Silly burkas
Back in January, Channel 4 broadcast a documentary called Undercover Mosque in which a reporter from the Despatches current affairs team attended mosques run by organisations whose public faces are presented as moderate and found preachers condemning integration into British society, condemning democracy and praising the Taliban for killing British soldiers. A complaint was lodged with Ofcom not, as you might expect, by the preachers or mosques featured in the documentary, but by the West Midlands Police (via).
The Tories have expressed concern that the fact that the police have complained about a TV programme raises serious questions about media freedom.
Paul Goodman, the shadow community cohesion minister, has written to Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, saying the decision caused “widespread concern” and warned that it could encourage extremists.
Mr Goodman wrote: “This decision raises serious questions about media freedom in Britain, and about whether public authorities tasked with upholding the rule of law are now, as a matter of policy, giving special assistance to those who seek to undermine the rule of law, and the pluralist, liberal, democratic culture which both underpins it and guarantees community cohesion.
“As you know, the decision has caused widespread concern.
“It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that this is a politically motivated referral, driven by the mistaken belief that the best means of dealing with separatist extremists is to appease them.
“If so, this referral is likely to encourage extremists, discourage moderates, damage public confidence in the CPS and West Midlands Police, compromise media freedom and undermine the Government’s stated community cohesion policy.”
Channel 4 has strongly denied any wrongdoing over the programme. According to The programme’s commissioning editor, Kevin Sutcliffe: We are very confident of successfully defending this unfairness complaint against the programme if Ofcom chooses to consider it. West Midlands Police have made a very general allegation of unfairness and have produced no evidence to support their claims.”
Update
Media Watch Watch points out that Ofcom’s rules state that “Fairness and Privacy” complaints can come only from “the person affected” or someone authorised to act for them. The West Midlands Police is neither, so the complaint will not even be considered.
Update 2
My copy of Private Eye (referred to by Media Watch Watch) has just turned up. Since neither the police nor Bethan David of the Crown Prosecution Service, who was also involved in the stunt, have been able to produce a shred of evidence to support their serious allegations, Channel 4 and HardCash Productions - the company behind the film - are considering suing the police and the CPS for libel.
Friday 17 Aug 2007 | Paul | UK
Some commentators are unhappy why CPS has scrutinized “Undercover Mosque” a documentary by Hardcash Productions shown on Channel Four in early 2007. Though several questions have been raised about the judgement of senior Westland Police Official Anil Patani and advocate Bethan David, none are posed to the documentary’s producer.
Media Watch groups and OFCOM in particular are increasingly urged to take note of a flawed approach reflected by the documentary which rather than meeting viewers’ expectation to get an objective and even handed reflection of realities plays with their sentiments by brazenly overlooking established media norms.
Since when settling personal scores is permitted on public screen? Would you expect a balanced documentary on Ireland’s peace progress selectively referring to, say, what Dr. Ian Paisley and the Republican leadership said about one another 20 years back? One must question and even challenge the wisdom of subjectively picking out of context quotes to malign some religious functionaries.
Hardcash Productions might burn their fingers when stoking somebody else’s fire as the documentary solicits an Iraqi Shia to pass remarks about some Sunni ventures in UK. Can we expect from a responsible channel to allow its airtime for ideologues discrediting each other at viewers’ expense? Why then Dr. Irfan al-Alawi of The Heritage Foundation was allowed to pick and choose excerpts to discredit those with who he differs ideologically.
One wonders how “Hardcash Productions” got away with such a low-cost load of cheap tricks in its pursuit of “rants-for-ratings”. How could HP be allowed to stir religious sentiments on prime time television? If such a trend is not discouraged, then expect tabloid-headline like tales creeping into realm of institutions of other religions too.
Many viewers are left disappointed as the documentary miserably fails on five vital criteria namely to: Exercise caution on references to religion, its values and its institutions. Demonstrate even-handed and neutral approach; and, Discourage witch-hunts and ghost chasing attempts. Applied standards uniformly as one sect member discredits another Fails to vet the agenda-driven, politically motivated and selective remarks.
This documentary miserably fails to disguise its prejudices visible in exploiting schism to settle score with competing ideologies.
Jim, you do type a lot of nonsense. Regardless of how the film was edited, the comments that were recorded - this one, for example - were pretty damning. And as for your “five vital criteria”, what utter garbage.
The one that really leapt out at me, though, was this one: “Exercise caution on references to religion.” Why? Why should one set of opinions be given any special treatment over and above any other?
I think it’s less a case of the documentary failing to disguise its prejudices and more a case of you failing to disguise - or being completely unaware of - your own.