of Arabs found in TIME magazine is that they are all threatening males. “Thus if the Arab occupies space enough for attention, it is as a negative value… The Arab is associated either with lechery or bloodthirsty dishonesty… he appears to be… essentially sadistic, treacherous, low” (Said, 1994. p. 287). Another TIME cover (Plate 1:B) stays with the same theme while it shows a close up of an Arab man, with his mouth wide open, while he shouts. He too is wearing the same Arab headgear, and he too is angry. The close up reveals his sweat beads as he appears to be whipped into a frenzy of anti-Americanism. This is consistent to all the previous representations of Arabs found in nearly all Western media. “ A picture of crowds chanting, “God is Great”, with what he supposed was the crowd’s true intention: “hatred of America”” (Said, 1981, p. 78). This image evokes the idea of the West-hating Arab shouting, “Allah is Great” and this is furthered with the caption that reads: “Facing the Fury”.

What is important about these two images is not only their outcome, but also their construction. Firstly the pose itself of the person being photographed is critical to the overall meaning of the image because this pose directs the viewer to make meaning of the image from an already existing library of possible meanings (in relation to the pose) found in society. “The photograph clearly only signifies because of the existence of a store of stereotyped attitudes which form ready-made elements of signification (eyes raised heavenward, hands clasped). A “historical grammar” of iconographic connotation ought thus to look for its material in painting, theatre, associations of ideas, stock metaphors, etc.” (Barthes, 1982, p. 201). The pose, therefore of the Arabs in these images defines the preferred, overall meaning. Thus the pose of a stern-looking man, facing the camera with a menacing, defiant, and hateful look has many implications with regards with the way that the image will be understood.

Another important factor that defines the overall meanings of the images with regards to their construction is the objects placed next to the people photographed. “Special importance must be accorded to what could be called the posing of objects, where the meaning comes from the objects photographed (either because these objects have, if the photographer had the time, been artificially arranged in front of the camera or because the person responsible for the layout chooses a photograph of this or that object” (Barthes, 1982, p. 201). For example, in the same way that by placing a book beside a person connotes intellectualism, then placing a gun would connote violence and death. This is why all the pictures have objects that connote the common theme of violence and militancy among Arabs. For example, a 1956 cover of TIME contains an image of Jordan’s King Hussein (Plate 2: C). The objects found in this image as well as most of the other images are Arabic head wraps, camels and rifles. Another cover finds Egypt’s former president Nasser (Plate 2:D) in front of an image of pharaohs holding rifles and a Molotov cocktail. Another common theme is oil pumps, specifically when dealing the Gulf States (Plate 3: E & F) “… The Arab appeared everywhere as something more menacing. Cartoons depicting an Arab sheik standing behind a gasoline pump turned up consistently…the Arab is an oil supplier…No individuality, no personal characteristics or experiences. Most of the pictures represent rage and misery…Lurking behind all these images is the menace of Jihad. Consequence: a fear of Muslims (or Arabs) will take over the world” (Said, 1994, p. 287).

While all humans do indeed possess individuality, this trait is not used when describing Arabs. Pluralism and distinctiveness are simply not mentioned when representing Arabs; they are all militant, threatening, Muslim men. This is due to the act of framing. “Framing essentially involves selection and salience. To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described…Frames, then, define problems…makes moral judgements…and suggests remedies” (Entman, 1993, p. 52). In this sense, the problem defined vis a vis the west and its interests is Arab/Islamic militancy. The judgement is that Islamic militancy is immoral and unjust and the solution is that it should be stopped immediately. Never mind the fact that Arabs can be Christian, divorced, capitalists, lovers, fathers, daughters, sons, uncles, etc. The fact that as human beings Arabs share some of the same universal and fundamental characteristics as any westerner is not even mentioned in modern day representations. The whole Arab nation is defined as being just that, a large group of homogenized people who all innately share the same characteristics, beliefs, culture (or lack thereof), and language that in itself is antagonistic to the west.

For example, one common misconception for Arabs is that they are all anti-Semitic and vehemently oppose the existence of Israel. An example of such thought is the TIME cover for December 1968 that shows Yasser Arafat (Plate 4: G), in front of a militant who holds a rifle. While Arafat is indeed known as a resistance fighter, this image is problematic because it defines a whole population by using Arafat as a point of reference. In other words, Arafat is put in a position where he starts to represent all Arabs. He is covering his eyes with dark sunglasses, which connotes an air of mysteriousness and strips him of his distinctiveness as a human. It is said that the eyes are the windows to one’s soul, and by blocking these windows (by covering his eyes) TIME has de-valued him as an individual. He becomes one of the many Arab resistance fighters whose sole purpose in life is to antagonize Israel. “The Arab mind, depraved, anti-Semetic to the core, violent, unbalanced” (Said, 1994, p. 307). Another TIME cover (Plate 4: H) is that of the ‘Arab Guerrillas’ where yet another Arab, face covered with traditional headgear, holds a rifle. This image is transposed on top of random Arabic letters.

What is common about all these covers is the importance and attention paid to the words used alongside the images. “Far below the surface…the communication modalities of words and imagery rub up against each other. Their function is to constrain the range of possible meanings that might be found in the pictorial matter and to facilitate the transfer of meanings…” (Jib, 1996, p. 83). The image of Arafat is accompanied by the words “The Arab commandos, defiant new force in the Middle East”, this adheres perfectly with the dominant thought regarding Arabs and the threat they carry with them. In other words, every word or image will have a preferred meaning when placed within a specific context. “Codes of this order clearly contract relations for the sign with the wider universe of ideologies in a society. These codes are means by which power and ideology are made to signify in particular discourses. They refer signs to the ‘maps of meaning’ into which any culture is classified; and those ‘maps of meaning’ have the whole range of social meanings, practices, and usages, power and interest written into them” (Hall, 1980, p. 134). In other words, the vocabulary used with each image creates a set of meanings simply because of the context of they are found in. Thus words like ‘commandos’, ‘defiant new force’, and ‘Arab Guerrillas’ all contain a preferred meaning that is encoded into them and that are consequently decoded by the audience by using the societal tools at their disposal, which include the cultural framework that the words themselves are found in. Simply put, context provides a singular, preferred meaning by eliminating polysemy. “Usually, the captions of news photographs reinforce their ideological messages. However, in order to work the illustration has to manifest established and widely-accepted cognitive themes” (Karim, 2001, p. 69). When TIME asks the following: “The Gulf, will it explode?” beside a picture of dynamite sticks (Plate 5: J), or when they say “Islam: The militant revival” beside an image of a mosque (Plate 5: I), then a dominant but problematic and racist depiction of Arabs and Islam becomes the focal point in which the West will use to describe this part of the world. The problem here is that this has been existing for years, since colonialism, and orientalist views of the Middle East still unfortunately define it as being a reality, and it is precisely when this ‘reality’ becomes accepted as part of ‘common sense’ that it becomes part of the dominant hegemonic order, and is thus becomes ‘natural’.

The covers of TIME magazine all present a uniform view of Arabs that uphold the orientalist tradition. While political context clearly affects the way in which Arabs are defined in Western media (i.e. OPEC, Palestine-Israel, etc.) each political struggle becomes part of a larger but problematic description of what an Arab is. Encoding certain messages into the artwork and captions of the cover pages creates this overall description of the Middle East and the cultural context in which its decoded further ensures that the preferred meaning is drawn. Each colour, pose, image, and word affect the overall meaning and this is exactly why they are chosen carefully. This is also why the Ayatollah Khomeini (Plate 6: K) is drawn with such evil characteristics reminiscent of comic book villains (i.e. evil attributes such as yellowish/reddish eyes). The problem here is that people like the Ayatollah Khomeini don’t represent Islam, and nor do the images and words used in the covers of TIME magazine.

Barthes, R.  (1982). The Photographic Message. New York: Hill & Wang.
Entman, R. (1993). “Framing: Towards Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm” Journal of communication, 43:3.
Hall, S.       (1980). Enc+oding, Decoding in Culture, Media, Language. London: Hutchisson.
Jib, F.         (1996). The Dynamics of Advertising. Foundations of Popular Culture. California: Sage.
Karim, H.    (2001). Orientalist Imageries in Islamic Peril. (Montreal: Black Rose Books).
Lorimer, R. (2001). Mass Communication in Canada. Canada: Oxford University Press.
Said, E. W. (1981). Covering Islam. New York: Pantheon Books.
Said, E. W. (1994). Orientalism. New York: vintage Books.