Could the banning of specific recreational TV programs discourage the depiction of vulgarity in similar programming?
Do we really have the illusion of ban in the time of digital revolution??
The debate is general and is not confined to a particular country, but here in Lebanon it took an upward drift in the past two weeks on the background of a local audacious entertainment program that provoked controversy.
From this gate of controversy political and partisan forces declared an onslaught on the media through the gate of entertainment programs and claimed concern for the Lebanese women of commodification.
Here, we say nothing new that shallow and scandalous entertainment programs are not limited to Lebanon, but local copies of global programs within this category commits some exaggerations and cheap excitement. But this by no means implies the acceptance of this ongoing case of alert.
When a minister in the government say that freedom does not permit the violation of public morals and other ministers and MPs speak about the need not to abuse the image of Lebanese women, at the time those same MPs rejected few days ago a draft law criminalizing sexual harassment and even mocked it, this is considered the height of contradiction.
I will not discuss how many violations suffered by the Lebanese women in a form that is sponsored by the law and society in terms of equal rights before the law in matters of personal status, granting citizenship to their children, economic and rights and political representation as well which all deemed as areas of severe prejudices.
The state did not find an access only through television programs certainly contain scandalous and vulgarity, but to invoke it as excuse is not in the interests of women, but it is a window to crack down on the media.
The debate recently raised was stirred by a certain program, but it was a gateway to undermine a set of other bold-flavoured entertainment programs which content contains overtones seen by some as "trite"...
In a country governed by considerations of factions and sharp division in addition to a decline in the concept of the modern democratic state for the benefit of regional sectarian polarization is a state that is not in line with the principle of freedom of information and expression.
From here stems the feeling of anxious, as warning of a certain program under the slogan of protecting the ethics of society portends dangerous things may allow for religious or political views to impose their agenda through such an opportunity. They could also impose censorship on the media under the pretext of defending morals and ethics.
Yes, the language of violence and incitement prevail in the media of a country marred by disinformation, sects, feuding groups and permanent civil wars. But the main source of this language are the sectarian political class which itself controls the media.
No one objected to the politicians who repeated the use of inciting accents and even obscene in many cases, so why is the attack on the media?
Media crisis in Lebanon is a financial and professional one. We are definitely lacking more than ever to transparency and high standards.
We still definitely need to learn the rules of the game of democracy and respect it.
It is no secret that a number of prominent Lebanese TV stations slipped in recent years to the game of triviality, easiness and scandals and lack of taste as well. But prevention and intimidation in a country lacks that sovereignty and where standards of freedom are declining, is extremely dangerous for the last structure with a meaning in Lebanon namely freedom of expression, even if this freedom in the event of a mess a little bit.
“Public Morals” is an elastic concept. In the advanced Western countries there are bodies that set standards taking into account the possible higher ceiling of openness.
But what is happening in Lebanon of targeting a certain TV program or channel and give the impression that there is an imminent danger, this is considered a direct attempt to lower the ceiling of social freedoms and pave the way for discretionary controls...
Here lies the concern...
• Diana Moukalled is a veteran journalist with extensive experience in both traditional and new media. She is also a columnist and freelance documentary producer. She can be reached on Twitter: @dianamoukalled.
Do we really have the illusion of ban in the time of digital revolution??
The debate is general and is not confined to a particular country, but here in Lebanon it took an upward drift in the past two weeks on the background of a local audacious entertainment program that provoked controversy.
From this gate of controversy political and partisan forces declared an onslaught on the media through the gate of entertainment programs and claimed concern for the Lebanese women of commodification.
Here, we say nothing new that shallow and scandalous entertainment programs are not limited to Lebanon, but local copies of global programs within this category commits some exaggerations and cheap excitement. But this by no means implies the acceptance of this ongoing case of alert.
When a minister in the government say that freedom does not permit the violation of public morals and other ministers and MPs speak about the need not to abuse the image of Lebanese women, at the time those same MPs rejected few days ago a draft law criminalizing sexual harassment and even mocked it, this is considered the height of contradiction.
I will not discuss how many violations suffered by the Lebanese women in a form that is sponsored by the law and society in terms of equal rights before the law in matters of personal status, granting citizenship to their children, economic and rights and political representation as well which all deemed as areas of severe prejudices.
The state did not find an access only through television programs certainly contain scandalous and vulgarity, but to invoke it as excuse is not in the interests of women, but it is a window to crack down on the media.
The debate recently raised was stirred by a certain program, but it was a gateway to undermine a set of other bold-flavoured entertainment programs which content contains overtones seen by some as "trite"...
In a country governed by considerations of factions and sharp division in addition to a decline in the concept of the modern democratic state for the benefit of regional sectarian polarization is a state that is not in line with the principle of freedom of information and expression.
From here stems the feeling of anxious, as warning of a certain program under the slogan of protecting the ethics of society portends dangerous things may allow for religious or political views to impose their agenda through such an opportunity. They could also impose censorship on the media under the pretext of defending morals and ethics.
Yes, the language of violence and incitement prevail in the media of a country marred by disinformation, sects, feuding groups and permanent civil wars. But the main source of this language are the sectarian political class which itself controls the media.
No one objected to the politicians who repeated the use of inciting accents and even obscene in many cases, so why is the attack on the media?
Media crisis in Lebanon is a financial and professional one. We are definitely lacking more than ever to transparency and high standards.
We still definitely need to learn the rules of the game of democracy and respect it.
It is no secret that a number of prominent Lebanese TV stations slipped in recent years to the game of triviality, easiness and scandals and lack of taste as well. But prevention and intimidation in a country lacks that sovereignty and where standards of freedom are declining, is extremely dangerous for the last structure with a meaning in Lebanon namely freedom of expression, even if this freedom in the event of a mess a little bit.
“Public Morals” is an elastic concept. In the advanced Western countries there are bodies that set standards taking into account the possible higher ceiling of openness.
But what is happening in Lebanon of targeting a certain TV program or channel and give the impression that there is an imminent danger, this is considered a direct attempt to lower the ceiling of social freedoms and pave the way for discretionary controls...
Here lies the concern...
• Diana Moukalled is a veteran journalist with extensive experience in both traditional and new media. She is also a columnist and freelance documentary producer. She can be reached on Twitter: @dianamoukalled.
