I wrote the following piece in response to Aleem Faizee’s mischievous
piece .
Calling a stenographer’s bluff
A reporter should make sure that he speaks to experts on their respective subjects. For example, in the report architect Arif Shah is talking about religious nature of the mosque. It is like interviewing a criminal lawyer on the perils of colon cancer!
By Mubasshir Mushtaq
October 29, 2016
At a time, when Indian Muslims belonging to different sects are
answering the call of ‘sectarian unity’, a self-proclaimed “Malegaonian”
activist-cum-stenographer is busy thrusting his religious worldview upon the
community through “reporting”.
Theological differences have existed among Muslims for centuries and
will continue to emerge till Doomsday. That is one area we all shall leave to
theologians and scholars of Islamic jurisprudence. Anybody who thinks that
Muslims across the world should (or would) follow one particular strand of
religious interpretation (which he or she thinks is the only “righteous” path)
is living in fool’s paradise. It is akin to the daydreaming of Hindutva’s
homogenisation project.
Having said that, let me dissect the news report journalistically and
not religiously.
An ideal news report carefully follows what we call in journalism as
“principles of reporting”. Some of the key principles are accuracy, fairness,
verification, attribution, fact-checking, background detail, no colour (free
from bias), speaking to all sides (parties involved) etc.
The report in question violates most of these cherished principles.
Strictly speaking, a news report is sacred. In reporting, the opinion of
a reporter should not creep into the news report. A reporter should keep his
ideology (right or wrong) in his buttoned shirt pocket. He should not pollute
the report by inserting his views (right or wrong). A reporter can express his
views (however venomous) only in an opinion piece.
The report’s headline (intro and starting paragraphs) clearly sets the
tone of the reporting - that Masjid Haji Abdur Rauf ( not “Abdul Rauf”) is an
architectural masterpiece but yet it lacks the element of completeness because
of no “provision” for “women worshippers”.
From an objective journalistic point of “gender-equity”, it is a fair
demand but it suddenly takes a sectarian plunge in the form of opinion.
The reporter should know that there is indeed a provision for women’s
gathering on the mezzanine floor!
A careful reading of the report reveals that the reporter has inserted
one’s personal beliefs into the report. Notice the adjectives and nouns like
“embarrassing”, “humiliating”, “despair”, “disbelief”- an interpretation or inference
drawn by the reporter and not quoted the by the nameless woman being
interviewed.
A reporter should also reproduce names of his subjects as they desire
even with incorrect spellings. To do the same, a reporter should perform some
background check. The report terms my family as “Ghastelwala” - a suffix we
dropped way back in 1995!
A reporter should pay attention to the details. My father’s reproduced
quote to Maulana Arshad Madani is incorrect; a result of lazy journalism. I
have the audio recording of Maulana’s bayan to substantiate it as evidence.
A reporter should also know that he cannot quote his own son in his
reporting! There is an apparent conflict of interest. To the best of my
knowledge, Ather Shazan is the son of Aleem Faizee. Shall I coin a new term:
genealogical journalism?
The son’s quote is full of factual and architectural errors.
The red bricks used in the mosque are not known as “facade bricks” as
the architect son claims! No such terminology exists in the architecture! They
are popularly known as “exposed brick work” or “cladding”. These bricks are not
“solid” as the expert son claims. They are made from imported clay! And the
claim that they are “maintenance-free” is not true.
In a story, a reporter should directly speak to the subjects of the
story. In this case, the reporter didn’t speak to the mosque’s working
committee or the trustees! A news report will remain incomplete unless the
subjects involved in it are appropriately represented.
A news report should also seek permission and give due credit to every
single image used in the story. One of the pictures used in the story is
clicked by a friend and copyrighted in my name. It is a good example of
pictorial theft. This action alone is enough in journalism to discredit a news
report or the reporter.
The reporter should also make sure that he speaks to experts on their
respective subjects. For example, in the report architect Arif Shah is talking
about religious nature of the mosque. It is like interviewing a criminal lawyer
on the perils of colon cancer!
The news report also enters into the dangerous territory of pitting one
mosque against the other. For example: “However, Masjid Aisha, Mansoora still
outshines over 300 mosques of Malegaon.”
Again, a highly opinionated sentence which in simple words says: Mine is
better than yours!
I have grown up admiring the architectural beauty of Masjid Aisha and
continue to do so.
I shall end this rejoinder on a note from where I began by merely
reproducing a line from the article:
“Interestingly, Masjid Haji Abdul Rauf is inaugurated at a time when
India is debating extensively over rights of Muslim women and gender equality.”
Juxtapose this sentence to PM Narendra Modi's latest statement on the
plight of Muslim women in India.
It says it all.
No comments:
Post a Comment