The red headscarf
Post categories: 麻豆社 News channel
| 14:51 UK time, Wednesday, 26 July 2006
I began life working for the supermarket chain Sainsbury's. Chapter 1, paragraph 1 of "How to do retail" is the idea that the customer is always right!
As maxims go, it's not a bad one - never forget the consumer has a choice. It's something that's stuck with me ever since - it's as applicable to broadcasting as it is to selling groceries. But sometimes, that belief is tested.
One of the things that's distinguished the 麻豆社's coverage of the fighting in Lebanon has been our ability to travel the region - hearing different perspectives from our correspondents across the Middle East, whether it's from Gaza, Damascus or Tehran. Yesterday Margaret Beckett called on Syria and Iran to stop encouraging "extremism" in Lebanon and end support for Hezbollah. The 麻豆社 is the only English-language broadcaster to have a bureau in Iran - recently we built a TV studio in Tehran to allow News 24 and 麻豆社 World to report live from the city.
So it seemed rather uncontroversial for our correspondent in the city, Frances Harrison, to appear on 麻豆社 News 24 to report how the crisis in Lebanon was being reported in Iran, wearing a rather fetching red headscarf (you can watch the piece by clicking here). Uncontroversial until a viewer rang the 麻豆社 duty log rang to complain that wearing the scarf called into question "the objectivity of this reporter".
Really?
If you've seen those adverts for HSBC, you'll know that different countries have different customs. A bit like HSBC, the 麻豆社 operates in more than 20 different countries - and in each our staff respect those traditions. In Iran, women are required to cover their heads. It's not unusual. In Saudi Arabia women are expected to wear a larger abaya, and can be arrested by the religious police if they don't.
But it's not just about the letter of the law - it is about us respecting local sensitivities. We can only operate in other countries with the consent of the people who live there - we don't inhabit an ivory tower. It's important for the integrity of our journalism that we get out and talk to the people of Tehran - as we do in Moscow, Beijing or Washington. That means we need to respect their customs and traditions.
I'm not sure why that makes Frances or any of her colleagues elsewhere in the world any less objective - on the contrary, I suspect it gives them rather greater insight into the people and countries they report on.
And I thought she rather suited that red headscarf.
Jon Williams is world news editor
Comments
Kudos.
I recently capped off five years of travelling around the world, oftentimes in 'sensitive' areas. The no. 1 piece of wisdom my well-travelled brother provided me with was:
"The first thing you do when you get off the plane is buy all the local garb, and give your own to a beggar. The second thing you do is kick yourself for not learning the language earlier, buy a dictionary, and start studying."
Being a bit of a chameleon to local customs is respectful, safer, a great way to learn about diversity, and kinda fun, too.
I can't imagine your correspondants would be too effective at informatoin gathering if they wore Guiness t-shirts and wandered around saying
"Alright, mate, we're lookin' for the nukes. You lot seen 'em around here somewhere?"
-jack oatmon
Perhaps I am a little naive but I fear I may not be the only reader who doesn't actually understand the grounds of the accusation.
I fail to see the vital link which connects a red headcarf to a lack of objectivity.
Anyone care to enlighten us?
"Political Correctness gone mad"-gone mad?
The headscarf is just fine, but the bias of the reporting is not. Europe sees only oil, business, and local political expedience in the middle east, and thus has no problem condemning the smaller customer, which is Israel. The 麻豆社 should remember, always, when a nation attacks another, as Lebanon did (we assume Hezbollah), there are consequences. Unless they can handle those consequences they should not commit acts of terror. The 麻豆社 seems to over and over again, fail to see this point. The 麻豆社 sees rightly that war is hell, and quite dirty, but it fails to addrress the causes. Long live Londistan, I guess.
Kudos is correct. News reporters have a much better chance of being able to get information if they show sensitivity to easily-maintained local standards and moralities.
Anyone who says this shows a lack of objectivity needs to go read up on generally accepted anthropological practices ... "running the blue clay into your navel" is considered the primary method of being able to observe whilst remaining objective.
Of course, the objections to following local customs usually come from people who, when travelling to places with other cultural sensitivities, take great pride in completely ignoring those sensibilities, on the basis they believe thair way is superior - and so are they.
I disagree with Chris' statement that the 麻豆社 coverage of the Lebanon debacle as being biased. I think it presents both cases as balanced as a western news agency can. The fact is 24 hour reporting of news has made the world extremely de-sensitised to trajic events. Gone is the word of mouth transfer of events and the time to ponder what exactly happened. Instead we are all to happy to be fed what we want to hear. And for that Chris there are many U.S based news services you can subscribe too.
Best of luck getting your head out of the sand!!
Regards,
Adil
The complaint of wearing a headscarf is not the issue here. (To be candid, on a honeymoon trip to Morocco, I insisted on covering arms, legs and always carried a scarf should the need to use one arise--only out of defference to the culture in which I *chose* to honeymoon.) The issue here is the religious furvour that engulfs some of the Muslim nations is too extreme for our tastes and, let's be honest, too extreme period. Women are fundamentally restricted by their clothing there, which inherently means they are restricted--their movements, their choices, their lives, their beings. This is what we should complain about--not a reporter, doing her job, in an environment which is controlled, let alone dangerous, for dissenters.
I think the original complaint betrays a belief held by the complainant that by wearing a headscarf, the reporter could be seen as one of "them", rather than one of "us".
This is a belief that I do not share.
If the complainant contends that there is an us-them division (is there?) and that such a division can be demarked by a red headscarf (can it?), then logically, they would also have to contend that *not* wearing a headscarf -- and therefore being one of "us" would have equally called the reporters objectivity into question.
Which of course it wouldn't, for all the reasons outlined in the post.
great piece- displaying cultural sensitivity allows reporters easier access to information. Much as inviting your Jewish friends and serving roast pig would be a mistake.
Ok, yes, you assimilate and you get access; but to what, to whom? Your people are 麻豆社, Brits, in other words鈥 doesn鈥檛 matter what the reporter鈥檚 nationality is, nor, the clothes they wear. The access you get is to the people that want to give you access. Could it be because they feel you have taken all necessary precautions to emulate them? Or, perhaps access is granted because you are seen as a sympathizer? Or, perhaps because you impress them as being biased they can feed you whatever pabulum they want.
I don鈥檛 see article after article about the prison conditions in Iran, nor the religious police attacking citizens, nor the way ethnic Arabs are treated in Iran. What I do see is a lot of remarks by Ahmadinejad. Who, by the way, is tickled pink that the main story of the day is not about Iran鈥檚 constant waffling and delaying any serious discussion on their drive to enrich uranium. Could it be, as many claim, that Iran did indeed give Hizballah a green light to attack then abduct soldiers and then attack Israeli cities just to turn attention away long enough to finalize development of their enrichment process? Would be quite a shame if Iran sat down with the UN Committee and said 鈥淲hat development? We already have a device.鈥 I wouldn鈥檛 blame the UN, they don鈥檛 know any better.
I am sorry, but you guys have become so politically correct that you just don鈥檛 have the guts anymore to ask the tough questions and keep asking them to find the truth. You seem to have lost the ability to investigate, unless it is some sleazy politician鈥 which is good鈥 maybe your city reporters should go international鈥 they seem to still have it.
Thats a ridiculous phone call, but I suspect the bbc is so stable it can handle that situation, right? Its pretty normal to accommodate to the local customs.
Its great to have information straight out of certain countries, it is vital to get the big picture of things. You have to be able to get an objective view of the other side. Thats what distinguishes the bbc from everybody else.
I find it rather unusual how humanity has become so narrow-minded.
A few years ago, foreign dignitaries in Washington D.C. were given fines (a penalty) for parking illegally. Why? Because they should obey the laws of Washington D.C. I guess a reporter wearing a red headscarf is trying to avoid a penalty in Iran. And as the article states, creating an easier access to the core of the story.
My recommendation to the offended caller is to listen to the news and not to blame the messenger. It may open your mind to what's going on instead of just what you are able see...
Kudos, indeed. I enjoy your site and it's a really nice alternative to the press here in the US. I'd have to say that yours is as unbiased as any of the English-speaking news sources.
No culture is intrinsically more or less objective than another- and doubt of objectivity because of cultural dress is downright narrowmindedness. However, objectivity can be called into question because of subject matter. I reference the 麻豆社's ongoing coverage of the Colombian civil war and the coca trade. While almost every story on this subject mentions the money the US is spending to combat coca, rarely if ever has the 麻豆社 mentioned the environmental impact mass spraying of pesticides has had on the most biodiverse environment in the Western Hemisphere--- Not to mention the effect on non-coca growing farmers who have had their families poisoned and their crops ruined from spraying. Actual coca farmers whose crops are destroyed will simply be forced to cut down more rainforest to plant more crops, to feed their families, and to supply the US with the huge amount of cocaine its buyers demand. Colombia also has another Western Hemisphere record- the longest running civil war. While I commend your objectivity on the Israel/Lebanon issue, I condemn that of your Colombia coverage. Please make an effort to show the other side of the US/ Colombia issue in a future article.
Hmmm, how does your western woman reporter feel about having to wear the headscarf? Yes, she looks fine in it, but the way she appears on screen from Teheran would not have been acceptable to Iranian revolutionary guards until very recently, showing quite a bit of hair, wearing plenty of makeup. Indeed, I wonder if she doesn't often need to modify in a conservative direction the look a little when outside? Is she making the point that women in Iran are forced to dress that way in public, or are there men present in her studio? Does broadcasting to other countries count as being in public to Iranian revolutionary guards?
There does need to be an awareness, when a western reporter dresses like that, and so apparently comfortably, that, although some support them, those dress rules are forced, violently, upon all women, who resent and fight against them, wherever possible. In Iran especially, the class of women that a television reporter would belong to (including civil servants, judges, lawyers) was especially hard hit by the terribly violent repression of their freedoms upon the Islamic revolution. Many lost ther jobs, their careers, their families, and often were forced into exile or suicide. I know the 麻豆社 has reported on that, and how things are changing, but a constant on-screen headscarf rather begs for regular reminders of that background.
It is not the red scarf in its self but rather the idea of pandering to the area in which you are reporting that is troublesome. The 麻豆社 has been accused of and many international news organizations have admitted that they have modified their reporting to keep from offending Muslim host countries and thus enabling them to continue reporting from such countries. The red scarf is a first step and front-and-center marker and symbol of this subservient style. The news should be reported without regard to local customs, sensitivities and biases so as to unconditionally report the truth to its British viewers as its government mandate dictates. Unfortunately, the 麻豆社 finds it hard to report events without a pro-muslim slant even when reporting from Londonistan - so it is possible that fighting the red scarf as a symbol of capitulation and the capitulation itself is fighting too little and too late.
"I began life working for the supermarket chain Saintsburry's."
A truely remarkable story. Most people have to go through infancy, childhood, and adolescence before they get their first job. However did you manage it? Did you go through an agency, did you answer an advert in the newspaper, or did the OBGYN who delivered you moonlight in Saintsbury's employment department? Nurse, hire that baby! STAT!!
"The customer is always right." Now there's a sure fire prescription for bankrupcy. Have you never had one completely unreasonable customer who wanted replacement for an expensive item he obviously damaged badly himself? When I get to the complaint counter, I want you handling my case.
Why would you be surprised that by wearing a red headscarf Frances Harrison's objectivity would be called into question among Iranians? Why would you expect a rational thought process in an entirely irrational society? It makes sense to them. When in Iran, do as the Iraniacs do. Given your story about your first job and your policy pleasing all customers no matter what, I'd think that shouldn't be a very difficult stretch for you at all.
麻豆社 editors get curiouser and curiouser.
Sorry to spoil the little party here. I don't suppose it has much to do with objectivity, but the idea that you go in there and 'just respect the customs' is not a simple proposition. If the customs are kicking dogs, and using children as servants - numerous places come to mind - is that what the 麻豆社 does, to 'do as the Romans do'?
The headscarf is to some - e.g. me - a token of repression of women. And that's very much the basis on which it is resisted in the more egalitarian countries, such as those in western Europe. This is not quite nonsense. My father, from an Islamic country, seemed to think it was okay, once in Britain, to beat up his wife, my mother, a Brit - presumably on the grounds that women were male property. The headscarf is, as it were, the top of a slippery slope of repression and male dominated aggression. Whatever happened to our interest in universal values?
By all means wear on the street if you think it will prevent you getting thumped by mad sexist bigots. But don't wear it on globla TV, if you actually don't agree with what it means.
This is not 'PC'. This is about justice, and what you actually believe in. Or perhaps, to 'follow the customs' you'd propose that the 麻豆社 people spit on the Tibetans in 'Chinese' Lhasa?
Aside from anything else, this is yet another demonstration of extreme arrogance of the editors. Readers, viewers, commentators, are all seen as irritating children.
Having said that...the irritating child here is the Chris above, who manages to work the stock 'Israel is standing up for itself!' argument into a totally unrelated item.
Anyway, if you accept the headscarf as a 'custom', what about wife-beating? Come on, they are both forms of repression.
Sorry but the concept of the customer always being right was never true.
Even at the check-out in Sainsbury's it has obvious flaws; if the customer insists she's paid when she hasn't do you still apply 'the customer is always right'?
Of course you don't.
Often customers are wrong and there's no sane reason why that can't be explained politely but firmly.
The 麻豆社 does not show bias by 'headscarves', but demonstrates bias by 'sins of omission' - accepting without challenge lies by Hizbollah.
For example, a large majority (8 of 10) of 麻豆社 reports during the crisis have accepted Hizbollah claims that the Shebaa Farms are Lebanese without any mention of the UN ruling that these form part of Syria. This failure to contradict Hizbollah's claim gives credence, by omission, to Hizbollah's fallacious justifications for its attack on Israel. This is bias by omission.
The question now arises, will the 麻豆社 publish this comment, or will there be yet another case of 'bias by omission'.
I suspect the accusation was based on the mistaken belief that because Frances was wearing a headscarf she is a Muslim and that this would lend subjectivity to her report.
21 - Even if she were a Muslim that wouldn't necessarily make her biased. If people are going to complain about bias they need to point to a deficiency in the report, not in the reporter.
Some of the 麻豆社's most interesting reports come from its local reporters who know and are part of the culture they're reporting on.
The question is - if the caller/ complainant had heard radio news, how would he know about the red scarf?
Ok, but I can ask: So where is the tolerance in Iran? You call it respect but for me it is a sign of intolerance in Iran. In Britain we have a local custom of not covering women's heads. According to Jon Williams Muslim women in Britain should take off their headscarfs to show respect towards us. But they don't do that. It looks like Muslims in Britain don't care and even hate british customs and traditions. So what about that? Where is the mutuality?
Frances Harrison (and I guess other female 麻豆社 personnel in Iran) has to wear headscarf in order to not to be rejected by people and not to be arrested by religious militia. But this is a huge thing that is called intolerace . I know that 麻豆社 is not the right organization to promote tolerance and understanding in Iran but embracing Iran's culture is a mistake. And this is happening in your office there. Why does Frances wear a headscarf when reporting from studio? I understand reporting from street or other public places but why in 麻豆社's studio?
I am afraid that the red headscarf actually makes Frances less objective. The red headscarf is a symbol of your (intentional or not) manipulations. In some cultures (in Iran as well) there is a tradition of not to criticize leaders (religious leaders, political leaders etc.). There are traditions of not to ask hard question about cumbersome topics. There are traditions of not to question decisions made by the leaders. So is 麻豆社 going to respect those traditions? Is 麻豆社 going to become islamic propaganda tube from Iran in the name of respect of "local sensitivities? I am afraid that you won't report on tough topics, and you won't let defiant voices of people of Iran. I am afraid your reports will be in line with islamic official version, certainly in the name of respect of "local sensitivities".
So the red headscarf makes the reporter and the 麻豆社 less objective. It is not only a symbol of intolerance in Iran but it is also a symbol of your growing islamic tendencies. It could be seen in reports involving America or Israel. Your anti-American and anti-Israeli stance is often very clear. And your sympathy towards such organizations like Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Jihad or Hezbollah only strengthen those suspicions.
OK, so here's my question ...
If the reporter had been a devout muslim woman hired by the 麻豆社 to do the segment, would those people posting about how wearing the headscarf was "wrong" be posting here saying that she should have removed it, that it showed a bias?
Let's take it one step further. Should reporters at the Labour Party conference be slammed if they wear a blue tie and not red?
Come on people, this is just getting daft.
I know that the 麻豆社 is prejudicial - they automatically dump all my "Have Your Say" comments on the basis my name isn't english, or in a language they know anything about. But that's in the comments section.
Their reporting might not always be accurate or complete, since they're in competition with the 30-second soundbite world of CNN and Fox, but they do tend to report both sides.
The question here isn't about whether or not their prejudices are showing through in their reporting. The question is a whole lot more about people's prejudices affecting their interpretations of that reporting.
As someone posted above, the headscarf refresents to them repression. It might well do so, and that might be the case, but the point is - how much did that prejudice against the headscarf skew the viewer's perception of the -report-?
People need to step back and think about that one just a little bit, and figure out where their real objections are coming from - and who is really biased.
OK, let's look at biased reporting, hypothetically:
Hamas news: We kidnapped one of their soldiers, they came and bombed the crap out of us, kids died.
Hezbollah news: We kidnapped two of their soldiers, they came and bombed the crap out of us, kids died. We bombed the crap out of them back, kids died.
Israel news: Hamas and Hezbollah kidnapped our soldiers, we went and bombed the crap out of them, kids died. They bombed the crap out of us back, kids died.
---
Objective news: Israel bombed the crap out of Gaza and Lebanon, Hezbollah bombed the crap out of Israel, kids died.
Anything else in this case is reminiscent of "He started it!" "No, he started it!".
How are the 麻豆社 supposed to report the number of kids who won't be saying that any more?
There's your unbiased reporting.
First of all, Im surprised for the quality of the discussion here. Seems Im reading essays and academic copy on "representation", stereotypes and identity in the discourse of news coverage.
Im a Mexican journalist and I wish my readers and viewers were this focused on their points and a weblog could lead to such an interesting debate, which actually is about journalism in itself!!!
Im not suggesting however, Mexicans dont think as profoundly as u do. Im suggesting journalists here are so arrogant that they (or we) do not submit their (our) performing into the public scrutiny and hence are insensitive to their audiences.
Ive worked in 麻豆社 Worldservice also, as well as been a researcher about comparative journalism culture. Ive argued elsewhere have that despite there is an universal ethos of professional journalism to which journalist try to attach, professionalism is more related to the internalisation of the self culture, the organisational and societal practices surrounding him.
Hence objectivity and detached journalism are not necessarily the hallmarmarks to be followed by of all professionals in the world, as they mean different things for different people, countries and news organisations.
In Mexico, biased journalism and editorialisation of news is thought by journalists to be the ultimate demand of the audience. "People prefer a presenter who scolds at the politician and paves the way to lead the viewer's opinion", one senior presenter told me once when I asked what being professional meant to him.
Having 麻豆社 u are given contextual and factual information and do not have to depend on US and western news agencies, always very repetitive and superficial. Here, we have speculations, opinions and statements of Mexican "experts" and politicians having to replace the lack of real factual journalism and hence portraying "their" point of view as the news. SO we have to cope with biased info everyday. Whether this is a good or bad thing will depend, again, on the journalistic culture. Whose journalistic culture is valid for what culture?
Cultural difference and plurality, and its attendants values and shortcomings, is unavoidable. Representing it in terms of stereotypes and symbols is also a big debate on how media should report news.
What is clear is thinking in culture solely in terms of symbols and stereotypes, even if media reproduce them, is not helpful. Neither the muslim redscarves nor the really short miniskirts that British teenagers wear in Cardiff winter are familiar to me. But since I dont want to be labelled nor portrayed as a national of a certain country in terms of the sterotypes, symbols,religion, or simply myths, I suspect thats much of what journalist try to embrace. I also suspect we are failing to achieve that up to certain point.
麻豆社 journalists do their best to be genuinely neutral and unbiased but Im afraid we journalist are demanded not only by audience, but by ourselves, to please everybody and, just like politicians, it cant be. Should it be?
(sorry for language inaccuracies and misspellings)
Such paranoia over a headscarf.It makes for a convenient means of expressing anti-Islamic views without incurring the label 'racist' or 'bigot' that's for sure. Widening the rant to cover 'intolerance' in Iran diverts from the intolerance that goes on in a lot of places - especially Israel.
I have watched the news coverage of this offensive war and I have found the 麻豆社's to be one of the most insightful. The barbarism and criminality of what is unfolding in Lebanon hardly needs commentators and to debate whether a headscarf encourages someone to bias shows what a cosy life we live; just as avoiding mentioning the words 'immediate ceasefire' because that would not build a lasting peace is as fatuous as it is objectionable.
"never forget the consumer has a choice"
except when it comes to the 麻豆社. They must fund it or be sent to jail, even if they do not watch any 麻豆社 channels.
If you want to spot the angle or spin applied you need to cross check everything as everything has spin. We must ceck for consistancy for truth. We are not permitted to know so we must disect what is there for ourselves.
In my view the scarf is an attempt to show the "intolerance" environment she is repoting from without saying it. It gives us an impression of opression. Is there really such oppression fr foreign correspondants? I don't think so. Why? I have seen her wear ascarf while exposing far too much chest for what we would expect would be accepted in that region. This is inconsistant behaviour unless she is choosing it for fashionable reasons on her own. Unlikely though don't you think? So who is the 麻豆社 behind now?