Le Magnifake?
2010-05-20 | Published 10:00
Advertised as "the hottest networking event" of Dubai, "Le Magnifique" attracted about 600 professionals. Some of them were denied entry due to their cultural or religious attire.
Advertisement
Organized by FBC Middle East, the networking event was held at Media One Hotel, located in Dubai Media City within the heart of "New Dubai". Apparently the door policy for this "magnificent networking evening" was not clearly advertised. Disappointed networkers were denied entry for wearing the "Kandura" i.e. UAE's national dress for males or the "Hijab" or head scarf for the females. The facebook event page for "Le Magnifique" had specified the dress code as "Business or Casual", which was later changed to "Business to Funky Club".
Areeba Hanif, who owns and runs My Big Day Films, was among the networkers who were denied entry to the event. When asked about her instant reaction and views upon being ordered to leave the event because of her head scarf, she stated, "I was appalled that I was being discriminated for a personal choice that is generally upheld in the UAE. I understand the Islamic point of view, but it sounds like they are trying to say: if you are outright Muslim you can't enjoy some entrepreneurial opportunities".
An Emirati professional, Aida Al Busaidy, expressed her views on the incident at the event through her twitter page, "No one should be discriminated for wearing clothes representing their religion especially in their own country."
Media One Hotel responded swiftly and posted a public apology on their twitter page later today, saying: "Please accept our sincerest apologies for any misunderstanding regarding the denied entry to Le Magnifique. Should you wish to discuss this matter further we are happy to meet with you at your earliest convenience."
nabila@newzglobe.com
Region
Middle East & Asia
Sverige
Most read last 7 days
Recent comments
-
mogli (Hello Middle East and Asi...):The business concept was easy -
-
Resell seo services (Swedish rapist becomes pl...):Resell seo services -
-
SEO resellers (Hello Middle East and Asi...):SEO resellers -
-
SENGUTTUVAN (Parle-G for growth!):Best biscuits -
-
Aisha Ghazi (Named and shamed - Pakist...):Sv: Hang them High -
-
Guest (Greener buildings in Abu...):Sv: How do we enroll in the -
-
martson (Help the flood victims in...):Help them -
-
martson (Hello Middle East and Asi...):Welcome -
- 1 of 4
- ››
More articles
- Floods rampage Pakistan equity mar... - 2010-08-27 11:00
- Dubai sticking to the budget - 2010-08-27 11:00
- Cartelization suspected in Pakista... - 2010-08-27 11:00
- Indian Diamond merchants to float... - 2010-08-27 11:00
- Pakistan's economy battered - 2010-08-27 11:00
- King Abdullah announces new Aramco... - 2010-08-27 11:00
- Pakistan cement industry in hot wa... - 2010-08-27 11:00
- Abraaj Capital enters Palestine - 2010-08-27 11:00
- 1 of 6
- ››
Latest comments
Nabila, with all due respect, I think your headline and article are a bit harsh...
I think it's completely appropriate!
I think it's completely appropriate!
Perhaps you should do some research and get your facts straight before you post such unprofessional and inaccruate journalism...
as far as i am aware - 2 people were requested to remove the hijab...not as you say "Many disappointed networkers were denied entry for wearing the "Kandura" i.e. UAE's national dress for males or the "Hijab" or head scarf for the females."
As far as I am aware - it is UAE government law that prohibits Kandura or Hijab to be worn in venues selling alcohol. This had nothing to do with the venue or the organisers.
So are you suggesting that the venue should have broken the law in this instance?
So shall we now call your website "NEWSFAKE"????
It was earlier announced by the organizers that just head scarf had clearance. clearly there was some level of mis-communication. Either way they apologized. The idea of this story being published is not to embarrass the organizers in anyway - it is rather to bring the issue under spotlight.
The event it self however was far from fake as i met some fantastic people and made new friends whilst consistently wondering how many women missed out on this brilliant concept and opportunity.
Regards
I was refused entry too. I was there and it was not just 2 people. The UAE government law prohibits national dress in a club and not at a networking event. Thank you for your feedback.
Hi Susan,
I understand about the headline part, but which part of my article did you find harsh? I've reported what I and a few others experienced at the event.
Regards,
Nabila
Your headline referring to the event was inappropriate. The headline should have referred to the hotel rather than the event itself.
Thank you Shelina. The headline is a question, more than a statement. It is up to the readers to answer it. Btw, good stuff on Dubai Today.
There is a bit of grey in admission to bars/clubs while wearing outward symbols of culture or faith. While some venues bar national dresses and obvious expressions of faith, others don't.
Media One's mistake was not conveying a change in policy to the door staff. The dress code was meant to be/should have been very inclusive for a networking event. The fact people were turned away went against the spirit of what was a good networking opportunity.
On the other hand, I was actually quite surprised at Media One's rapidfire response and apology, and their apparent willingness to take things further with those turned away. Well done on that - there's a lesson to be learnt here on community engagement.
And bravo to Areeba - who in inimitable fashion took off heir sheila and entered anyway. It's just unfortunate she had to; someone more pedantic would have taken serious offence.
Bad PR for the Hotel & Organizers.
Whoever was in-charge should have put his/her neck on the line and made sure the doors were still open to all, after the discovery of the miscommunication.
There might have been repercussions, but they would have probably been internal rather than bad press the following morning.
But every cloud has a silver lining, now other organizers won't make a similar mistake.
Areeba took her scarf off and went in - why is she complaining? That's not mentioned in the article is it? Technically she wasn't denied entry if she entered anyway. Nabila and whoever else stood their ground and didn't enter the event and didn't compromise on their beliefs have a better chance of making their voice heard in this case.
Why wear a scarf if you're fine with taking it off when someone says you can't go somewhere because of it?
YES it is unfortunate that they were denied entry, but from what I know, you can't enter a club in Dubai in national dress. There was alcohol there, so I'm guessing the bouncer was doing his job.
It's ridiculous that people were denied entry to a networking event, so things need to be changed and catered for all. Events meant for all should be held at neutral venues or rules need to be changed on a case-by-case basis if they're held at clubs/bars.
Uhm. Sorry but my bigger problem now with this is that Nabila, if you were refused entry and a direct victim of the event, you're suddenly not in a position to report on it. That's bad journalism I'm afraid. You could have blogged this, but someone unbiased should have been reporting. That someone might have quoted the organizers. Or chosen a better headline.
I don't think the regulation talks about a club vs a networking event, but at a hotel location serving alcohol, which this was. Note that the organizers were extremely clear that Kanduras would not be permitted. I read it, and heard it when the event was announced on the radio the previous day.
For those who were denied entry, I do agree it is unfair. I think the organizers were perhaps better off hosting the event at a location that might have been able to entertain people without a dress code barrier. Your article also did not mention that Areeba removed her sheila and entered anyway. Again, I agree that she shouldn't have needed to, but it is a matter of factual reporting.
Hisham's right that someone more pedantic would have taken serious offense, and clearly the writer of the newspiece did take offense (and it was justified), but I circle on my point that the writer should never have written the newspiece.
Regarding the headline - I can see why there is a problem with it, because it makes the entire event sound like a farce. As if everyone was there for one purpose but it turned out to be for something else. The writer couldn't have known that.
This hopefully ends my $0.02.
Hi Chirag - I was attending the event from media perspective to report it and say how "cool" the event was. But I wasn't allowed even as a Newzglobe representative. So thanks for the $0.02, unfortunately I trade in AED ;)
I think the tone of the article misrepresents what happened.
You say: "Many disappointed networkers were denied entry for wearing the "Kandura" i.e. UAE's national dress for males or the "Hijab" or head scarf for the females."
"Many," to me means dozens. It sounds to me like it was three, although I don't know, the facts seem still to be emerging... However, if it were three, then "several" would be the correct word.
Areeba was not "denied entry." She chose to take of her scarf and come in.
The tone of the article suggests some kind of malicious intent on behalf of the venue and the organisers. This was clearly NOT the case.
I think it was a simple matter of mis-communication as has already been pointed out by several others.
I believe that, had those in charge known what was happening at the time, something would have been done AT THE TIME, to handle the situation. Unfortunately, that didn't happen.
I also believe that you should have clearly stated in the article that you were turned away, as that was central to the "story."
If you write a news piece, you must be accurate in reporting the facts. I don't think your reportage was accurate and factual. That's my opinion.
An op-ed piece offers more leeway, but then it must be identified as such...
"Areeba took her scarf off and went in - why is she complaining?" > Because I speak for not just myself.
"Why wear a scarf if you're fine with taking it off when someone says you can't go somewhere because of it?" >
Because I was not going to walk away and let anyone in charge feel that they have successfully imposed an unfair law on me.
With re to taking it off >
I wear it for extremely personal reasons not religious, so showing the hair was not a problem for me. Once in, i consistently wondered how many women who wear it for religious reasons were denied the opportunity.
Susan, I was denied entry
"unless you take it off Ma'am, which you will not" and I said "You sure about that? Watch me. This is wrong. So wrong"
Nabila,
No issue with the purpose you went there for. But I maintain that because you became a victim of the issue thereafter, you shouldn't have reported the event. It's okay that you trade in AED, my 7.35 fils are available since we have a locked exchange rate.
Had you gotten in and reported about the event, super. You didn't, so you couldn't report on the event. You fell victim to the country's inconsistent regulation and some miscommunication. This is now a story for someone else that can quote you. News writing is about unbiased reporting. As much as we can discuss about the inconsistency, unfairness and more about the event, this is still a news piece and should have abided by the basics.
Chirag
Hi Susan,
"Many denied entry" phrase refers to the more than 7 people I have been in touch since last night and this morning.
Areeba was denied entry and THEN she decided to take the action which she took. So the fact remains that she was denied entry to the event.
2 paragraphs are quotes from people and the first paragraph is the description and last paragraph is the apology, so from my point of view - the article is neutral. I did try to reach the organizers and the hotel, but did not receive any response.
My intention was to cover the event and highlight how well it went. But not being allowed to enter even as a media person - now where does that lead us?
There were no comments against the hotel or organizers - hence I don't think it was an opinionated article.
I sincerely appreciate your feedback. <3
Without trawling through the many comments posted here, and withoug wishing to cause any offence, I would like to just point out that the person at the centre of this issue feels so aggrieved at her treatment and yet she is not wearing her veil in her Twitter avatar.
Why didn't she just take it off since she is obviously happy to show her face online?
Just to make something clear: I'm NOT okay with the restrictions in place. Everyone should have been able to enter the event especially as it was a networking event.
You entered the event. Therefore an unfair law WAS imposed on you - the one where people with scarves, kandura etc cannot enter. You entered sans a scarf = unfair law in place.
I agree = I didn't get in and I didn't report about the event in my article. I reported only about what happened outside the event. I don't get it, which part of the article was "biased". According to me here is the break up of my article:
a) Description
b) Quotes from people
c) Apology from the hotel
My views and comments are kept to myself - not included in this article.
Nabila,
Once again, the fact that you were a victim of what you're reporting makes it biased by default, no matter how well you can keep your emotions at bay.
You did not mention that you were one of the people denied entry in the article, you did not mention Areeba entered by taking her scarf off, you did not mention that there was a radio event the day before where they addressed the dress-code and specified, at least there, that kanduras were not allowed but the organizers were trying to sort it out with the hotel to allow them.
Even if you did the a) b) c) you mentioned, you missed out on d) e) f) g). Even if you kept your personal opinion out of the article, your bias made for a very skewed article and skewed headline. Calling it Magnifake seems like a pretty strong comment against the organizers if you ask me.
Chirag
You start by saying "many" then you say "few".
I agree that its an important topic but a really poor article. The headline, the many and few, the lack of facts on who was to responsible. Its just not a very good article on what is a key issue.
I dont think its bias or emotive or anything like that. Thats not my issue. Its just not very well put together, with a badly thoughts out headline and then a sketchy body copy.
somebody earlier said this should have been a blog not a story. they are correct in terms of how this is written. but it couldve have been an interesting and thought provoking story, as opposed to what it turned into.
So you mean to say if a journalist is injured with a bullet in Iraq, that makes him unsuitable journalist to report that shooting. From where I stand, that makes him the best person to report the incident because he was there, he experienced what happened.
I reported what I was given from Areeba (I didn't have the scarf-off part when the article was published). The fact that I wrote the article automatically means that I was present.
By the way, were you even present at the event?
What you call a skewed headline is a direct question which I pose to the readers. Some like it others don't. Le Magnifake? with a question mark means its a question, not a statement.
Btw, I am thinking of ice-cream with those AED 7.35 ;)
Thank you for the comments, sincerely appreciate it ;)
Coming from the fact that I've worked at newspapers and magazines, and I am finishing my Masters in a journalism degree, I have to butt in to this conversation.
If a journalist is shot in Iraq, it's not her/his job to report about being shot. It's her/his job to report the situation of the war. Of the battle. Of all the events except being shot. Doing so will compromise her/his report. OTHER ppl can report on her/him being shot. But when it comes to what directly affected her/him, it becomes an opinion piece. A feature. A blog. A comment. Not news.There's a difference.
The article (biased or unbiased) seems fine to me though the heading could have been different. It tells me exactly what the event was about, what happened and what the response was. Yes the 'areeba removing her scarf' part can be added to the article (if possible), that would make it more balanced (?) I suppose.
Hi Devina - thank you for answering Chirag's question about why I didn't include in the article that I was refused entry too. In this case "being shot = me not getting entry" - and I didn't write that. Reporting on the situation of the war in this case the incident itself - yes I tried to do that. Many people will hate it, others will like it.
This article is under the entertainment section and it is not the main news. Good luck with the masters.
We'll start with the math, I said 7.35 fils (conversion of $0.02), so sorry, no ice-cream today unless you're planning on fronting the AED 7.2765 yourself ;)
I appreciate you reading the comments and responding as well.
About the headline, the event's fakeness wasn't in question. The dress code/denial was the issue. The headline however is a matter of opinion. So while I don't agree, you can have that one.
I was present at the event. Thanks for asking.
I don't understand how you had Areeba's comment but didn't have the fact about the scarf-off. They happened in the same time-window, not hours apart. That has to go down as something you missed in the article.
And finally, I know I went about this backwards, but the journalist in your example, can report on anything about Iraq except his shooting. His experience with the shooting is a feature (written by someone else) or a blogpost about his experience and not a newspiece. This distinction is very clear to me and comes with some background to make that distinction.
Reading all these comments, looks like an interesting dinner table conversation.
It's interesting to see how people have shifted from the actual news piece to the technicalities of journalism.
@Nabila - You have every right to defend your work but no ones perfect.
Everyone else - She reported it, cut her some slack. No one is perfect and we've all made our fair share of mistakes.
we're always learning; this event, this article, the feedback - has taught everyone something they didn't know. Lets move on. Focus on the bigger picture at hand - how to avoid a repeat of last night's Le Magnifique in the future.
Chill people!
Thank you Faisal. I am checking about it with Areeba and will do the necessary factual update. News develop gradually, no matter how much research we do. Thank you for reading ;)
Thanks.
Anyway, if we must continue with this analogy, 3-4 members of your troop including yourself were shot. Therefore you can't report it. Simple. You can however, comment on it.
Btw it may be filed under entertainment, but there is no clear signposting to say that it's a comment and not a news piece. Might I point, that a few posts ago, you said this was reporting, So which is it? A news report? Or a comment?
Ahmed Shaikh - I hereby declare you as the "Hero" comment of the day. Have a wonderful weekend in whichever parts of UAE that you can access ;)
Nabila,
You're right, being shot = you not getting entry. But you reported about that fact, people getting shot (you included). You didn't report about the event leaving out the fact that people weren't allowed in. You can't skip the fact that you were denied entry - it doesn't make you writing this justifiable because you left out the part where you were one of the people?
Had no idea the article was in the main news section. If that was so, why did you counter my points with the fact that you'd written a perfectly good news article?
An article is supposed to be unbiased. That's the point.
well, this is semantics now.
You would have been denied entry had you not taken the scarf off.
You were in fact not denied entry, because you removed the scarf and you were at the event.
Sorry, but that is the accurate way of saying it :)
I never said it was a "perfectly good" news article. You seem a bit angry at the moment. Lets talk on msn after that ice-cream :) You can email me on nabila@newzglobe.com
This conversation can go on forever. That is why the world is beautiful and interesting :)
Ahmed,
Valid points. Yes we shifted only because the issue itself is not under debate. I think everyone agrees it shouldn't have happened, better communication should have been in place, and something needs to be done about the way the law is consistent and clearly biased.
Since then we've moved to the issue of responsible journalism. It might be a smaller issue in comparison, but it's an issue. You're right, btw. We've all made mistakes. Her work was not perfect. I agree on both counts.
But right now, she hasn't really acknowledged that it wasn't perfect work. That's where I have a problem. If we learn out of this to make better news from here on out, that's fine. Great, even. If we keep circling around the same argument that this was unbiased journalism and perfect news report, that's not.
Faisal,
Glad the article seemed fine to you. One missing fact is not the balance we are looking for however. More than one fact was left out, the fact that writer was also denied entry is a significant omission.
Sure if you leave all that out, the article does seem fine. But that's the problem right, readers such as you and me might think it was fine when the opinion could significantly change (may or may not in this specific situation but generally) with the mention of those pieces of information, however small.
I'm no journalist nor a person who skims through news articles on the internet on a daily basis. A bit of a layman if you know what I mean. So IMHO this article seems fine apart from the few things I pointed out and it doesn't seem biased to me. Anyway most articles always have a hint of personal opinion about them.
Hey Nabila,
7 is 7. It is not many. Many is "a large number." Check your dictionary :)
Areeba was not denied entry. She would have been denied entry had she not taken her scarf off. She took it off. She entered, therefore she was not denied entry.
In my opinion the article is not neutral. That opinion is shared by several others who have also commented.
A more useful approach for the story might have begun thus:
"I went to LaMagnifique networking event last night expecting to walk away with a story about how "cool" it was.
Instead, I left angry, denied entry for wearing a headscarf, never having had the chance to even walk through the door..."
Then you could have gone on to tell the story....
Furher, I second all the points Chirag has already made.
Thanks for the opportunity to offer feedback :)
I fail to understand what has got people more worked up.
a. The event not allowing kandura/scarf wearing people,
b. Areeba taking off her hijab or
c. Nabila's reporting?
For a, I'd say the hotel/organizers (whoever has published the apology) needs to do more than just apologize and invite people (those who were turned away) to talk.
For b, That's Areeba's prerogative. For whatever reason she observes hijab and for whatever reason she took it off - it's her choice.
As for c, Nabila, just do a in-depth follow up. Hound the hotel people till you get a statement. Heck, so many issues and as a result article ideas have arisen through this short piece that you can query your editor very successfully!
I'm sorry if I came off angry (assuming you were talking to me, bit tough without a threaded view here). I counter things point by point - this is just how I write when I'm trying to factually make a point. Nothing more. I'm naturally sarcastic as a person, more so in writing. I hope no one takes offense to that.
For the record, I'm smiling at things off screen and getting necessary responses to work e-mails with no changes. Nothing to be unhappy or angry about.
I agree that this conversation can go on forever. I'll add you on MSN too. However, from the responses thus far, I don't believe you will change your opinion about where the article was lacking, if you think that at all. You might argue I'm equally holding onto my opinion, but it's one thing to convince me as a reader that the article is truly unbiased. It's another for you as the writer to understand that there is some (well quite a bit IMHO) bias here and it should be fixed in the future.
This will probably be my last comment for the moment since I need to sign off here now, so will check back in later. That said, you are welcome to collect on that ice-cream anytime :)
Dear Chiragh & Susan,
I understand your points, and respect them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't journalism an art? Yes there are guidelines to ensure responsible reporting. However this is Nabila's work, as far as I see, she feels she has done nothing wrong. You can't force her to admit to something, which in her educated opinion she isn't guilty of. Both of you might be more experienced than she is, I don't know, but she has creative rights over the piece. If she thinks she is right, then she is.
Let us all take a bow, for we have debated well.
Live & let live.
I feel if we dwell any further, then semantics will get us nowhere.
the reason its moved on is the issue. My interest should be about dress at events in the UAE. instead its about poor journalism. But there again....UAE....poor journalism.....oh yeh !
but thats the point. its become c) because of the poor quality. If the article had been good and done properly we would be discussing the issue and what happened. instead we are discussing yet more poor UAE journalism. its a shame and thats why i feel strongly about it. A very serious issue is now on the back burner because someone threw together an article and didnt think it through. sad i think.
Dear Richard,
I appreciate your feedback. Could I kindly request you to copy and paste the line that offended you the most? It is the shortest piece with 2 paragraphs of quotes and 1 paragraph of description at the top. Just because you don't like the story doesn't make it bad journalism: which is a very broad category.
Eat some ice-cream and chill! ;) So much for freedom of expression, eh?
its the whole article. you have pcked up a serious issue. then written a very poor piece about it. thats what I find to be a shame. we are all talking (especially me) about journalism issues, and the issue has been lost. I am certain that wasn't your intention, and yet as others have mentioned you havent actually gone back on the way you have written anything. therefore you believe you have written a good article. and if you do believe that then why are we all talking about the article, and not the issue ? you dont seem to be willing to recognise this point. freedom of expression you say ? as a journalist it only works if you then report, articulate and distingush fact and comment. then freedom of expression is a wonderful thing. not just banging something out into the press probably too quickly.
anyway ive said my bit - ill go for a mint cornetto.
How come you didn't mention that MediaOne Hotel also put out an official statement that was read out in full during Dubai Today on Dubai Eye 103.8 FM? Also the organizers of the event promised it won't happen again, live on air. Next event, we can see if the words were true. Article not very informative of you, Twitter wasn't the only apology the hotel posted. Shame on you for not doing proper research before pushing out an article like this.
Try and check the date and time of the article and you'll see it was published before Dubai Today programme! would you like me to say: shame on you for not paying attention??? What's with the language?!!!
Nabila- i think you've done good job, and for people who consider it harsh i'd say you're so pampered by local media here; proper media is nothing less than harsh on messed up situations. And oh, people's comments are harsher that the actual article!
I sugegst everyone just lay off Nabila. She was doing her job by reporting her experience, which is precisely what she was there for. It's called free and fair journalism; it doesn't make sense for her to get shaken over the dress issue and quickly give up her job to another 'unbiased' reporter as suggested by Chirag.
Ennazus, it is extremely unjust to comment on her willingness to 'show her face online'; her picture appears with a covered head, and the head scarf is what she was defending at the event door, not a face veil. I don't see any logic or consistency in your comment.
Finally, it would be nice if Dubai's large expat population realised that this this place has laws which are meant to be followed. It's not soem kind of haven where they can choose to live and continue practising the laws and values of their own land. If they choose to live here, they've got to follow the law of the land.
It's no great surprise that the event organizers have apologized; anyone would have expected them to, if sanity prevails.
Neda
Post new comment