Channel 4 in trouble over mosque film

[egb_hibs]

I remember this film getting us a bit steamed up at the time. well, it seems ch 4 have been a bit naughty.

now, if they're guilty they should be taken to task,but isn't this the job of tv watchdogs. why are the police of the case here? you can't imagine similar police interest in say, the infamous bbc panorama stitch up of the catholic church and aids in africa, so why here...

it all speaks to the highly dodgy notion of blurring religion and race, a piece of nu lab sophistry that the law should shun:

"West Midlands police and the Crown Prosecution Service have criticised the Channel 4 Dispatches programme Undercover Mosque for distortion and broadcasting speeches out of context.

The CPS said it had considered charging Channel 4 with broadcasting material likely to stir up racial hatred, but decided not to proceed with this course of action.

After their initial investigations, the police investigated the editing and portrayal featured in the documentary and asked the CPS to consider charging Channel 4 under the Public Order Act for broadcasting a programme including material likely to stir up racial hatred.

Before that, West Midlands police and the CPS investigated three individuals featured in the documentary for possible criminal incitement after the programme was broadcast in January, but decided there was insufficient evidence to proceed with charges.

"The splicing together of extracts from longer speeches appears to have completely distorted what the speakers were saying," said CPS reviewing lawyer Bethan David, who viewed 56 hours of media footage used to make the Dispatches documentary.

"The CPS has demonstrated that it will not hesitate to prosecute those responsible for criminal incitement. But in this case we have been dealing with a heavily edited television programme, apparently taking out of context aspects of speeches which in their totality could never provide a realistic prospect of any convictions."


more...

[HailHail]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

I remember this film getting us a bit steamed up at the time. well, it seems ch 4 have been a bit naughty.

now, if they're guilty they should be taken to task,but isn't this the job of tv watchdogs. why are the police of the case here? you can't imagine similar police interest in say, the infamous bbc panorama stitch up of the catholic church and aids in africa, so why here...

it all speaks to the highly dodgy notion of blurring religion and race, a piece of nu lab sophistry that the law should shun:

"West Midlands police and the Crown Prosecution Service have criticised the Channel 4 Dispatches programme Undercover Mosque for distortion and broadcasting speeches out of context.

The CPS said it had considered charging Channel 4 with broadcasting material likely to stir up racial hatred, but decided not to proceed with this course of action.

After their initial investigations, the police investigated the editing and portrayal featured in the documentary and asked the CPS to consider charging Channel 4 under the Public Order Act for broadcasting a programme including material likely to stir up racial hatred.

Before that, West Midlands police and the CPS investigated three individuals featured in the documentary for possible criminal incitement after the programme was broadcast in January, but decided there was insufficient evidence to proceed with charges.

"The splicing together of extracts from longer speeches appears to have completely distorted what the speakers were saying," said CPS reviewing lawyer Bethan David, who viewed 56 hours of media footage used to make the Dispatches documentary.

"The CPS has demonstrated that it will not hesitate to prosecute those responsible for criminal incitement. But in this case we have been dealing with a heavily edited television programme, apparently taking out of context aspects of speeches which in their totality could never provide a realistic prospect of any convictions."


more...

Islamaphobe

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by HailHail

Islamaphobe

anti-fascist more like :YAYYY:

the police state must be stopped.

[HailHail]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

anti-fascist more like :YAYYY:

the police state must be stopped. :gunnut

, the secret police may be monitoring us

[HailHail]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

anti-fascist more like :YAYYY:

the police state must be stopped. :gunnut

I wonder how an Islamic Father Ted style comedy would be recieved?

[Burbank Lilywhite]

Originally Posted by HailHail

I wonder how an Islamic Father Ted style comedy would be recieved?

Actually the CBC (Canadian Broadcast Company) did just that this past year, placing a new Iman in charge of a small Islamic community in the Canadian heartland. From what I recall it was recieved rather well. It was produced by a Muslim woman if I recall correctly also.

[HailHail]

Originally Posted by Burbank Lilywhite

Actually the CBC (Canadian Broadcast Company) did just that this past year, placing a new Iman in charge of a small Islamic community in the Canadian heartland. From what I recall it was recieved rather well. It was produced by a Muslim woman if I recall correctly also.

ahhhh sounds good, any idea what it was called?

[Burbank Lilywhite]

Originally Posted by HailHail

ahhhh sounds good, any idea what it was called?

I'll have to troll through their site to see if I can find it.

[HenryLB]

Funnily enough I was watching a news report on this last night with a friend of mine who works for a light entertainment show. Afterwards there was a piece on foot and mouth and my friend, who hadn't really been paying attention, glanced up from her book at some farmer Giles type burbling on about the situation and said, "Rubbish punter they've got there".

By this she meant that the production team should have chosen someone with a bit more "zing", more screen friendly, funnier, whatever. I suggested that they perhaps selected said farmer for journalistic reasons, his proximity to the story etc, and that in the light of the previous piece about jazzing up seemingly "factual" documentary items maybe TV professionals - and particularly those making "factual" stuff - ought to be a little more wary of confusing the journalistic needs of the story with its infotainment value.

But she just shrugged in a way that suggested that the creation of television is basically a mendacious enterprise and if we can't learn to live with it then, hey, go and do something else.

This set me thinking, and it struck me that it's actually easier to misrepresent on TV than it is in print precisely because we trust the evidence of our eyes, things we can actually see, much more than stuff we simply read. Television is also subject to a much more fluid crossover between what is classed as entertainment and what is considered "news". I don't doubt that there are many honourable journalists working in broadcast media who want to show "the truth", to examine a story as honestly as possible, but as a format I think it's subject to pressures (the need for brevity, audience share, immediacy and so on) that make it less suitable for a proper journalistic approach than one might automatically assume.