I was invited to give a view on the London riots for the Slovak news TV channel TA3 on Aug 10th. I had been closely following the events as I live in London close to Croydon where the most violent riots took place. I had spent the day of the interview at Lewisham Hospital where I worked as an interpreter, having ridden my bicycle across the affected areas. Incidentally, I started a conversation with a man who turned out to be the father of one of the rioters. I asked him why his kid did it. He said, he himself and his wife had never been in any employment, they had lived on benefits and that was all their son could see, he did not learn any work ethic from his parents. He added: "and now the government is going to take the benefits from us, how are the kids supposed to respond?" Subsequently, I reflected this view in my telephone interview, almost quoting what the man had said to me.
And then, a studio guest, Mr Eduard Chmelar, a respected teacher and media expert proclaimed: 'That woman is wrong'. I was stunned. An omniscient sofa pundit spoke. Presumably, he found some fragmented info on Jamaican families on the Internet. Was he in London as I was? Was it HE who rode a bicycle in dangerous neighborhoods? Was it HIM speaking to the perpetrators? Does he think his position justifies his disrespect for his fellow journalist especially if she (me) is not present in the studio to defend her position? He couldn't even read the name of the criticized person splashed all over the screen. And such condescending untouchables teach media and communication at Slovak universities. No wonder the Slovak media scene is short of culture and ethics. Mind you, the presenter, otherwise outstanding Peter Bielik, did not challenge 'that man' and did nothing to let the viewers know that different people draw on different sources and thus have different opinions, especially if the subject is so complex as the London riots. Out of reverence for a public figure decorated with journalistic awards? Who cares about viewers and their understanding. I bet the chatterbox Chmelar left the studio gratified, wallowing in his self-inflicted glory, congratulating himself on yet another sparkling TV appearance!
BTW, I am just watching a vivid debate on the BBC, and the views of the debaters are not just diverse but completely antagonistic. I can picture 'that man' shouting at them from his sofa: "You are all wrong!"
And then, a studio guest, Mr Eduard Chmelar, a respected teacher and media expert proclaimed: 'That woman is wrong'. I was stunned. An omniscient sofa pundit spoke. Presumably, he found some fragmented info on Jamaican families on the Internet. Was he in London as I was? Was it HE who rode a bicycle in dangerous neighborhoods? Was it HIM speaking to the perpetrators? Does he think his position justifies his disrespect for his fellow journalist especially if she (me) is not present in the studio to defend her position? He couldn't even read the name of the criticized person splashed all over the screen. And such condescending untouchables teach media and communication at Slovak universities. No wonder the Slovak media scene is short of culture and ethics. Mind you, the presenter, otherwise outstanding Peter Bielik, did not challenge 'that man' and did nothing to let the viewers know that different people draw on different sources and thus have different opinions, especially if the subject is so complex as the London riots. Out of reverence for a public figure decorated with journalistic awards? Who cares about viewers and their understanding. I bet the chatterbox Chmelar left the studio gratified, wallowing in his self-inflicted glory, congratulating himself on yet another sparkling TV appearance!
BTW, I am just watching a vivid debate on the BBC, and the views of the debaters are not just diverse but completely antagonistic. I can picture 'that man' shouting at them from his sofa: "You are all wrong!"
