‘LAWALE THOMAS
For reasons I consider logically obscure, the writer of the piece to which I am responding failed to put his name. For me, that is an uncomplicated indication that the writer either does not have the courage of his/her conviction or is agenda-driven. Whichever, it is more important to point out the limpness of the position he/she seeks to push.
First and foremost, I am in no position to instruct sponsors what they should invest their money in. My flimsy knowledge of sponsorship tells me that sponsors invest money where they would get maximum publicity and favourable perception. They are entitled to do so as long as such is legal.
That said, the writer, perhaps desperate to impress, deployed words he/she has no familiarity with. The Big Brother Najia reality show, according to the writer is a “travesty”. Branding something a travesty presupposes that it is a fake, absurd or a distorted representation of the real thing.
The common saying, “travesty of justice”, means a distorted form of the real thing. It goes without saying that you need to know what justice is to come to a conclusion on what represents a travesty of it. It is a safe bet that the writer was not with the franchise owners or sponsors at the conception stage of the show. That clearly would mean he/she has no or, at best, a foggy knowledge of what the real thing is.
We can then move on to the extravagant claim to morality. The writer comes across as one who thinks he is on a skyscraping moral pedestal. “Payporte’s sponsorship of the show”, he/she claims extravagantly, “elicits harsh condemnations in moralist circles”. Presumably, the writer is a member of a monastic order or has lived in a convent since creation.
Where do moralist circles exist? Only in the head of the writer, who obviously is incapable of understanding that there is no universal agreement on what constitutes morality and that morality is determined by many things. Notably, right and wrong is determined what an individual thinks or feels is right or wrong. Right or wrong is also determined by principles in a particular culture at a given time, not exactly eternally. We have seen how societies around the world have moved from thinking that virginity is a sign of chastity to seeing it as nothing more than a biological condition.
While growing up, I had friends who, if they failed to keep the pieces of meat till they finished their food, would be savagely knocked on their heads and branded “thieves”. Some parents never cared as long you ate.
Right or wrong is equally determined by our own ego or self-interest, just as it is determined by religious creed (s) to which not everybody subscribes. Even within the same religion, there is no consensus on certain habits, especially of the social variety. Drinking alcohol is permissible in some Christian denominations, but seriously frowned upon in others. .
The writer obviously sees himself or herself as being in a position to tell the rest of humanity what to or what not to do.
“The BBN show”, he claims, “advocates no morals. All it does is promote random sexual escapades among its participants as can be seen in the conduct of past and recent housemates. The incumbent participants in the show engage in condemnable acts of moral decadence as they expose their private parts and engage in lewdness unfit for broadcast”.
You don’t like music with phallic lyrics, stay off such and drench yourself in instrumentals, gospel music and other genres you find agreeable. But to attempt to legislate to adults what they can watch or listen to carries a whiff of fundamentalism. You simply do not have the power to legislate what they consume.
BBN is a reality show. That suggests it is unscripted. As with every unscripted thing, there is a chance of getting a few off-the-wall things. But then, you are not forced to watch. The writer thinks the housemates, including those with first and second degrees have low IQ. I would think a person possessed of presumably superior IQ would have put it to use and such would have helped him/her realise that no one is compelled to watch.
Of course, that fantastic IQ should also have helped in coming to the realization that you could block channels or shows you do not want to watch or you do not want people of certain ages to see. That the writer, with his/her grand claim to intelligence, does not know this is as shocking as a heart attack.
I suspect that the writer would want the internet, which provides unfettered access to the good, bad and downright grotesque, banned. I expect that to be recommended in his/her next installment of waffle.
Thomas, a literary artist, writes from Lagos. Email: [email protected]
