To go back a few classes, we've spoken about the control on the media many times over. And I have been a staunch advocate about how there should be no control on what the media broadcasts, primarily, because I believe that the costs of not-knowing are more than being bombarded with information from various media sources. However, I recently came across something that made me want to revaluate my position on this. Recently, a channel in the UK, known as the Islam Channel was censored by OfCom media (an independant regulator and competition authority on the communications industry in the UK) because five programmes broadcasted on the channel broke the broadcasting code by advocating rape, marital violence against women and describing women who wore perfume outside their homes as 'prostitutes.'
Of course, this is appalling on many, many levels. The channel was fined roughly $48,000 for this violation and for also, broadcasting one-sided coverage of the Middle East conflict.
While there are several questions in my mind about this article, I'm going to ask everyone a few of those:
1. A part of me thinks that some amount of control on the media is necessary, especially if no control on the media will make them broadcast things like this. The Islam channel is very popular among the British muslims and it makes me think that if programs distribute values like this, what would it do the perception of a culture in the outside world?
2. Is censorship always bad? Also, this channel has been reprimanded in the past for similar/worse violations. This time it has been fined. If the ideology of the channel is the way the article says, isn't a fine too small a price to pay? Should the channel be taken off air? If so, what will happen to the voices of British Muslims?
3. I did not see any comment or mention of what activists think about this. It makes me think that because they are a minority voice, they were either effectively silenced or they are victims of the Spiral of Silence.
I really want to know what you guys think about this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/08/islam-channel-ofcom
These are hard questions, as is usually the case when freedom of speech clashes with established cultural expectations and broadcasting codes. Despite the repeated offenses, I think that shutting the Islam Channel down would be going too far, in that it would be silencing an important voice in the community, and would probably inspire anger and protests while not clearly getting a point accross about the aspects of the content that are unacceptable. Some other, more interactive and supportive methods may work better. Perhaps the people responsible for these hateful messages should be identified and removed from their positions. As the channel is called the "Islam Channel" it seems as though it would be helpful to introduce some more mainstream voices of Islam, that don't depict this huge, worldwide religious community as violent and prejudiced.
ReplyDeleteWhile I see your point, Tess, I think the idea of an 'Islam channel' itself is too restrictive. It makes me think that if a non-Muslim watches enough of this channel, it's going to make her/him perceive Islam to be an extremely violent religion. This is reinforced when you see/hear it's a woman who is advocating marital rape and violence.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to note that the article does not mention anything about any voices of dissent. I would not know what supportive methods would work better but I do think that mainstream voices of Islam would also speak out against anything that is humiliating to women across cultures. How come there was no mention of that?
I also agree that while shutting down Islam channel may not be the best possible solution but it's also scary to think that if this channel continues to be on air, it could potentially encourage people to do heinous things.