Kelvin Mackenzie Is Thinking About Lodging An Official Complain About Fatima Manji's Hajib

[sp1814]

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://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/kelvin-mackenzie-is-thinking-about-an-offical-complaint-about-fatima-manjis-hijab--byxQgHfLUZ

Do you think he has a point?

[naomi24]

Hypognosis, I don’t believe anyone has said that the visual image she presented affected her ability to report the news impartially, simply that the image she presented was, in the circumstances, insensitive towards the viewer.

[Hypognosis]

@andy_hughes

So, given the above ^^^ do you care to recant this invective?

//
andy-hughes
Naomi - //I have three copies. //

Reading is not the same as understanding - nor is it a reason to assume a superior knowledge and understanding of something one has read.
09:16 Thu 28th Jul 2016
//

Your points about Mackenzie I agree with. Don't ruin it.

[Hypognosis]

Drat, by "above^^^" I meant andy, 16:07

[Khandro]

naomi; I have been reading only this week a copy of the TLS from last year, and there is an interesting article about the authenticity of the official text - (Uthman the third Caliph's). brought to light by the 3 pages of manuscript discovered in B'ham University library.
It is online and can be seen here;
http://www.academia.edu/25775465/Variant_readings_The_Birmingham_Qur_an_in_the_Context_of_Debate_on_Islamic_Origins_Times_Literary_Supplement_7_Aug_2015_14-15

[naomi24]

Andy-hughes at 16:24: rein in there with the presumed compliment. I didn’t trawl back through your posts. I read that a little while ago so hooked it off to respond to you here.

//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.//

Just the bits you like then.

[andy-hughes]

Khandro - //naomi; I have been reading only this week a copy of the TLS from last year, and there is an interesting article about the authenticity of the official text - (Uthman the third Caliph's). brought to light by the 3 pages of manuscript discovered in B'ham University library.
It is online and can be seen here;
http://www.academia.edu/25775465/Variant_readings_The_Birmingham_Qur_an_in_the_Context_of_Debate_on_Islamic_Origins_Times_Literary_Supplement_7_Aug_2015_14-15 //

Keep going - it has nothing at all to do with the subject under debate, but keep going ....

[naomi24]

Khandro, yes, I saw that. Interesting.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //Andy-hughes at 16:24: rein in there with the presumed compliment. I didn’t trawl back through your posts. I read that a little while ago so hooked it off to respond to you here.

//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.//

Just the bits you like then. //

No - just the bits I believe to have a basis in truth -

if The Sunday Times tells me the economy is on the rise, I will probably believe it, if Kelvin Mackenzie tells me the day of the week has a 'Y' in it, I will check a calendar.

I am sure you understand the difference.

[naomi24]

Not really, I wouldn't need to check that.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // ... rein in there with the presumed compliment. //

In view of your response to my recent apology, you can be sure that your presume is faulty today.

[naomi24]

Don't think so. You said you were flattered .....

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - there are many many aspects about which we differ but one on which were in absolute synch is the unwavering belief that each of us is right, and an utter unwillingness to give the other the last word!

LOL!

[naomi24]

Gerroff! You're not getting it! (Only joking - go ahead).

[andy-hughes]

Thanks!

Oh Lord, what have I started!!

Seriously, I won't pursue this, it's not fair on sp or anyone else on the thread.

[Hypognosis]

@naomi @16:24

//
Hypognosis, I don’t believe anyone has said that the visual image she presented affected her ability to report the news impartially,
//

//
for a newsreader to wear religious attire that could undermine the viewer's perception of impartiality
//

Kelvin M, channeling the thoughts of nebulous group of viewers, via his magical mind-reading capabilities.

Or, if one prefers, insertion of thought process into other people's minds using his mesmeric powers of persuasion.

:0)


//
simply that the image she presented was, in the circumstances, insensitive towards the viewer.
//

Thank you for taking the trouble of setting it out in words. I understand the meanings of the individual words but I am unable to empathise with the concept of perceived insensitivity, pending some rest and thought.

Insensitive renditions of news events like this are, I don't doubt, available on YouTube and elsewhere. I don't care to look at them, so I can't claim this to be experience based but I have an imagination plus journalists have watched most of them and described the content. Imagination is, possibly worse than reality (no camera shake, image grain or focus error). Note that I'm from the generation which grew up seeing unblurred body parts and gore on the evening news (incidents retrocop recently described involvement in, in the 70s, gave me a flashback, when I read it), so I've had enough of that sort of imagery.

[naomi24]

Hypognosis, she reported the news well enough but the visual image she projected may well have undermined the viewers’ perception of impartiality. I wouldn’t have thought it would take a crystal ball to understand why. I don’t believe I could ever be described as ‘nebulous’ but I watched that report and thought her mode of dress was, in the circumstances, in poor taste.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //Hypognosis, she reported the news well enough but the visual image she projected may well have undermined the viewers’ perception of impartiality. I wouldn’t have thought it would take a crystal ball to understand why. I don’t believe I could ever be described as ‘nebulous’ but I watched that report and thought her mode of dress was, in the circumstances, in poor taste. //

I believed at the start of the previous thread, and through to now, that you would have to have a very unusual mind set to make any sort of connection between a newsreader in Muslim attire, and a Muslim atrocity - I simply don't find it believable.

I understand that we differ on this, but I have yet to see, barring maybe two posters on here - any support whatever for Mr Mackenzie's viewpoint - and by extension your own.

I know you will defend your beliefs, as will I, but I do think that on this occasion, you have defended something which, without Mr Mackenzie's grandstanding, would never have made it onto this site, simply because no-one would have made the fanciful leap in viewer perception that he did, and he only did to whip up controversy, because that is his profession.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, never doubt my word.