Imprudent Broadcasters

Which do you think would have been a bigger news? Dr. Sher Afgan getting a thrashing from people or (God forbid) Dr. Sher Afgan losing his life while saving himself from people?

Obviously the latter. This is exactly what the media wanted - not the death of Dr. Sher Afgan but the 'bigger' news and it can be anything for that matter. This is the most unfortunate aspect of media reporting.

The other day there was a fire on I.I. Chundrigar Road in one of the buildings. I could see the fire fighter perched up on the snorkel and there was a gentleman besides him in trouser shirt and talking on a cell phone! I might be wrong here but it was most probably a reporter trying to be 'on the spot'. Can it get more ridiculous than that?

Can the reporter not understand that he might be impeding the work of fire fighters? Why did not the fire fighter stop him from coming on-board? Or he just could not because 'may be' the reporter flashed his press badge in his face and told him that he was a reporter and can do anything? Just like the other day in my organization, a reporter was misbehaving with the security guards and demanding that he be let in because he is was a reporter!

When Aitazaz Ahsan was pleading with the crowd to let Dr. Sher Afgan go in peace, he was also requesting the media men to stop airing pictures of the whole drama using their cameras because people obviously were getting more 'attention seekers' and it could result in unfortunate situation. Did the media men stop rolling their cameras? No.

What kind of a society are we becoming when there is no respect for life and dignity and all that matters is getting the attention of people to the 'news'? Will we be soon having incidents in which cameramen will barge into private homes and air their 'stories'? Diana died because of the negligence of the driver and paparazzi - are we heading in the same direction? Remember earthquake of 2005? and the airing of a person dying on TV? I am still disgusted even remembering it (check the link below to know about it).

Unfortunate. This requires attention of society in general and regulators in particular. Limits have to be set.

Related Posts:

- Prudent Broadcasters
- Can One Show a Person Dying Or Being Slaughtered on TV?

Quacks On Air - Religious Ones

Have you ever seen a program on Haq TV, called Fiqh un Nissa hosted by a young lady all wrapped up in black and only her eyes revealing? I like her you know :p .. notwithstanding the solutions she provides to the female callers regarding sharia. The solutions usually.. are not easily digestible by soul like me. But she.. builds in me a sense of.. curiosity! :p (Note: I have no intention whatsoever to disrespect her because of her opinions!)

The other day, she was discussing something related to 'Mehrem' and 'na mehrem' (acquaintance and non-acquaintances). The usual practice is that when you leave for Hajj or Umra, you are not allowed to go alone if you are a woman. You must have someone alongside you either husband or someone as 'mehrem' in form of brother, father, son(?) and whatever that comes under the category of 'mehrem'. I honestly do not have a clue because I think this 'mehrem' thingy is just a restriction on women. Here is the definition that I got..

The term “Mehrem” means a male relative who is religiously banned from marrying that subject woman under any circumstances. In Islam, a Mehrem is a female’s father, brother, son, maternal or paternal uncle, grandfather or nephew. A blood relation or a suckling relation makes the subject man a “Mehrem” i.e. a son( brother, father, uncle) by birth or a suckling son(brother, father, uncle).

So she was telling a caller that she (caller) cannot go alone for Hajj because its not allowed and she'll be committing a disobedience to Prophet Muhammad as he prohibited so. (lovely) So the solution she provided went like this. She can marry a person! Now that her husband will be alongside her so she can go on Hajj! After she is done performing Hajj, she can take divorce from him! (whoa!) If she thinks he will not let her go so easy, she can write for a right of divorce in marriage contract! (please tell me that I heard it wrong)

Man O man! Why do I like her so much?!

Being a person associated with religion somehow gives you a clean chit to do anything and say anything you like especially when it comes to Islam and that too if you are in Pakistan. I remember when Womens Protection Bill was at the height of its implementation, Qazi Hussein Ahmad's daughter (Rahila Qazi?) was in a discussion panel being hosted by Talat Hussain of Aaj Tv. When he asked her where is raped mentioned in Quran, she said it is mentioned in Quran and quoted 24:33

24:33 - And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them free from want out of His grace. And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world's life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

and I was like.. what the hell. Where does it mention rape?! Nobody told her that she was wrong! and people must have believed her because she was in burqa and was daughter of a religious scholar/ politician! they would not believe me!

P.S: To find the exact meaning of 'mehrem', I searched Google and the search came up with this.

1. *MEHREM: Someone who has to accompany you and your lover when going out, usually the girl's brother or friend, just to make sure there's no funny business. (Foreigners Guide to Egypt)

2. Allah told us muslima's in his book, not to dance in front of not mehrem men. Not to sing for not mehrem men. To cover your body and hair for the not mehrem. (Ruby on Oghnia.com)

3. C) Call the non-mehrem "brother" so this prevents the shytan from coming in between. .... Ask Allah for forgiveness, and stop chatting with any non-mehrem. (Sister Area - Chatting: Footsteps of the Shytan)

Prudent Broadcasters

It is heartening to read the news that Pakistan Broadcasters Association (PBA) has agreed to desist from showing scenes of violence and terrorism. It had to be realized sooner that displaying gory images on screen does not help at all. If you want to grab the audiences then there are others ways of telling the story. Not just violence and terrorism, I was horrified when I saw the full footage of a person dying on screen on a private TV channel while covering the 2005 Earthquake. Prudence should have been observed there as well. What the hell was Aaj TV thinking? What was the chief reporter Talat Husain thinking?

I also want the PBA to ban commercials that are racist in nature e.g. all the 'skin fairness' advertisements in which the girl is told that since her skin is dark so she will not be able to get married and by using such and such product she can have a 'white' skin and hook a person (frankly this makes males look even more dumb-ass). How horrible can advertisements get?

Can one show a person dying or being slaughtered on TV?

This makes me really sick. Pakistani news channels (2 of them have done this) have been found guilty of this charge. Recently Pakistan was hit by a severe earthquake that resulted in thousands of deaths. There was a lot of criticism on government that they were not doing enough in providing relief to the affectees. A private news channel did something that really shocked me. A reporter and cameraman headed to a remote part of affected area and told the story of family who was hit by earthquake. They actually showed a woman dying on camera! All in an effort to show that "See! we told ya! government is lying! it says it cant reach the affected areas because its difficult but we did it!" (my statement) I cant possibly term them as humans. Could they have not taken a medical team to that area and perhaps could have saved that woman's life? were they obsessed so much with maligning the government that they forgot they had a more "human duty" to do?

Another TV was covering Al-Qaida and the operation that Pakistan Army is undertaking in the country's tribal belt alongside borders of Afghanistan. The reporter showed a video in which an afghan spy was being shown slaughtered to death. No viewer discretion advised.

Is this kind of material allowed to be aired on TV? Do we have to see such things to "really" believe whats going on? was it not possible that those grizzly scenes may not be shown?

I abhor this. So makes me sick.