Yup, this is the side of "fearless journalism" that we never hear about from the champions of media freedom who do not tire from telling us about their "principles" (i.e. "Geo Asool" in this case) and their fight for a more just and educated Pakistan. That is, when they're not inundating us with prattling talk shows about petty political intrigues...
A few questions that come to mind about this report for the Geo Asool people to answer:
1. It mentions that the entire "issue" was first highlighted by Geo itself. Did Geo create this "issue" or was there actually some protest before Geo got their cameras in there?
2. The poor terrorised principal states that the same curriculum is being followed by other schools. Did Geo's reporters make any attempt to check this? And if so, why was it not included in the report?
3. Is there something inherently wrong about teaching biology? Human biology? Sex education? Geo should tell us what its position is on the matter.
4. The thrust of the report seems to be that these kids are much too young to be given information about sex or human biology. Really? Is puberty too young? Is Geo implying that it would be okay if this information came slightly later? Or not at all?
5. What is the background of the moronic "Adviser on Education, Naveed Zuberi" who claims that Pakistani 'kids' are not even aware of sexual issues before they get their National ID card? Is he qualified to discuss educational matters? Does he know that the 'age of consent' in Pakistan is 16? And does an 'adviser' have the authority to conduct 'raids' on a school?
6. The report goes on to accuse the school of using further 'objectionable' material in its curricula, without specifying what this is. What is this objectionable material and who has deemed it objectionable? We see the cover of one book on Islam, with the implication that this is the offending material. If it isn't, Geo owes the writer /publisher of the textbook and the school an apology. If it is, why was it not spelled out so as not to tar everything else with the same brush?
7. Why was this particular school targeted? What connection does the reporter / commissioning editor have with this school? A full disclosure is necessary especially since it has tarnished the image of an educational institution without anything being proven.
Can anyone take up these questions with Geo and it's self-righteous owners?