ChatterBank2 mins ago
Should Ch4 Have Used This Woman In A Hijab
to front the news of the Nice massacre?
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by trt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Naomi - //I haven’t questioned her religion. I know what her religion is. I’d guess it from her name, and as you rightly say, confirm it from her mode of attire – which incidentally, even though most don’t recognise it, is an insult to every respectable man on the planet. But that aside, my point is that I don’t believe the editorial team at Channel 4 overlooked the possibility that some people may have found this insensitive. Nevertheless, they opted to go for the ‘damage limitation’ angle regardless of the upset that may cause. I hadn’t read the piece in the newspaper before today, but I watch Channel 4 news regularly, I’ve seen this lady before, I saw the original broadcast, and I thought at the time that the decision to ask her to present this item was in poor taste. //
Thank you for your response.
I think we are simply going to have to agree to differ on this one.
You see 'poor taste' and possibly a PC approach to news presentation, I see nothing of the kind.
I would however repeat my point - that this issue has only been raised because a professional right-wing agitator used his national newspaper platform to create an issue which most people would not even have considered - and further, that said newspaper has withdrawn his tweet, and distanced itself from his position.
If The Sun was sure that Mr McKenzie was correct in his racial agitating, it would have defended him to the hilt - not cut and run, leaving him looking like a lone voice barking at the moon alone.
Our views are not going to meet in the middle, so let's move on to the next debate shall we?
Thank you for your response.
I think we are simply going to have to agree to differ on this one.
You see 'poor taste' and possibly a PC approach to news presentation, I see nothing of the kind.
I would however repeat my point - that this issue has only been raised because a professional right-wing agitator used his national newspaper platform to create an issue which most people would not even have considered - and further, that said newspaper has withdrawn his tweet, and distanced itself from his position.
If The Sun was sure that Mr McKenzie was correct in his racial agitating, it would have defended him to the hilt - not cut and run, leaving him looking like a lone voice barking at the moon alone.
Our views are not going to meet in the middle, so let's move on to the next debate shall we?
We all know there have been a fair few Muslim atrocities. Fatima Manji hasn't presented any of them except this one. Further evidence that it was simply her shift.
When she turned up to do her shift, to not allow her to do so would be racist. She may as well not have been employed to do the job at all, if there were certain stories she was not going to be allowed to present.
Of course, not allowing her to do her shift would not even enter the heads of her bosses because they run a proper news programme, not write for a piece of excrement like The Sun.
When she turned up to do her shift, to not allow her to do so would be racist. She may as well not have been employed to do the job at all, if there were certain stories she was not going to be allowed to present.
Of course, not allowing her to do her shift would not even enter the heads of her bosses because they run a proper news programme, not write for a piece of excrement like The Sun.
Old_Geezer - //No one should care if the news channel thought it appropriate to have a Muslim woman reporting on Muslim related news, and even less if it was just her turn to present when it occurred. //
I suggest that no-one did - until Mr McKenzie saw an opportunity to grandstand - as he does for a living.
It harks back to the time when Ross and Brand were caught up in the 'answerphone' situation - almost no-one noticed what had happened (not too many people find two drunken men looning about in a radio studio to be entertainment) until the media jumped on it.
I am very much in favour of the media reporting the news - that is its raison d'etre, but when people like Kelvin McKenzie are given a platform to create news - especially morally suspect tat like this - then that is an issue we should keep a sharp eye on.
I suggest that no-one did - until Mr McKenzie saw an opportunity to grandstand - as he does for a living.
It harks back to the time when Ross and Brand were caught up in the 'answerphone' situation - almost no-one noticed what had happened (not too many people find two drunken men looning about in a radio studio to be entertainment) until the media jumped on it.
I am very much in favour of the media reporting the news - that is its raison d'etre, but when people like Kelvin McKenzie are given a platform to create news - especially morally suspect tat like this - then that is an issue we should keep a sharp eye on.
Prudie - //I haven't seen anyone outraged or shocked. I maintain it was insensitive however. //
I am genuinely not trying to be provocative here, but I completely fail to understand what can be seen as 'insensitive' about a Muslim woman presenting a news item about a Muslim terrorist incident - what do you see as an issue?
I am genuinely not trying to be provocative here, but I completely fail to understand what can be seen as 'insensitive' about a Muslim woman presenting a news item about a Muslim terrorist incident - what do you see as an issue?
FF...I have no idea what viewing figures CH4 News has....about the same as most other news programs I suppose. Not huge I expect.
But you are right about you second point ( 10:01)....there are a minority of people on AB, that welcome the chance to offended by anything Muslim, as can be seen from the various comments on this thread.
But you are right about you second point ( 10:01)....there are a minority of people on AB, that welcome the chance to offended by anything Muslim, as can be seen from the various comments on this thread.
mikey4444
But you are right about you second point ( 10:01)....there are a minority of people on AB, that welcome the chance to offended by anything Muslim, as can be seen from the various comments on this thread.
And there are others who never seem to get offended by any atrocity carried out by a Muslim.
But you are right about you second point ( 10:01)....there are a minority of people on AB, that welcome the chance to offended by anything Muslim, as can be seen from the various comments on this thread.
And there are others who never seem to get offended by any atrocity carried out by a Muslim.
Talbot - //And there are others who never seem to get offended by any atrocity carried out by a Muslim. //
I think being offended by any atrocity carried out by anyone anywhere is something akin to gravity working / the sun rising / the earth orbiting / breathing on and out ...
In other words, it is so obvious and understood that it requires no comment at all.
Absence of condemnation of something does not equate to tacit approval.
I think being offended by any atrocity carried out by anyone anywhere is something akin to gravity working / the sun rising / the earth orbiting / breathing on and out ...
In other words, it is so obvious and understood that it requires no comment at all.
Absence of condemnation of something does not equate to tacit approval.
Talbot...I am highly offended by the atrocity in Nice, as I am with all such atrocities. Name a single AB member who isn't ?
But this isn't about Nice...its about CH4's use of one of its staff to front part of the news coverage. The vast majority of us on this thread agree that its entirely immaterial what religion anyone is, when it comes to working for CH4.
You are, of course, entitled to be offended if you so wish, but beware of being used by the intelligentsia that work for The Sun.
But this isn't about Nice...its about CH4's use of one of its staff to front part of the news coverage. The vast majority of us on this thread agree that its entirely immaterial what religion anyone is, when it comes to working for CH4.
You are, of course, entitled to be offended if you so wish, but beware of being used by the intelligentsia that work for The Sun.
Latest Posts
Developing Fast': Britain Facing...
News3 mins ago
Jobs & Education4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Food & Drink26 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.