« Iraq and ‘The Time Scale For Tolerance’
Christians in Turkey Celebrate Easter and have High Hopes for Future »
How the BBC Prevents Britain From Getting Her Soul Back
The Telegraph reports that the BBC “has cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain’s youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.”
“Private Johnson Beharry’s courage in rescuing an ambushed foot patrol then, in a second act, saving his vehicle’s crew despite his own terrible injuries earned him a Victoria Cross.”
It was, according to the Telegraph “too positive” for the BBC.
The BBC’s retreat from the project, which had the working title Victoria Cross, has sparked accusations of cowardice and will reignite the debate about the broadcaster’s alleged lack of patriotism.
If this story is true, it seems to me that there is not much of a debate left, is there? On the other hand, one could, of course, argue that a network should not be patriotic in the first place, with which I tend to agree: the BBC should not be ‘patriotic’. The BBC should report the news, both positive and negative, namely objective. Now, by choosing to ignore events that are considered to be ‘positive’, the BBC is anything but objective.
Samizdata comments:
If this story about Britain’s so-called ‘public service’ state owned broadcasting channel is true, the end of the BBC cannot come to soon.
Obviously, there is an if involved here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “How the BBC Prevents Britain From Getting Her Soul Back”
Of course this is from the “Torygraph” and attributed to an unnamed “source close to the project.” No possibility of an agenda there at all… Anyone else remember the Telegraph story about the sniper rifles coming through Iran to Iraq, the story that turned out not to be true at all?
Counterfactual: I think that I made clear enough in my post that there is a major IF here.
I emphasized this twice, so that should be enough even for the less than careful reader.
Well, why don’t you wait and see if a story is confirmed before you post about it? You could, for example, check with the Beeb yourself. Or see what other British papers have to say about it.
Why post on a story from a source you already know isn’t trustworthy?
Every major organization has made errors, so that would mean that we bloggers cannot post much of everything.
That’s enough defending for today.
Have a blessed Easter.
“The BBC should report the news, both positive and negative, namely objective. Now, by choosing to ignore events that are considered to be ‘positive’,”
I can’t help but notice that you’ve here, between these two sentences, switched from discussing the news, with a perfectly anodyne statement, to saying that not commissioning a fictional fact-based drama is not reporting the news positively.
Needless to say, judgments about what drama should and shouldn’t be made for entertainment on a tv network is an utterly different choice from what news should be presented on their news broadcasts. Conflating the two seems rather inexplicable. It’s not even as if it’s the same people who decide on what goes in a daily news broadcast, and what film drama will be made, after all. Claiming that decisions about one indicate something about the other seems a touch bizarre.
MvdG–
Gary Farber is obviously right about the differences between the news and entertainment departments of the BBC.
And I’m sure you realize that the British hostages were released safely in relatively short order, so I’m not clear about your concerns for the loss of British “soul”.
There’s been a lot of heated, militant, but kind of vague, rhetoric during the last few years. Don’t you think, maybe, that you’ve fallen for enough of it? I know I think so.
Beharry’s exploits sound like a corker of a tale. I wonder why the BBC abandoned the project. No ratings pressure, I guess.
This is not an isolated incident. I served with the U.S. Army in Iraq from March 2003 until March 2004, and even then I was sickened by the great disparity between what I was with my own eyes and what I saw reported in the news. What we have seen is probably the biggest and most malicious propoganda war in the history of mankind. The news media collectively set out to poison the public’s opinions and attitudes about the war. Every problem, mistake or setback is hyped and presented in the worst possible light; every success and all progress is totally ignored. This goes far beyond mere “slant.” This is purposeful, manevolent deception. I know a journalist in Mosul, Iraq, who was out of work after the war began. He was approached by a French news agency who wanted to hire him specifically to collect “bad new” – news about bombings, protests, deaths, etc. A man of integrity, he refused, even though the pay was tempting for a man with a family and no other way to support them. Propoganda is the biggest enemy we face today. There’s little wonder that we in the military like to call the National Media Establishment by its acronym: NME. Say it fast, aloud – N-M-E – and you’ll get what I mean.
I was opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning, not because of media manipulation but on the plain presumption that invasion would result in the loss of innocent life and huge amounts of needless destruction.
If getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the main reason, then alternative means could have been devised. I am sure that it would not have been beyond the wit of the US military forces (with or without British help) to come up with some kind of kidnap/assassination plan – and to make it look like the act of local people opposed to the regime.
If the WMD were the reason, then there was clearly little evidence of their existence. The US and UK both completely belittled the findings of Hans Blick and his inspectors. This in itself was manipulation of public opinion. I knew it at the time and subsequent actual events have only served to confirm that. In any case, even if there were WMD, this would not have justified invasion and all the attendant hazards to innocent life. Regime change by assassination would have worked just as well. After all, it was the person who allegedly had control of the WMD who was considered dangerous, not the WMD themselves.
Of course, assassination/kidnapping would have left a lot of uncertainty and instability in Iraq. Neither the US nor the UK have any stomach for dealing with uncertainty, particularly where the Middle East is concerned. So they decided to eliminate the possibility of uncertainty by taking direct control of the situation themselves. Never mind – after all, the people who would die innocently as a result of invasion would just be poor peasants who don’t have the same ideals, hopes and aspirations as respectable white folks back home.
I cannot help thinking that Bush and Blair were after a spectacular war for purely selfish, political ends. Removal of Saddam by assassination/kidnapping would not have permitted them any “credit” with their respective publics. No, the wanted to “shock and awe” not just the Iraqi people (well, those who were lucky enough to survive same) but the rest of the world. They also knew that they could easily beat the Iraqi forces, despite all the hype about WMD. So they just went for it.
None of this is at all intended as a criticism of the troops of either of the invading countries. They had and still have little option but to do their duty. I do not for one second doubt their patriotism, despite the evidence of localised torture and cruelty by some troops towards the local population. None of this detracts from the wider responsibility for the whole Iraq mess resting entirely on the shoulders of Bush and his ever more spineless-looking lapdog, Blair.
You appear to have posted your cri de coeur to the wrong topic. But I’m sure that the troops appreciate your vote of confidence in their patriotism, anyway.