On yesterday's BritainAndAmerica blog I identified BBC coverage of external threats as one of ten key vulnerabilities of our country in these early years of the war on terror. When our nation's dominant (and publicly-funded) broadcaster subjects failings of coalition forces to incessant scrutiny but offers little public education of the threat posed by regimes like Iran, political leaders will struggle to steel the public for the grave challenges that lie ahead.
It's not just in news output that there is a problem. Drama is at least as undermining and Channel 4 is at least as worrying as the BBC. On Thursday evening C4 will broadcast The Mark of Cain. It portrays British soldiers systematically abusing Iraqi citizens in what Max Hastings (a critic of the Iraq war) calls an outrageous exaggeration.
In today's Times, Conservative MP Michael Gove authors a powerful attack on the fictional drama and on the values of the television executives who are broadcasting it:
"The real moral issue that Channel 4 needs to tackle – indeed, that the broadcast media as a whole must consider – is not so much the need for moral courage on the part of our troops. The men and women in the Gulf show the sort of bravery every day of their professional lives that should leave the rest of us speechless with admiration. No, the real issue is the disturbing moral relativism of our media and their lack of moral clarity at a time of trial for freedom. How can it be right that the only drama yet screened about our troops in Iraq, who are risking everything to help to build a democracy, is one in which they are depicted as sadists and cowards? Why do the people who commission this sort of stuff seem to hate our country, and our values, so much that their first impulse is to see what they can do to blacken the reputation of those who fight in our name? And what does it say about the moral courage of our broadcasters that the broader context of the war our soldiers are fighting, the struggle against militant Islamism, just doesn’t get a look-in? It’s time that the whistle was blown on the broadcasters’ abuse of our soldiers’ mission."
Well said, Michael.
Related link: The author of the drama accounts for his work in an article for The Telegraph.
Dammit, I have to agree with you. Never say that our broadcasters refuse to attack this government.
From the relativist left.
Posted by: Elaib | April 03, 2007 at 08:29
Does Michael Gove ever bump into Hugo Swire ?I just wondered how he reconciled the declaration of support for the BBC licence fee from the Culture Spokesman with criticism of BBC Propaganda ?
The Swires have a good motto "Taikoo"- meanning "Great and Ancient" which perhaps suggested a greater sense of Britishness on the part of its illustrious founders than incertain others who defend the inept and loathed BBC monolith
Posted by: TomTom | April 03, 2007 at 08:44
The BBC colours the whole political debate in this country and weights discussion well to the left. Its influence has been most malign when it has come to defence, their correspondents neither understanding the military nor liking them. Their behaviour just 25 years ago during the Falklands was contemptible. When Sheffield was hit, Richard Wainwright, BBC Defence Correspondent, just about suggested giving up there and then.
During my time in the Royal Navy I saw many BBC teams passing through the Wardroom (Wardroom only, of course, the last thing they wanted to do was to mix with the Senior Rates or the lads down on the Messdecks) and the only thought that motivated them, from stepping on board to going ashore, was the prospect of buying duty-free liquor. Everything else went over the top of their pointy heads.
They are a vile bunch of self-seeking pinko-leftists and the sooner their gravy train is stopped, the better for the politicial health of this nation.
Sadly, I can't see Hugo Swire doing much about them - not the sort to take on the Beeb, too accustomed to a quiet untroubled existence.
(With the Editor's indulgence, I have relocated this from yesterday's "Shatt al Arab" thread.)
Posted by: John Coles | April 03, 2007 at 09:11
The retrospective of the Falklands goes to show how much the BBC hate this country and what it stands for. Think about it, Argentina was ruled by a Fascist Junta, yet the BBC was "impartial".
Presumably if we had been in battle with Chile in 2000 the BBC would have been calling for General Pinochet to come here, enjoy the NHS and be given a home. It makes you think.
My final thought on this malign organisation. Why do they spend a fortune of our money on receptions at party conferences? Why do Conservatives beg for tickets to attend them and dring champagne paid from licence fees and poured by Guradian spouters?
Posted by: Peter Golds | April 03, 2007 at 09:53
If only Michael Gove was our leader. He sees things so clearly.
Posted by: Umbrella Man | April 03, 2007 at 10:01
I entirely agree with the general sentiment that most of media in this country are self-hating morally relativist liberals. They make me sick and pretty much always have done.
Posted by: Bill | April 03, 2007 at 10:21
For every story of this kind portrayed on C4 there will be hundreds of examples of bravery or kindness by British soldiers which are never are never told!
There was a book written after the Falklands War called Don't cry for me Sargent Major, it is well worth reading and shows the humour and courage of the squaddie in a way that C4 can never understand let alone portray with true balance.
Posted by: Scotty | April 03, 2007 at 10:42
Excellent article by Gove, I entirely agree with everything he said and will be boycotting the Mark of Cain and encouraging others to do so.
Posted by: gingeral | April 03, 2007 at 12:00
The BBC is a vile, New Labour mouthpiece, that goes without saying.
However, Micheal Gove is not a good advert for the Conservative Party. Quite apart from the fact that he comes across as a petulant and peevish overgrown schoolboy he remains a committed neo-con.
The Conservative Party needs leaders who put British interests first not slavishly follow the neo-con agenda now rapidly falling out of favour even amongst US Republicans.
Posted by: a patriot not a neocon | April 03, 2007 at 12:02
Haven't seen the programme but don't expect much from it. I thought Channel 4 had grown out of their controversial for the sake of being controversial phase. Obviously I was wrong. I hope they suffer a decline in advertising as a result, only by hurting them in the pocket will they stop making programmes like this.
The Army takes a lot of abuse from ignorant journalists who have no concept at all of what it is like to be in the forces or of what it is like to be in a hostile enviroment as in Iraq. You'll notice that these dramas are always written by people with no first hand experience whatsoever of war or army life.
Having said that, the MOD amongst it's other numerous failings is absolutely useless at promoting the image of our armed forces. As there are now very few journalists in Iraq (too dangerous I expect) and the war has becoming overwhelmingly unpopular amongst the British people there is a reluctance on the part of the MOD to show what is happening on the ground and the outstanding bravery and restraint of our troops there. Hence programmes like this get made.
Another reason in my opinion to honour our troops but heap abuse and contempt on the politicians who sent them there.
Posted by: malcolm | April 03, 2007 at 12:31
Michael Gove is right. If we are to prepare properly for the new Cold War that is the fight against Islamofascism, we must deal with the institutionalised left-liberal worldview of the BBC-led broadcast media. That includes C4 and others, for the BBC is the major player and market leader.
These preparations must take place alongside other measures, such as greater self-sufficiency in our energy needs (i.e. less oil and gas) and of course better management, use and resourceing of our armed forces.
Posted by: Neil Reddin | April 03, 2007 at 13:23
In many parts of the world copies of this vile programme will be referred to as a documentary when it is shown.
Posted by: The Laughing Cavalier | April 03, 2007 at 14:54
"In many parts of the world copies of this vile programme will be referred to as a documentary when it is shown."
Of course Channel 4 know this, that's one reason for making it. We have to understand that the media/arts world is full of inadequate people who if they were adequate would be doing real jobs. Like teenagers they want to be noticed so bashing Britain/the West/America is much more satisfying than addressing the complicated, difficult real world.
Remember the Falklands were the only BBC offering was a mostly dishonest play rubbishing the army and when a playright wrote a play about Maggie's involvement the BBC wouldn't show it without dishonestly making Maggie look bad.
Posted by: David Sergeant | April 03, 2007 at 19:16