Kelvin MacKenzie and the Sun beat Channel 4 News and a hijab
On July 18, the Sun featured a column but its former editor Kelvin MacKenzie in which he asked, “Why did Channel 4 have a presenter in a hijab fronting coverage of Muslim terror in Nice?”.
That the question was rhetorical became apparent in the next line: “Would C4 have used a Hindu to report on the carnage at the Golden Temple of Amritsar…of course not.”
And again: “Would the station have used an Orthodox Jew to cover the Israeli-Palestine conflict? Of course not.
Hundreds complained to Ipso, the press regulator. This meant lots of people were talking about the Sun and MacKenzie – and so both became relevant.
MacKenzie posed more questions:
…I could hardly believe my eyes. The presenter was not one of the regulars — Krishnan Guru-Murthy, Matt Frei or Cathy Newman — but a young lady wearing a hijab. Her name is Fatima Manji and she has been with the station for four years. Was it appropriate for her to be on camera when there had been yet another shocking slaughter by a Muslim?
Was it done to stick one in the eye of the ordinary viewer who looks at the hijab as a sign of the slavery of Muslim women by a male- dominated and clearly violent religion?
So why did they do it?
…
With all the major terrorist outrages in the world currently being carried out by Muslims, I think the rest of us are reasonably entitled to have concerns about what is beating in their religious hearts. Who was in the studio representing our fears?
Questions upon questions. And like all good columnists, MacKenzie triggered a heated debate.
Manji called MacKenzie’s words “ill-informed, racist and Islamophobic”.
Ben De Pear, who edits the Channel 4 news show, said:
“Whilst we agree that freedom of expression is a fundamental right, we do not believe that it should be used as a licence to incite or discriminate. His inflammatory comments on Fatima Manji’s professional status, which were widely condemned, and his attempts to equate the wearing of a hijab with support for terrorism, have no place in a properly informed and tolerant society… We employ reporters based on their journalistic skills, not their ethnicity. We see no reason why a Muslim journalist should be prevented from covering any story and Fatima will continue to report and present the news on the issues of the day with impartiality and depth. We are grateful for all the support shown to Fatima during this difficult time.”
Difficult time? Really? (See those questions are catchy.) Channel 4 is hardly a fan of the Sun and its readers. Surely the broadcaster got some satisfaction from MacKenzie’s rant? Prejudices, you know, we do so love them when we can back them up with evidence. Manji did not like it. But Ipso has rejected her complaints.
“There can be no doubt that this was deeply offensive to the complainant and caused widespread concern and distress to others. This was demonstrated by the number of complaints IPSO received.
“The article was highly critical of Channel 4 for permitting a newsreader to wear the hijab. It also contained pejorative references to Islam. But the essential question for the committee was whether those references were directed at the complainant.
“Clause 12 seeks to protect individuals while respecting the fundamental right to freedom of expression enshrined in the preamble to the code.
“The article did refer to the complainant. But it did so to explain what triggered the discussion about a subject of legitimate debate: whether newsreaders should be allowed to wear religious symbols.
“While the columnist’s opinions were undoubtedly offensive to the complainant, and to others, these were views he had been entitled to express. The article did not include a prejudicial or pejorative reference to the complainant on the grounds of her religion.
“Clause 3 seeks to protect individuals from harassment. In the light of its findings under Clause 12, and given that the course of conduct complained of was the publication of a single article on a matter which, while sensitive, was the subject of legitimate public debate, the Committee took the view that it did not amount to harassment under Clause 3.
“The columnist’s view that Islam is ‘clearly a violent religion’ was a statement of his opinion. This view, however extreme or offensive to many, did not raise a breach of Clause 1.
“The suggestion that the complainant was a ‘pawn in this tv news game’ was clearly conjecture, and underlined that the author’s criticism was directed at Channel 4 and not at the individual newsreader. There was no breach of Clause 1.”
Kelvin MacKenzie and newspapers are still relevant after al these years. Who knew?
Posted: 19th, October 2016 | In: Reviews, Tabloids Comment | TrackBack | Permalink
