Autor: Avdo Metjahić
Gledajući razgovor Jesseja Wattersa s Abdulom El-Sayedom na Fox Newsu, zasmetala mi je grubost kojom se voditelj obraćao gostu. Novinar ima pravo postaviti neugodno pitanje. Ima pravo tražiti precizan odgovor i osporiti svaku političku tvrdnju. Ali mikrofon mu ne daje pravo da ponižava čovjeka koji sjedi preko puta njega.
U razgovoru je bilo riječi o porezima i zdravstvu, ali i o šerijatu i drugim temama kulturnih sukoba. El-Sayed je insistirao da se razgovor vrati na troškove života, cijene namirnica i probleme zdravstvene zaštite. Upravo tu leži pitanje koje zaslužuje pažnju: koliko prostora ostaje za nevolje običnog čovjeka kada televizijski razgovor postane nadmetanje u provokacijama?
Posebno mi je zasmetao način obraćanja imenom „Abdul“. Samo izgovaranje nečijeg imena, naravno, nije uvreda. Ali ime, izgovoreno određenim tonom i u određenom kontekstu, može zazvučati kao opomena, kao oznaka tuđinstva. Ja sam taj nastup doživio kao poruku publici da pred sobom prvenstveno vidi muslimana, pa tek onda sagovornika čije argumente treba saslušati. Ne mogu znati šta je Watters namjeravao, ali mogu jasno reći kakav je utisak na mene ostavio.
A šta bi, zapravo, trebalo dokazivati time što je Abdul musliman? Je li to nedostatak u njegovom političkom programu? Je li njegova vjera odgovor na pitanje koliko košta liječenje, stanarina ili hrana? Mora li čovjek s muslimanskim imenom najprije opravdati svoje prisustvo u javnom životu, pa tek onda dobiti priliku da govori?
El-Sayedovo pozivanje na slobodu vjere i odbacivanje nametanja vlastite vjere drugima zaslužuju da budu pošteno preneseni. Njegove političke prijedloge treba podvrgnuti ozbiljnoj provjeri. Međutim, ničija vjerska pripadnost ne smije postati prečica kojom se zaobilazi rasprava o njegovim argumentima.
Od novinara očekujem da pita kako će neki prijedlog biti plaćen, kome će pomoći i kakve posljedice može imati. Očekujem upornost, znanje i odgovornost. Podsmijeh ne može zamijeniti pripremu, niti grubost predstavlja dokaz novinarske hrabrosti.
Radnika koji jedva sastavlja kraj s krajem neće nahraniti sumnja prema komšijinoj vjeri. Penzioneru neće pojeftiniti lijek zato što je televizijski voditelj nadglasao gosta. Porodici koja strahuje od sljedećeg računa potreban je odgovor, a ne još jedan povod da se boji ljudi drugačijeg imena.
Gospodine Watters, osporite Abdulove prijedloge ako imate bolje argumente. Tražite objašnjenja i ne prihvatajte izbjegavanje odgovora. Ali pružite mu prostor da odgovori i poštovanje koje dugujete svakom sagovorniku.
Abdul je ime čovjeka. Nije optužnica. A dostojanstvo gosta ne prestaje tamo gdje počinje moć vašeg mikrofona.WHEN A NAME BECOMES AN INDICTMENT
By Avdo Metjahić
Watching Jesse Watters’s interview with Abdul El-Sayed on Fox News, I was troubled by the host’s harsh treatment of his guest. A journalist has every right to ask uncomfortable questions. He has the right to demand precise answers and challenge any political claim. But a microphone does not give him the right to humiliate the person sitting across from him.
The conversation touched on taxes and healthcare, but also on Sharia and other culture-war issues. El-Sayed insisted on bringing the discussion back to the cost of living, grocery prices, and problems with healthcare. That raises a question worth considering: how much room remains for the struggles of ordinary people when a television interview becomes a contest in provocation?
What particularly troubled me was the way he addressed his guest as “Abdul.” Simply saying someone’s name is, of course, no insult. But a name, spoken in a certain tone and in a certain context, can sound like a reprimand, like a mark of someone who does not belong. I experienced that performance as a message to the audience to see, first and foremost, a Muslim, and only then a person whose arguments deserved to be heard. I cannot know what Watters intended, but I can state clearly the impression he left on me.
And what, exactly, is Abdul’s being Muslim supposed to prove? Is it a flaw in his political platform? Does his faith answer the question of how much medical care, rent, or food costs? Must a person with a Muslim name first justify his presence in public life before being given a chance to speak?
El-Sayed’s defense of religious freedom and his rejection of imposing his own faith on others deserve to be reported fairly. His policy proposals should face serious scrutiny. But no one’s religious affiliation should become a shortcut for avoiding a discussion of his arguments.
I expect a journalist to ask how a proposal will be paid for, whom it will help, and what consequences it may have. I expect persistence, knowledge, and responsibility. Mockery cannot replace preparation, nor is rudeness proof of journalistic courage.
A worker struggling to make ends meet will not be fed by suspicion of a neighbor’s faith. A retiree’s medicine will not become cheaper because a television host has shouted down a guest. A family dreading the next bill needs an answer, not another reason to fear people with different names.
Mr. Watters, challenge Abdul’s proposals if you have better arguments. Demand explanations and do not accept evasive answers. But give him room to respond and the respect you owe every person you interview.
Abdul is a person’s name. It is not an indictment. And a guest’s dignity does not end where the power of your microphone begins.
U razgovoru je bilo riječi o porezima i zdravstvu, ali i o šerijatu i drugim temama kulturnih sukoba. El-Sayed je insistirao da se razgovor vrati na troškove života, cijene namirnica i probleme zdravstvene zaštite. Upravo tu leži pitanje koje zaslužuje pažnju: koliko prostora ostaje za nevolje običnog čovjeka kada televizijski razgovor postane nadmetanje u provokacijama?
Posebno mi je zasmetao način obraćanja imenom „Abdul“. Samo izgovaranje nečijeg imena, naravno, nije uvreda. Ali ime, izgovoreno određenim tonom i u određenom kontekstu, može zazvučati kao opomena, kao oznaka tuđinstva. Ja sam taj nastup doživio kao poruku publici da pred sobom prvenstveno vidi muslimana, pa tek onda sagovornika čije argumente treba saslušati. Ne mogu znati šta je Watters namjeravao, ali mogu jasno reći kakav je utisak na mene ostavio.
A šta bi, zapravo, trebalo dokazivati time što je Abdul musliman? Je li to nedostatak u njegovom političkom programu? Je li njegova vjera odgovor na pitanje koliko košta liječenje, stanarina ili hrana? Mora li čovjek s muslimanskim imenom najprije opravdati svoje prisustvo u javnom životu, pa tek onda dobiti priliku da govori?
El-Sayedovo pozivanje na slobodu vjere i odbacivanje nametanja vlastite vjere drugima zaslužuju da budu pošteno preneseni. Njegove političke prijedloge treba podvrgnuti ozbiljnoj provjeri. Međutim, ničija vjerska pripadnost ne smije postati prečica kojom se zaobilazi rasprava o njegovim argumentima.
Od novinara očekujem da pita kako će neki prijedlog biti plaćen, kome će pomoći i kakve posljedice može imati. Očekujem upornost, znanje i odgovornost. Podsmijeh ne može zamijeniti pripremu, niti grubost predstavlja dokaz novinarske hrabrosti.
Radnika koji jedva sastavlja kraj s krajem neće nahraniti sumnja prema komšijinoj vjeri. Penzioneru neće pojeftiniti lijek zato što je televizijski voditelj nadglasao gosta. Porodici koja strahuje od sljedećeg računa potreban je odgovor, a ne još jedan povod da se boji ljudi drugačijeg imena.
Gospodine Watters, osporite Abdulove prijedloge ako imate bolje argumente. Tražite objašnjenja i ne prihvatajte izbjegavanje odgovora. Ali pružite mu prostor da odgovori i poštovanje koje dugujete svakom sagovorniku.
Abdul je ime čovjeka. Nije optužnica. A dostojanstvo gosta ne prestaje tamo gdje počinje moć vašeg mikrofona.
By Avdo Metjahić
Watching Jesse Watters’s interview with Abdul El-Sayed on Fox News, I was troubled by the host’s harsh treatment of his guest. A journalist has every right to ask uncomfortable questions. He has the right to demand precise answers and challenge any political claim. But a microphone does not give him the right to humiliate the person sitting across from him.
The conversation touched on taxes and healthcare, but also on Sharia and other culture-war issues. El-Sayed insisted on bringing the discussion back to the cost of living, grocery prices, and problems with healthcare. That raises a question worth considering: how much room remains for the struggles of ordinary people when a television interview becomes a contest in provocation?
What particularly troubled me was the way he addressed his guest as “Abdul.” Simply saying someone’s name is, of course, no insult. But a name, spoken in a certain tone and in a certain context, can sound like a reprimand, like a mark of someone who does not belong. I experienced that performance as a message to the audience to see, first and foremost, a Muslim, and only then a person whose arguments deserved to be heard. I cannot know what Watters intended, but I can state clearly the impression he left on me.
And what, exactly, is Abdul’s being Muslim supposed to prove? Is it a flaw in his political platform? Does his faith answer the question of how much medical care, rent, or food costs? Must a person with a Muslim name first justify his presence in public life before being given a chance to speak?
El-Sayed’s defense of religious freedom and his rejection of imposing his own faith on others deserve to be reported fairly. His policy proposals should face serious scrutiny. But no one’s religious affiliation should become a shortcut for avoiding a discussion of his arguments.
I expect a journalist to ask how a proposal will be paid for, whom it will help, and what consequences it may have. I expect persistence, knowledge, and responsibility. Mockery cannot replace preparation, nor is rudeness proof of journalistic courage.
A worker struggling to make ends meet will not be fed by suspicion of a neighbor’s faith. A retiree’s medicine will not become cheaper because a television host has shouted down a guest. A family dreading the next bill needs an answer, not another reason to fear people with different names.
Mr. Watters, challenge Abdul’s proposals if you have better arguments. Demand explanations and do not accept evasive answers. But give him room to respond and the respect you owe every person you interview.
Abdul is a person’s name. It is not an indictment. And a guest’s dignity does not end where the power of your microphone begins.
B-Net
