Neither the Royal Family nor the Conservative Party should be dictating what people should be allowedto watch on television nor what broadcasters are allowed to put in their programmes.The broadcast media are constrained by law and by broadcasting standards already and on top of that, if people do not wish to see pictures of the aftermath of the terrible accident in Paris that caused the tragic death of Princess Diana, then they should watch another channel or switch off the TV.
Many of us will indeed do that, but that doesn't alter the fact that Channel 4 is appealing to the basest and most prurient human instincts with this programme. I think they are almost running out of ways to be ashamed of themselves.
42 comments:
I think MP's are quite entitled to say when they believe that a gross error of judgment is occurring - in pretty much any sphere of public life. Channel 4 is being deliberately provocative - but also being utterly crass. What next - a live feed to the latest smash on the M5?
Hmm, sounds a bit like this. Personally, I shall be watching every minute of the programme.
How do you know they are appealing to our basist instincs? Have you seen the programme?
Ian, I completely agree. Someone has to pick up Channel 4 for what seems to be a real failure in editorial control. We saw with the Big Brother episode that Channel 4 are keener on ratings chasing than responsible broadcasting. Is it time to look again at their role as a public service broadcaster? Why don't we just sell off Channel 4, and use the cash for a better purpose?
I have got the 'offending' photo and it should not be shown. It is a deliberate insult to the Princes and the Royal Family and Channel Four should be taken to task if they do use it. And no I will not be posting it. (Incidentally I come across it purely by chance on a Spanish blog)
I don't believe in censorship - or that a government should control our viewing habits. I just don't see what the point is in bringing all this up again ten years on?
Sorry you won’t post the photo Theo, but thanks for all the tits and bums anyway.
What rot from Channel 4. We all defecate but who expects to be told that we can turn our heads if we don't want to watch someone shitting in the street?
My apologies for breaching your no swearing code Iain, but the word seemed not inappropriate.
"thanks for all the tits and bums"
Never mind the authors Laurence, the pictures are quite amusing too.
Interesting how Theo thinks that a picture which he has seen should not be available to adults to decide whether to look at it or not. Nice paternalistic 'we know best' Tory view.
I will not be watching this 'documentary'.
However, I listened to their spokesman saying how they had decided it was in the public interest. How arrogant!
Channel 4 is the last place I would expect there to be an understanding of what is in the public interest.
However, Channel 4 cannot help it. They seem addicted to sensationalism, bad taste and a desire to offend. Sadly like any addict they just cannot see it.
As with any other addiction disease it requires treatment.
Its about time they were sent Cold Turkey.
Cut off their public funds. Channel 4 doesn't deserve a penny!
There are plenty of worthwhile causes are deserving of the fund.
For example, providing more support for car accident victims' families perhaps?
No one should be surprised at Harris's comments. His sort use every possible opportunity to attack the Royal Family based on a pathological hatred of the English and their traditions.
We don't need stills from a snuff movie and we don't need this odious individual.
I have started a group on Facebook calling for a boycott of ant company that advertises during the programme. If the producers won't listen to reason then let's hit them in the pocket.
Find it here http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2377413635
I intend to boycott Channel 4 as a protest at their going against clearly expressed views of the two princes. If anyone posts a list of the advertisers who choose to associate themselves with this I will boycott them too.
I would urge anyone who feels the same way as I do to do the same.
This is a commercial decision and should be punished commercially
Oh no. I watch Channel 4 via the internet, where they don’t show the adverts. How will I know which products to boycott?
Expect Blair or Brown to step in tomorrow just in time for the news bulletin!!
Is Evan Harris a complete Peter Hain clone ? I know they were both born in South Africa but Harris is a little odder than Hain with a few more secrets
Does he have to use words like dictating ? this suggests someone with a olarised and extremist mindset rather than being able to understand family distress at images being shown of a dying mother
Then again, we can take it that anything that might have any semblance of British values would be something to attack for young Harris and his LibDem chums
Oops he was born in Shuffield....Evan Harris was born in Sheffield, South Yorkshire, the son of South African Jewish parents (his father was a medical professor), and brought up in Liverpool, where attended the Blue Coat School. He went on to Wadham College, Oxford
and went to Sodom College....where straight lines go awry
However nasty Channel 4 may be, Dr Death is nastier.
Theo, any chance of some bush?
Maybe a boycott of C4 news programmes by Tory spokespeople?
Or a boycott of those companies who buy advsterisign time during the Diana programme, and at the beginning and end of it.
They should be birched. How would they like it if someone did it about their mother?
Using Harris' logic, he should not be dictating what Conservative MPs or members of the Royal Family can or cannot call for. Freedom of speech is protected by law (except for slander, official secrets, incitement to racial hatred, protesting near the House of Commons, incitement of terrorism etc etc...)
Dim Foster has made similar noises. I am a republican and don't care a jot about royalty but Diane should get the same standard of media ethics as any individual and that probably means not showing these images. I was vox popped on this by Channel 4 earlier today and they were telling a quite different story which I have blogged over here
Lawrence try the links column.
Swire is absolutely right to take Channel 4 to task about this. They are simply chasing ratings, and it is all very tacky. TV channel for sale anyone?
The only justification for the royal family is that it. and it's various hangrs-on, wives, mistresses etc should entertain us. Channel 4 is only assisting in that. And, No, I won't be watching it.
Channel 4 are responsible for what they broadcast and can be held to account in terms of the law and broadcasting codes. Equally, any members of the public - be they parliamentarians, members of the
royal family, or bloggers - are entitled to express their views on what Channel 4 broadcasts or apparently intends to broadcast.
The only two points I would make
specific to this case are:
(1) Channel 4, if it is mounting a public interest defence, appears to be confusing the public interest with what the public are interested in seeing, a frequent media confusion.
(2)One would have thought that the views of Princes William and Harry deserve especial consideration, not because they are members of the royal family but because they are the sons of the person whose picture the programme apparently plans to broadcast.
When LibDem MP Evan Harris's Mum gets creamedoff a pedestrian crossing by a hit&run merchant, let's all nip down smartish and take LOTS of pictures and upload them to the web asap and see how he likes it.
Someone just posted a link to the Diana photos. Any post with a link to them will be deleted.
Hugo Swire has just been made to look a fool on Channel4 News.
Can't someone keep these Etonian idiots away from the cameras for a while.
"How Not to Chase Ratings"
Advice for Old Etonian officers wanting to avoid feeling all at sea?
The Royal Family are the most expensive entertainment we have in the UK. How they can claim to have any sensitivity when the next up for the big job has been heard round the world wishing that he performed a minor role in his wife's monthly weight reduction process is beyond me.
Odd Iain that I have not heard the word "prurient" in many months yet both you and David Cameron use it on the same day about the same subject.
Are you writing his speaches or are you copying his ?
Nich, it is one of my favourite words! I can;t help it if Dave has good taste in vocab. And believe me, I am one of the last people he would take speechwriting advice from!
I am getting quite tired about this hysteria with the Diana photos. I have actually seen these photos in question and there are nothing about them, I felt, gave weight to the current blacklisting in this country. It just showed Diana surrounded by medics taking oxygen. I agree it's very sad to see the Princess' last moments. But when there are pictures similar, if not worst are shown every day in the news then it seems a bit absurd not to show these ones. The rest of the world have seen them - it would seem that only the Brits haven't.
Are all these republican anonymouses the same republican anonymous. I do hope so.
Who cares?
I don't.
I vote with my OFF switch.
I bet there will be a lot of sanctimonious carp written by people who watched the whole thing.
Great free publiciity for the programme.
For once, I strongly disagree, Iain.
For ten years, the journalists have been "blamed" for Princess Diana's death, entirely unfairly. I don't think anyone was "to blame" - it was an accident. From a doctor's point of view, it does give rise to an important discussion on the relative merits of "scoop and run" or "stay and play" (which I have just covered here: http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2007/06/princess-diana-channel-4-is-right-to.html)
But this is not Endemol and Jade Goody. This is an area of legitimate public interest.
The journalists were blamed for her death. They were scapegoated. The public outcry was led by the very people who bought the tabloid pap from which the paparazzi earned their living. If any one is to blame, it is not the journalists. It is the prurient general public. It is right that we hear the journalists' side of the story.
I sympathise with the Princes, but they do not have to watch the programme.
Let us not forget that for many years, the public blamed Mrs Parker-Bowles for the death of Princess Diana. Had there not been a “third person” in the marriage, who knows what might have happened. Currently, the Prince of Wales is employing some of the most sophisticated media advisers in the world to re-brand the Duchess of Cornwall. As anyone who saw the unctuous "documentary" on her last week, it is clear that the Prince is manipulating a receptive media to make his second wife “acceptable” to the public as a future Queen of England.
This odd, introverted socio-pathic family cannot expect the media only to present issues to their liking. Princess Diana is and always will be in the public domain. They must take the rough with the smooth.
Finally, as someone says above, we have not yet seen the documentary - I suspect it will not be as distasteful as many think.
John
Little black sambo - No, I think you'll find there are quite a few republicans in this country, and not just among the usual suspects.
It is a sign of the times that it took a Diana-related story to shine a proper spotlight on Channel Four, but there we are.
Channel Four, lest we forget, is publicly owned. It in turn owns a gaming channel. Do you remember any discussion in the pubs and clubs, or even just in the pages of Media Guardian, about whether or not this country needed a publicy owned gaming channel? I don't, and it doesn't.
Just one example among numerous, of course. However good Channel Four News and various other Channel Four, E4 and More4 programmes might be (and they often are), nevertheless Channel Four should be told either to stop replicating the private sector (in point of fact, the very worst of the private sector - but that's not really the point), or else take its chance there as a private company.
And it's not the only one.
I have just downloaded pictures of child pornography, hostages being beheaded, and Jamie Oliver doing unspeakable things to organic vegetables. I want to see this kind of stimulating and cutting edge material on TV, and if people don't like it, they should turn off or turn over. And if it causes offense to the victims of the crimes - then tough, my right to be entertained, amused and titillated and must come first!
Hooray for the Liberal Democrats and their common sense approach!
Post a Comment