, the third biggest story in the world for UK tellytaxpayers, according to BBC Views Online, was Channel 4 accused of ‘distortion’.
The third most important story in the world on 08AUG2007?
The story first appeared, according to Newssniffer, at 10.50am, with the headline No charges over mosque programme, becoming Channel 4 accused of ‘distortion and C4 ‘distorted’ mosque programme as it went through the BBC Views Online spin cycle, making it to the third most important story position at lunchtime, remaining on the Views Online front page in one form or another until after 7am the next morning.
What is strange is the enthusiasm and high priority BBC Views Online gave this story – they didn’t, for instance, report on the high-profile Undercover Mosque programme at all when it was first broadcast – too busy, not enough space, not important enough: all the usual BBC flannel for avoiding covering news that Beeboids don’t want to report.
And yet, when a politically correct bunch of West Midlands plods, abetted by the Can’t Prosecute Service, stick their oar in, without, it should be noted, any complaints from the public, BBC Views Online rushed to tell the world all about it with great fanfare and import, complete with lengthy quotes of shock, innocence and hurt feelings from those who were condemned out of their own mouths on the undercover film.
In the meantime, Private Eye (see Biased BBC here) and BBC Newsnight have amply demonstrated just what a crock of the proverbial the criticism of Undercover Mosque was.
Yesterday, BBC Views Online did a reasonable job of reporting Mosque programme claims rejected, but here’s another strange thing, this news wasn’t important enough to merit the BBC Views Online front page treatment. No, it was reported for a while on the Entertainment page, way down at the bottom, in the More from Entertainment, TV and Radio section – not exactly setting the record straight after Views Online’s silence of January and the front page fanfare of August!
Kevin Sutcliffe, Channel 4’s deputy head of news and current affairs said that the actions of West Midlands Police:
gave legitimacy to people preaching a message of hate to British citizens… and damaged the reputations of those involved in producing and broadcasting the programme
Given BBC Views Online’s slanted coverage of the Undercover Mosque story from the beginning I suspect that WMP aren’t alone in giving “legitimacy to people preaching a message of hate to British citizens”.
P.S.: An anonymous wag drew attention yesterday to what one Beeboid, a certain ‘John Reith’, said back in August:
Given the ringing endorsement ‘Undercover Mosques’ received on this blog and how many contributors chided the BBC for not having made the programme themselves, I’d be interested to know what you’ve got to say now that it has emerged that parts of the film are said by the authorities to be about as reliable as an RDF showreel.
Presumably this isn’t one of those cases then where those “involved in the real business of broadcast journalism (making TV and radio) get a bit narked“ about being judged on the basis of “small but significant shortcomings of the News Website“ then!
Addendum: David Henshaw, executive producer of Undercover Mosque asks Why did police want to censor me?:
Context? No one from the West Midlands Police, the CPS or Green Lane Mosque has yet given us the correct context for the notion that women are born deficient, that homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or that young girls who refuse to wear the hijab should be hit.
So what was the police’s intervention about? Why did the police and the CPS feel entitled to act as television critics and, in effect, as potential censors of what we could watch? Clues to the motive, I think, lie in the slightly sinister phrase “community cohesion”.
Anil Patani, the Assistant Chief Constable who reported the programme to Ofcom, is in charge of “cohesion” in the West Midlands force. He said he was worried that those featured in the programme “had been misrepresented”.
His chief was worried that our alleged “distorted editing” would create an unfair perception of sections of the Muslim community in the West Midlands. Feelings of public reassurance and safety would be undermined. (The feelings of gays and women, apparently, were not so high on the agenda.)
Thank you to Biased BBC reader Lurker in a Burqua for the link.
For those who have yet to see the side of Islam our BBC friends are too gutless and sicophantic to expose; UNDERCOVER MOSQUE can be seen in it’s entirety here:-
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2668560761490749816
As Channel 4 have been entirely vindicated by OFCOM I think now would be a good time to ask West Midlands police when Anil Patani, assistant chief constable (security and cohesion) intends to resign. It was after all he who made the move to pursue Channel 4 in his desperate attempt to throw a bone in to the large Muslim population of the West Midlands and in doing so turn the spotlight away from their crimes of inciting racial hatred.
contactus@west-midlands.police.uk
Apologies if this breaks the O/T rule , but I can’t think of anything that enrages me more than knowing we have a police force with the same methodology and mentality as Al Beeb, gradually turning us into Little Islam.
Good post, Andrew. The whole “Undercover Mosque” affair is a prime example of the BBC’s hypocritical minimising of the sins of radical Islam. Interesting, also how John Reith jumped to the defence of the BBC in this matter and immediately assumed that the police had a case against Channel 4. Typical of Reith.
But the BBC have been banging on aobut how wonderful the great “religion of peace” is.
Now the BBC are promoting the idea of aranged/forced marraiges being a good idea. Why? Women have struggled for 100 years or more for the right to live thier lives the way they want, yet the BBC now seem to want to take us back to the dark ages with a barbaric religion.
I wonder how many “wimmin” at the BBC would consider a forced marraige themselves?
I suspect none. It’a good idea for the scum white population that the BBC despises.
What next? The BBC promoting the hanging of homosexuals or beheadinfs on a Friday?
And note how the BBC have not given any significant airtime to the women in Saudi Arabia who is to be jailed and whipped for the crime of being gang raped.
Martin, you undermine your point by confusing, perhaps deliberately, the difference between arranged marriages (which can be a good thing if freely entered into by adults and their families) and forced marriages, which of course aren’t.
This was a political act by the WMP and the CPS, it wasn’t the first and it certainly will not be the last.
I am amazed the court found in favour of Channel 4, it is good to see that the entire system is not yet corrupted.
Bryan | 21.11.07 – 10:01 am | #
Interesting, also how John Reith …….immediately assumed that the police had a case against Channel 4. Typical of Reith.
You’re right. I had a rather traditional upbringing, which led me to assume that the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service were the good guys.
I’ve known for some time, of course, that the Police can get things wrong occasionally, but in this case a Crown prosecutor (the equivalent of an assistant district attorney in the US) made a (rare) public statement to the effect that she had examined the film and found evidence of dishonest editing.
Given that this was hot on the heels of the Queen showreel fakery business,
that didn’t sound totally implausible.
Clearly the Police and the prosecuting authorities are no longer to be trusted.
I shall be more sceptical next time.
Happily, the BBC (in the form of Eddie Mair) gave C4’s vindication by Ofcom the full fanfare, and the WMP both barrels. And when David Davis somewhat fluffed a shot at an open goal, Eddie went and put his ball back on the spot so he could have another go.
Quite right too.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
Martin | 21.11.07 – 10:14 am | & Others
So Her Gracious Majesty HM The Queen, who celebrated the 60th Aniversery of her arranged marriage to HRH The Prince Phillip yesterday was wronged was she?
Or perhaps it was a love match?
Or was it both?
Sometimes the arrangements work and sometimes they don’t.
Sometimes ‘ordinary’ marriages go ahead with one party not being so keen, and not just ‘shotgun’ weddings.
Or is it only a sin when muslims do it?
I’ve deleted three comments, two from Martin and one in response to Martin, for being too far off topic.
Martin, there is a difference between arranged marriages and forced marriages in the main. Arranged marriages are not specifically a muslim tradition either.
Kindly desist from making silly accusations against me or using this blog to ride your own off-topic hobby-horses. It’s not the first time you’ve done this.
Please note also that I have better things to do than spend time and effort dealing with you (e.g. family, work, blogging, etc.). Please also note the message on the most recent general thread and adjust your commenting style accordingly.
If you wish to respond to this do it by email – biasedbbc@gmail.com – but don’t expect me to say anything different.
[Deleted – gratuitous personal insults are not welcome here]
JR – as the very jimbob who you aimed this at back in August I now demand an apology.
“JR – Given the ringing endorsement ‘Undercover Mosques’ received on this blog and how many contributors chided the BBC for not having made the programme themselves, I’d be interested to know what you’ve got to say now that it has emerged that parts of the film are said by the authorities to be about as reliable as an RDF showreel.”
In answer to your question what I have got to say is that exactly the same as what I said in August.
Biased BBC 3 Reith 0
[Deleted – if you want your voice heard don’t waste everyone’s time by adding idiotic and unnecessary insults. Email me if you wish to be unbanned.]
I’m going to go at this again.
[No, you’re not. Thank you.]
“(The feelings of gays and women, apparently, were not so high on the agenda.)”
Well, they’re not quite so fashionable nowadays, they don’t have the same cachet, and they are up against the most fashionable movement of the day. This story feels like an inept attempt to stifle and intimidate a documentary film-maker, and it’s a shame that because of the issue he has chosen to highlight, the media isn’t organising rallies, poster campaigns etc to support him. The scales of fashion are against him, just as they have shifted against Peter Tatchell.
JR
“I had a rather traditional upbringing, which led me to assume that the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service were the good guys.”
With the greatest respect, how old are you? It’s years since those of us with a “traditional upbringing” have regarded the police – particularly the senior ranks – with anything but suspicion bordering on contempt. (This is particularly so of the Met although this instance did not concern them.) The CPS is also an organisation staffed mostly by failed lawyers who couldn’t make it in the “traditional” career progression of the bar. For you to accept the allegations of (1) a policeman who appears to have reached a senior position by whining “racial discrimination” every time he fails an exam and (2) a lawyer who, at the time she made the allegation, could hardly have had time to wade through 60 hours of film speaks not of a lack of scepticism on your part but a wilful determination to think the worst of journalists doing a job your colleagues at the BBC shirk.
JR:
“I had a rather traditional upbringing, which led me to assume that the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service were the good guys”
Yeah I had a rather traditional upbringing too J.R. Which led me to assume that the BBC were the good guys and everything it spoke of was the truth.
Funny how things change isn’t it?
Why stupid things happen:
Common Purpose.
Mr Reith said:
“Given that this was hot on the heels of the Queen showreel fakery business,
that didn’t sound totally implausible”.
You forgot though Mr reith that this was a channel 4 broadcast. NOT, a BBC one.Maybe a bit more respect should be shown to channel 4 instead of using your inner knowledge of the BBC to colour your opinion of broadcasters in general.
Beness | 23.11.07 – 7:50 am
RDF make quite a lot of programmes for Channel 4 – probably more than they do for the BBC.
Umbongo | 21.11.07 – 10:13 pm
a wilful determination to think the worst of journalists doing a job your colleagues at the BBC shirk.
No. I applauded the investigation when it was first shown.
As for the copper – all I knew was that he had a Hindu name.