Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Kelvin Mackenzie Is Thinking About Lodging An Official Complain About Fatima Manji's Hajib
From his column in The Sun (the link at the bottom is to the Independent, because the Sun is behind a paywall):
I will be looking at making a formal complaint to Ofcom under the section of the broadcasting code which deals with impartiality.
Since the question of religious motivation was central to the coverage of the Nice attack, I would ask whether it is appropriate for a newsreader to wear religious attire that could undermine the viewer's perception of impartiality
http://
Do you think he has a point?
I will be looking at making a formal complaint to Ofcom under the section of the broadcasting code which deals with impartiality.
Since the question of religious motivation was central to the coverage of the Nice attack, I would ask whether it is appropriate for a newsreader to wear religious attire that could undermine the viewer's perception of impartiality
http://
Do you think he has a point?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. 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
Thank you. So, out of dozens of ABers who are constantly expresssing opinions of it, only 4 have read it *and* admitted they have. (I'm among the guilty who have not even turned a page yet).
Retrochic specifically accused you of relying on google translate. I've already pointed out its shortcomings, so we take her point about the internet not being the right research tool but you easily trump that attempted undermine with "three copies". I hope she takes that in board.
Now that we've analysed "religious attire" to death, perhaps we should dissect the word "impartial".
How would a reporter of Arabic descent script and/or present this piece of news in a partial manner?
If we can pin that down we can compare with her actual report. Did she write the script? (I realise accusing a presenter of being a "weathergirl" is a low blow but the idea is to kick that into touch, using facts).
Thank you. So, out of dozens of ABers who are constantly expresssing opinions of it, only 4 have read it *and* admitted they have. (I'm among the guilty who have not even turned a page yet).
Retrochic specifically accused you of relying on google translate. I've already pointed out its shortcomings, so we take her point about the internet not being the right research tool but you easily trump that attempted undermine with "three copies". I hope she takes that in board.
Now that we've analysed "religious attire" to death, perhaps we should dissect the word "impartial".
How would a reporter of Arabic descent script and/or present this piece of news in a partial manner?
If we can pin that down we can compare with her actual report. Did she write the script? (I realise accusing a presenter of being a "weathergirl" is a low blow but the idea is to kick that into touch, using facts).
ladybirder - //Trevor Mc doesn't have a choice about being black. //
That is true, but that's not the point.
The issue is the perception of impartiality on the part of the newsreader.
From that standpoint, the comparison is logical - if a Muslim newsreader is potentially compromising her impartiality, and should be replaced for the reading of that item, as Mr MacKenzie opines, then a black newsreader must be equally susceptible to the same absence of impartiality for exactly the same reason.
It is the concept of impartiality that makes Mr MacKenzie's point so ludicrous - as I have said, all newsreaders must have their own opinions on what they read - but we never know what they are, and they are certainly not flagged up by a consistent on-going dress choice.
That is true, but that's not the point.
The issue is the perception of impartiality on the part of the newsreader.
From that standpoint, the comparison is logical - if a Muslim newsreader is potentially compromising her impartiality, and should be replaced for the reading of that item, as Mr MacKenzie opines, then a black newsreader must be equally susceptible to the same absence of impartiality for exactly the same reason.
It is the concept of impartiality that makes Mr MacKenzie's point so ludicrous - as I have said, all newsreaders must have their own opinions on what they read - but we never know what they are, and they are certainly not flagged up by a consistent on-going dress choice.
andy; //Why would a newsreader's attire 'undermine the viewer's perception of impartiality'?//
The Trevor Mc Donald argument is nonsense. This woman's ethnic origin is obvious, she has racial origins in the Indian subcontinent, (as Mc Donald's are in Africa). But she could be Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Jain, Buddhist or more. The moment she appears wearing a hijab it is a clear declaration that she is a Muslim, and furthermore, one who wants to demonstrate the fact, because there is no mention in the Koran of either the word 'hair' or 'head' to be covered.
The hijab is a cultural convention which has been grafted onto Islam.
The Trevor Mc Donald argument is nonsense. This woman's ethnic origin is obvious, she has racial origins in the Indian subcontinent, (as Mc Donald's are in Africa). But she could be Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Jain, Buddhist or more. The moment she appears wearing a hijab it is a clear declaration that she is a Muslim, and furthermore, one who wants to demonstrate the fact, because there is no mention in the Koran of either the word 'hair' or 'head' to be covered.
The hijab is a cultural convention which has been grafted onto Islam.
Khandro - // This woman's ethnic origin is obvious, she has racial origins in the Indian subcontinent, (as Mc Donald's are in Africa). But she could be Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Jain, Buddhist or more. The moment she appears wearing a hijab it is a clear declaration that she is a Muslim, and furthermore, one who wants to demonstrate the fact, because there is no mention in the Koran of either the word 'hair' or 'head' to be covered. //
I know I am banging on about this, but the essential point is important, because the thread keeps swerving away from it -
The issue at the heart of Mr MacKenzie's complaint is that he perceives (and it is a moot point whether any viewer would make his highly stylised connections) a sense of bias based on the newsreader's attire when reading the news.
Now had Ms Manji been appearing every time on the news wearing western clothes, and then, on this particular evening, appear in a Hajib, then he would certainly have a point to raise with regards to potential unspoken impartiality.
But she didn't! She has dressed this way throughout her time presenting the news, so there can be no accusation of impartiality on her part.
So her ethnicity is irrelavent - as is her mode of dress - because her mode of dress is consistent, and only in Mr MacKenzie;s fertile imagination is the notion that some 'sensitivity'' (I can't type that word without laughing!) should have been shown.
Oh, and if you want to pin down the lady's ethnicity, although I have no idea of its relevance - she could equally have racial origins in the African subcontinent, it's impossible to tell, but since it doesn't matter, it's really not worth pondering, is it.
I know I am banging on about this, but the essential point is important, because the thread keeps swerving away from it -
The issue at the heart of Mr MacKenzie's complaint is that he perceives (and it is a moot point whether any viewer would make his highly stylised connections) a sense of bias based on the newsreader's attire when reading the news.
Now had Ms Manji been appearing every time on the news wearing western clothes, and then, on this particular evening, appear in a Hajib, then he would certainly have a point to raise with regards to potential unspoken impartiality.
But she didn't! She has dressed this way throughout her time presenting the news, so there can be no accusation of impartiality on her part.
So her ethnicity is irrelavent - as is her mode of dress - because her mode of dress is consistent, and only in Mr MacKenzie;s fertile imagination is the notion that some 'sensitivity'' (I can't type that word without laughing!) should have been shown.
Oh, and if you want to pin down the lady's ethnicity, although I have no idea of its relevance - she could equally have racial origins in the African subcontinent, it's impossible to tell, but since it doesn't matter, it's really not worth pondering, is it.
Hypognosis - //@andy_huges
So is it hijab or //Hajib// (your 09:49 and earlier posts in this thread)?
//accusation of impartiality //
Impartiality is the good behaviour we expect of news providers. You meant the other one.
I asked what partiality would have looked like but no takers, yet.
You are quite right, I did mean 'partiality'.
I don't think impartiality from news readers is 'good behaviour' - I see it rather more as a prerequisite of performing the task itself.
So, in the same way I would not expect the journalist in question to suddenly start wearing a Hijab (I slavishly followed the OP spelling, not always a good idea!) - I would equally not expect her to suddenly stop wearing one.
That - contrary to what Khandro appears to think - is the centre of the debate.
So is it hijab or //Hajib// (your 09:49 and earlier posts in this thread)?
//accusation of impartiality //
Impartiality is the good behaviour we expect of news providers. You meant the other one.
I asked what partiality would have looked like but no takers, yet.
You are quite right, I did mean 'partiality'.
I don't think impartiality from news readers is 'good behaviour' - I see it rather more as a prerequisite of performing the task itself.
So, in the same way I would not expect the journalist in question to suddenly start wearing a Hijab (I slavishly followed the OP spelling, not always a good idea!) - I would equally not expect her to suddenly stop wearing one.
That - contrary to what Khandro appears to think - is the centre of the debate.
Ladybirder, you didn’t dream it.
Hypognosis, I set little store by the opinions of people who claim insight into Islam simply because they have few Muslim mates or, in one instance, know a barber who happens to be Muslim.
With regard to translations of the Koran, Arabic is a complex language and therefore various interpretations differ slightly. However, the fundamental tenets of the religion remain the same the world over. When one considers that the majority of Muslims do not speak Arabic, it follows that they, like we non-Muslims, rely upon translations. (Incidentally, whatever Muslims tell you, or may want to believe themselves, the original version of the Koran no longer exists. Like the New Testament, what is left of it has been heavily edited to suit the purpose).
//How would a reporter of Arabic descent script and/or present this piece of news in a partial manner?//
This isn’t a question of the reporter’s impartiality or otherwise, or of how she verbally presented the news, but of the image she portrayed when reporting the latest in an increasingly long list of atrocities committed in the name of Islam. She presented herself, visually, as a follower of Islam – and that is what was considered to be insensitive and, in my opinion, decidedly ill-judged. Her skin colour and ethnicity are irrelevant. The visual image she presented on that occasion isn’t.
Hypognosis, I set little store by the opinions of people who claim insight into Islam simply because they have few Muslim mates or, in one instance, know a barber who happens to be Muslim.
With regard to translations of the Koran, Arabic is a complex language and therefore various interpretations differ slightly. However, the fundamental tenets of the religion remain the same the world over. When one considers that the majority of Muslims do not speak Arabic, it follows that they, like we non-Muslims, rely upon translations. (Incidentally, whatever Muslims tell you, or may want to believe themselves, the original version of the Koran no longer exists. Like the New Testament, what is left of it has been heavily edited to suit the purpose).
//How would a reporter of Arabic descent script and/or present this piece of news in a partial manner?//
This isn’t a question of the reporter’s impartiality or otherwise, or of how she verbally presented the news, but of the image she portrayed when reporting the latest in an increasingly long list of atrocities committed in the name of Islam. She presented herself, visually, as a follower of Islam – and that is what was considered to be insensitive and, in my opinion, decidedly ill-judged. Her skin colour and ethnicity are irrelevant. The visual image she presented on that occasion isn’t.
@andy
You're right, I could edit out the word 'good' without losing my intended meaning: - "…the behaviour we expect…".
I think I was subconsciously contrasting it with certain other journalistic outlets which, not content with relating facts alone - "migrants are coming here" - insist this is far too dull and cannot report anything without projecting it into the future - "migrants are coming here, which means that…", which is vital fuel for a dozen or so regular AB contributors.
As for partiality and insensitivity, that would entail triumphalism, would it not?
Just my opinion, I guess. Others seem to be insisting that conspicuousness of Muslim garb = national flag around neck or the presenter's entire being is there to signify that this is a "nothing to do with {ordinary} Islam" attack and that signifying aspect is what they deem insensitive.
Incidentally, someone on the 27-pager said the appearance in question was on a Friday. Is that correct? Talk of rosters?
Does C4 pay double time for Sundays and do Muslim staff get their double rate
for working on the Friday?
You're right, I could edit out the word 'good' without losing my intended meaning: - "…the behaviour we expect…".
I think I was subconsciously contrasting it with certain other journalistic outlets which, not content with relating facts alone - "migrants are coming here" - insist this is far too dull and cannot report anything without projecting it into the future - "migrants are coming here, which means that…", which is vital fuel for a dozen or so regular AB contributors.
As for partiality and insensitivity, that would entail triumphalism, would it not?
Just my opinion, I guess. Others seem to be insisting that conspicuousness of Muslim garb = national flag around neck or the presenter's entire being is there to signify that this is a "nothing to do with {ordinary} Islam" attack and that signifying aspect is what they deem insensitive.
Incidentally, someone on the 27-pager said the appearance in question was on a Friday. Is that correct? Talk of rosters?
Does C4 pay double time for Sundays and do Muslim staff get their double rate
for working on the Friday?
Naomi - //Hypognosis, I set little store by the opinions of people who claim insight into Islam simply because they have few Muslim mates or, in one instance, know a barber who happens to be Muslim. //
Speaking as the one instance who knows a barber who happens to be Muslim - I recall advising that fact with the proviso that this was my only connection with the Muslim world - my point was precisely that my knowledge is scant to say the least, and based only on one person's opinions and experience.
You seem to have taken that background information and utterly transformed into the notion that I am speaking about the Muslim faith as though I am an expert, and being suitably scoffing and sarcastic at every opportunity.
So - to be clear to you and anyone else on here - I do not claim any factual knowledge of the Muslim faith, I tend to base my views, as do the majority of people about anything - on personal experience, informed often by media reporting.
But what I do claim knowledge of is the media, and how it operates - and it operates as usual in this instance.
Kelvin Mackenzie is a professional agitator who has conceived a nonsensical concept of 'insensitivity' and used it to insult the integrity of one journalist in particular, and the entire news department of a national TV channel in general.
The number of people who have taken his side is a drop in the ocean compared with the number of people who have complained about him - but that is the essence of free speech.
So, in turn, I set little store by people who set themselves up as cod-experts, and lecture the rest of us because they decide their knowledge is superior, and therefore their opinions and statements must naturally be superior as well.
I would question the validity of that position on both counts.
Speaking as the one instance who knows a barber who happens to be Muslim - I recall advising that fact with the proviso that this was my only connection with the Muslim world - my point was precisely that my knowledge is scant to say the least, and based only on one person's opinions and experience.
You seem to have taken that background information and utterly transformed into the notion that I am speaking about the Muslim faith as though I am an expert, and being suitably scoffing and sarcastic at every opportunity.
So - to be clear to you and anyone else on here - I do not claim any factual knowledge of the Muslim faith, I tend to base my views, as do the majority of people about anything - on personal experience, informed often by media reporting.
But what I do claim knowledge of is the media, and how it operates - and it operates as usual in this instance.
Kelvin Mackenzie is a professional agitator who has conceived a nonsensical concept of 'insensitivity' and used it to insult the integrity of one journalist in particular, and the entire news department of a national TV channel in general.
The number of people who have taken his side is a drop in the ocean compared with the number of people who have complained about him - but that is the essence of free speech.
So, in turn, I set little store by people who set themselves up as cod-experts, and lecture the rest of us because they decide their knowledge is superior, and therefore their opinions and statements must naturally be superior as well.
I would question the validity of that position on both counts.
Andy-hughes, //I tend to base my views, as do the majority of people about anything - on personal experience, informed often by media reporting.//
And yet here …
http://
….you say //it [the fear of Islamisation of our country] is a media fear construct//
Curious.
And yet here …
http://
….you say //it [the fear of Islamisation of our country] is a media fear construct//
Curious.
Hypognosis - //@naomi
At the risk of increasing the circularity of the thread, the equation we have is
(image of person)=inability to report an event impartially
Can anyone explain to me how that works? //
I, and a number of others, have gone to exhaustive lengths to explain in great detail why it doesn't work - I have yet to be furnished with a reasonable understandable rational argument as to why it does.
I completely understand why Mr Mackenzie started this nonsense - he is a professional agitator, but I am yet to understand why anyone with a sense or perspective and reality would give his view house room.
At the risk of increasing the circularity of the thread, the equation we have is
(image of person)=inability to report an event impartially
Can anyone explain to me how that works? //
I, and a number of others, have gone to exhaustive lengths to explain in great detail why it doesn't work - I have yet to be furnished with a reasonable understandable rational argument as to why it does.
I completely understand why Mr Mackenzie started this nonsense - he is a professional agitator, but I am yet to understand why anyone with a sense or perspective and reality would give his view house room.
Naomi - //Andy-hughes, //I tend to base my views, as do the majority of people about anything - on personal experience, informed often by media reporting.//
And yet here …
http://
….you say //it [the fear of Islamisation of our country] is a media fear construct//
Curious. //
I am flattered that you trawl back through my posts to find evidence that you think contradicts my past post - but you have failed.
I said that I was informed by the media, that does not mean that I take everything it says at face value - or even necessarily as being the truth.
If I did that, I would believe the nonsensical writings of Kelvin Mackenzie, and then where would I be!
And yet here …
http://
….you say //it [the fear of Islamisation of our country] is a media fear construct//
Curious. //
I am flattered that you trawl back through my posts to find evidence that you think contradicts my past post - but you have failed.
I said that I was informed by the media, that does not mean that I take everything it says at face value - or even necessarily as being the truth.
If I did that, I would believe the nonsensical writings of Kelvin Mackenzie, and then where would I be!
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.