Channel 4 has been referred to Ofcom, the broadcasting authority, by the Crown Prosecution Service, for its undercover Dispatches programme on hate-preachers in British mosques.
Explaining the decision, Anil Patani of the West Midlands police said that the authorities had reviewed the 56 hour of footage used to create the hour-long programme and concluded that the Channel 4 editors had used quotes selectively:
"The splicing together of extracts from longer speeches appears to have completely distorted what the speakers were saying."
Welcome to journalism, Anil...
What does she expect? That Channel 4 would use all 56 hours of footage?
Or that the editors would chose only the quotes which showed that many mosques are turning a blind-eye to extremists who preach hatred against non-Muslims, women and homosexuals.
And if the CPS decision sets a precedent, what is it?
Can newspaper reporters be investigated if they only use a few lines of quotes from hour-long interviews?
Should the BBC be made to run Hugo Chavez's rambling four-hour speeches in their entirety rather than cutting straight to where he blames the US for all the world's ills?
And should newspapers be stopped from reporting on the US president's "Bushisms" in case they stereotype Texans being slow and dim-witted?
Or are such high standards only going to be applied to journalists who suggest that all is not well in the UK's Muslim communities.
Comments (6)
Is it true that the shoot to kill order in the case of the Barrister armed with a shotgun was made by a Muslim, I saw this once but cannot find the link anymore, if anyone can confirm ( or deny ) this please do so.
http://eutruth.org.uk/50reasonseu.pdf
Posted by Adrian Peirson | May 17, 2008 7:36 PM
Posted on May 17, 2008 19:36
Vote BNP to get rid of Police Officers who think Islam is THE religion. It is NOT. It is a death cult. Long live free speech, and a Christian England...
Posted by Jan F | May 16, 2008 2:26 AM
Posted on May 16, 2008 02:26
Following the fine imposed on the West Midlands Police and the CPS for their disgraceful conduct in this affair is there any chance that a good part of the £100,000 will be paid by the officers responsible for the outrage against free speech? I won't be holding my breath.
Posted by Anthony Back | May 15, 2008 8:14 PM
Posted on May 15, 2008 20:14
Is the Crown Prosecution Service wrong to look in to the documentary Undercover Mosque produced by Hardcash Productions for Channel Four?
Several aspects worth consideration to get a fuller picture:
Firstly, do producers really need to give a platform on news and documentary programs to fringe elements driven by either xenophobia or zealotry? Do certain sections of media purposely seek rant-bites to attract viewers' attention?
By giving undue coverage to extremist expression, we will make the real issues hostage to militancy and mulishness.
Why then marginal, disbalanced and unrepresentative people with irrational and irresponsible views are much sought after for their views in TV documentaries? This certainly goes against the principles of fair representation, consistency, evenhandedness and the right to objective reporting.
Secondly, some irresponsible elements in the media retain their favourite fringe fanatics on the oxygen mask of publicity when it accords them undeserved and unjustifiable attention on prime time without which the rantagogues are far feeble than a fish without water.
If opinions are not solicited by the networks for a few weeks those loudmouths who survive on soundbites with no following will be reduced to their actual size - trivial, insignificant and unworthy.
The media has a clear choice when venturing to inform viewers on delicate but important matters. A responsible media does not ask an arsonist for instructions on a fire safety video or a paedophile to advice on safe neighbourhoods.
Hence, there is no wisdom in bringing people on the media who are unwilling and unable to offer a way out of dilemmas that we encounter and the consequences that we face?
Posted by Jim Zackey | August 18, 2007 9:18 PM
Posted on August 18, 2007 21:18
This attack on C4 Dispatches is one of the most important moments in the fight against Islamic subversion. What we are seeing is the use of state instruments - police/CPS/ Ofcom - to attack a program that dared to show the raw truth of Islamic fundamentalism in the UK. How can it be that this police action is so vociferous, yet backed by so little detail? It shows how the west mids police have been subjugated by the desire for "peaceful community relations", as defined by the interesting Anil Patani. This is a vicious attack on free speech, and a warning for the future.
What is truly worrying is how this case has been conflated with other issues regarding TV quiz/ reality TV programmes. It has nothing to do with it, and the people who have managed to subvert the truth are using this umbrella to hide the strength of their attack, and shelter under proven abuses elsewhere.
As usual, our leaders have nothing to say as they too have been cowed by the efficiency of the Islamic media machine.
At the very least there needs to be a full investigation into this case. Let C4 make avaliable the full material on the internet ; lets see the details of the Police/ CPS case ; and let's see the program again on C4. Unfortunately, i fear it will never happen, and the Islamic machine will continue its march whilst critics are left scratching their heads about the connection between "Richard & Judy" and Abu Usamah.........
Posted by anthony norman | August 9, 2007 10:50 PM
Posted on August 9, 2007 22:50
So exactly who are the "authorities" who reviewed 56 hours of footage from Mosques, who paid them to do it and what else did they learn? I wonder if those at the Mosques in question realise that "authorities" are watching so much footage about them.
Posted by Brian of London | August 9, 2007 5:05 PM
Posted on August 9, 2007 17:05