PressEthic

The veil debate recently rose to the surface in the U.K. following the suspension of a muslim teacher for wearing a veil, and the comments of ex-foreign secretary, Jack Straw, who said that he asks veiled women visiting his office to consider removing it. A week ago the BBC found itself caught up in the controversy, raising questions about the effect of conspicuous faith on the viewer's perception of a newsreader.

The content of the meeting was leaked to the tabloid press, including The Daily Mail:

The BBC was debating whether a female Muslim newsreader should be allowed to wear a headscarf while reading the news when the issue over Ms Bruce's cross was brought up.

The cross in question is that which hangs on a chain round the neck of Ten O'Clock News reader Fiona Bruce. According to the Mail:

A source who attended the meeting said: "It was argued that BBC staff on screen should not wear anything which hints or directly points to a political or religious leaning and that the cross contravened this and should not be allowed."

But the discussion remained hypothetical, and Ms. Bruce was not asked to remove the necklace, nor were any official guidelines created on the subject.

On the BBC's Editors' blog, Peter Horrocks, head of TV news, clarified the issue by describing the nature of the conflict that, at a time of heightened religious tension, caused such heated discussion among BBC governers:

The debate puts in opposition some principles the BBC stands for. The BBC is a supporter of freedom of expression. Equally we want our newsreaders to be seen as entirely impartial. Any religious clothing or insignia they wear could make some viewers question their impartiality.

Like the BBC, I initially felt quite torn on the issue, as I wondered whether it being a hypothetical situation (last time I was in the U.K., I was not aware of any BBC newsreader wearing a conspicuous religious symbol) made it easy to adopt an ideological pro-freedom of expression standpoint.

In fact, at first I thought that the reality of the idea might actually be too problematic; that giving a headskarfed or skull-capped newsreader a role in a prime-time slot might lead to the break-down of trust from viewers who didn't share his or her faith. And if the report were about Palestine or Israel, for example, would it be taken differently by viewers depending on the perceived religion of the reader? Furthermore, this kind of prime-time recognition could lead to objections from minority religious groups that their own faith was being underrepresented, which could lead to political correctness ruling over the appointment of newsreaders.

But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced otherwise. Horrocks argues that religious insignia and impartiality are perceived by some to be mutually exclusive. But this is largely symptomatic of the way that current affairs are dividing people along faith lines in a way that only seems to lead to conflict. Surely by fearing the reaction of "some viewers", the BBC would only be strengthening this division.

In fact, surely its up to trusted institutions such as the BBC to take the step to introduce newsreaders of all faiths into the living rooms of people in Britain and around the world. This shouldn't by any means be their priority -- I'm not talking about filling quotas -- but I am talking about not turning down newsreader candidates because they acknowledge their faith in their physical appearance. Why shouldn't the trusted figure-head of the Ten O'Clock News wear a turban? Why shouldn't people be taught that religious clothing or insignia does not reflect on a capable individual's ability to perform an impartial role. It may take some getting used to for "some", but right now I think it could be infinitely valuable to everyone.