Quizzes & Puzzles21 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.
-- answer removed --
andy-hughes,
" You must see that to remove her hijab in order to read an item about possible Muslim terrorism can only have one interpretation, and it is not that she is being 'sensitive' - rather it is that she is ashamed of her faith and is keen to distance herself from it."
So can one infer that in wearing the hijab, she is not ashamed of her faith and doesn't wish to distance herself from all that entails?
" You must see that to remove her hijab in order to read an item about possible Muslim terrorism can only have one interpretation, and it is not that she is being 'sensitive' - rather it is that she is ashamed of her faith and is keen to distance herself from it."
So can one infer that in wearing the hijab, she is not ashamed of her faith and doesn't wish to distance herself from all that entails?
vulcan42 - //andy-hughes,
" You must see that to remove her hijab in order to read an item about possible Muslim terrorism can only have one interpretation, and it is not that she is being 'sensitive' - rather it is that she is ashamed of her faith and is keen to distance herself from it."
So can one infer that in wearing the hijab, she is not ashamed of her faith and doesn't wish to distance herself from all that entails? //
Yes - one can absolutely infer that.
Her faith is just that - terrorism in the name of her faith is something else, not connected except by the tenuous link offered by the terrorist themselves.
Would you expect an Irish Catholic in the '70's to take off a crucifix because they IRA bomb Protestants?
Just because atrocities are carried out under the banner of your faith by people who clearly do not follow it, does not affect your adherence to your faith, or your right to confirm it by adhering to aspects of its dress code.
" You must see that to remove her hijab in order to read an item about possible Muslim terrorism can only have one interpretation, and it is not that she is being 'sensitive' - rather it is that she is ashamed of her faith and is keen to distance herself from it."
So can one infer that in wearing the hijab, she is not ashamed of her faith and doesn't wish to distance herself from all that entails? //
Yes - one can absolutely infer that.
Her faith is just that - terrorism in the name of her faith is something else, not connected except by the tenuous link offered by the terrorist themselves.
Would you expect an Irish Catholic in the '70's to take off a crucifix because they IRA bomb Protestants?
Just because atrocities are carried out under the banner of your faith by people who clearly do not follow it, does not affect your adherence to your faith, or your right to confirm it by adhering to aspects of its dress code.
douglas - //Pandering piffle as per, Mr Hughes. //
I am unsure why I am 'pandering' douglas - ?
//Utterly and willfully insensitive deployment of staff in a delicate situation.
Channel 4's mission of diversity mongering continues regardless of public sensibilities. //
I have to reiterate my question raised by myself and others - I am unable to comprehend why either replacing the journalist in question, or tailoring her appearance, could be either seen as, or required to be 'sensitive', I genuinely cannot understand this notion.
Why any broadcaster would consider removing a presenter on the basis of her faith, or adjusting her appearance, because of the item she is reporting is not 'sensitivity', it is mind control, and the thin end of a very nasty wedge.
As an atheist, I am in no need of 'sensitivity' when news of any violent crime is reported. Anyone who murders anyone cannot be a believer in any faith, so must by default be an atheist, but that does not mean that I think of them in any way as resembling me because we share an antipathy towards any God - clearly they are nothing like me.
If you apply that logic here, a Muslim terrorist who is a Muslim in name only, is not connected in any way to any genuine believer - so there is no need to underline their separation in any way, certainly not be pre-judging and indulging prejudices of watching audiences in the way you suggest.
I am unsure why I am 'pandering' douglas - ?
//Utterly and willfully insensitive deployment of staff in a delicate situation.
Channel 4's mission of diversity mongering continues regardless of public sensibilities. //
I have to reiterate my question raised by myself and others - I am unable to comprehend why either replacing the journalist in question, or tailoring her appearance, could be either seen as, or required to be 'sensitive', I genuinely cannot understand this notion.
Why any broadcaster would consider removing a presenter on the basis of her faith, or adjusting her appearance, because of the item she is reporting is not 'sensitivity', it is mind control, and the thin end of a very nasty wedge.
As an atheist, I am in no need of 'sensitivity' when news of any violent crime is reported. Anyone who murders anyone cannot be a believer in any faith, so must by default be an atheist, but that does not mean that I think of them in any way as resembling me because we share an antipathy towards any God - clearly they are nothing like me.
If you apply that logic here, a Muslim terrorist who is a Muslim in name only, is not connected in any way to any genuine believer - so there is no need to underline their separation in any way, certainly not be pre-judging and indulging prejudices of watching audiences in the way you suggest.
fiction-factory - //Perhaps Channel 4 shouldn't use anyone who looks like a Muslim since there is a pretty good chance that there will be a news item each day that refers to IS or an atrocity somewhere which jihadists could well be behind //
Why stop there? They should remove all black men in case of any police shootings in the U.S. And while we are about it, we had better remove all women against anti-abortion stories crop up, and all men in case child abuse stories come in.
Really, the media are a bit stuck with all this 'sensitivity' aren't they!
Why stop there? They should remove all black men in case of any police shootings in the U.S. And while we are about it, we had better remove all women against anti-abortion stories crop up, and all men in case child abuse stories come in.
Really, the media are a bit stuck with all this 'sensitivity' aren't they!
Seeing as you chose to bring up NI, ah, and incidentally, a crucifix is not a Catholic symbol. But an Irish tricolour is/was. Would you think that right, that a Catholic reporter was swathed in a tricolour/ wore a badge while reporting on an IRA atrocity. Or a bowler-hatted Protestant reported a UVF one?
Svejk - //Seeing as you chose to bring up NI, ah, and incidentally, a crucifix is not a Catholic symbol. // Fair point, I stand corrected.
//But an Irish tricolour is/was. Would you think that right, that a Catholic reporter was swathed in a tricolour/ wore a badge while reporting on an IRA atrocity. Or a bowler-hatted Protestant reported a UVF one? //
No - but as I have advised previously - both states of dress would be neither standard and normal for the journalist concerned, but worn deliberately to make a political point, and both are emblems of a political and cultural identity, not a religious one. The Orange uniform, as I confirmed previously, is a pseudo masonic organisation, and not a religious order, a tricolour is a nationalist symbol, not a religious one, and neither would be or have been used by presenting journalists to make a non-verbal issue of support for a political stance.
No journalist is allowed to use media for personal political or religious support - so your scenario, while colourful, is never going to happen, and that makes it irrelevant to this argument in my view.
//But an Irish tricolour is/was. Would you think that right, that a Catholic reporter was swathed in a tricolour/ wore a badge while reporting on an IRA atrocity. Or a bowler-hatted Protestant reported a UVF one? //
No - but as I have advised previously - both states of dress would be neither standard and normal for the journalist concerned, but worn deliberately to make a political point, and both are emblems of a political and cultural identity, not a religious one. The Orange uniform, as I confirmed previously, is a pseudo masonic organisation, and not a religious order, a tricolour is a nationalist symbol, not a religious one, and neither would be or have been used by presenting journalists to make a non-verbal issue of support for a political stance.
No journalist is allowed to use media for personal political or religious support - so your scenario, while colourful, is never going to happen, and that makes it irrelevant to this argument in my view.
Latest Posts
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.