SOME of my colleagues seem to think that expressing an opinion at variance with the opinion of the majority of people is a sort of media suicide. Well, it seems I am today doing exactly what my colleagues have warned against. The TV interview of the Saudi bragger — publicly known now as the “promoter of vice” — was disgusting to say the least. I am not saying that out of religious piety; nor am pretending to be virtuous. I do believe, however, that such an interview would probably not be made on channels in the West where tolerance for such things is far greater than we are accustomed to in the Kingdom.
The mistake made by broadcasting the young man’s obscenities and foolishness cannot be justified. The difference between freedom and vulgarity might seem very narrow but it is in fact very wide.
Though I was disgusted by what I saw and heard, I nevertheless believe that closing the office of the channel which aired the program was not correct. The lawsuit filed by the civic society against the young man is a manifestation of civilized behavior expressing the reaction of society to an issue that has caused society harm. The closing of the channel’s office, however, is not something that will solve the problem. On the contrary it may rather complicate the matter.
The anger shown by many citizens was deterrent enough to TV channels not to make similar mistakes. There is no deterrent strong enough as the one imposed by the public. People have clearly expressed their attitude toward the program. Why then do we close the office of a TV channel, prevent the publishing of a newspaper or withhold distribution of a book?
I have no relationship whatsoever with this channel but I am just calling for justice and fairness in our punishment. We should not go to extremes in our hostility. It is only moderates who will, in the end, win such battles.
