Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC

[Ban Hammer 14,449]

Amid the deaths and the grim daily struggle bravely borne by Britain's forces in southern Iraq, one tale of heroism stands out.

Private Johnson Beharry's courage in rescuing an ambushed foot patrol then, in a second act, saving his vehicle's crew despite his own terrible injuries earned him a Victoria Cross.

For the BBC, however, his story is "too positive" about the conflict.

The corporation has cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.

The BBC's retreat from the project, which had the working title Victoria Cross, has sparked accusations of cowardice and will reignite the debate about the broadcaster's alleged lack of patriotism.

"The BBC has behaved in a cowardly fashion by pulling the plug on the project altogether," said a source close to the project. "It began to have second thoughts last year as the war in Iraq deteriorated. It felt it couldn't show anything with a degree of positivity about the conflict.

"It needed to tell stories about Iraq which reflected the fact that some members of the audience didn't approve of what was going on. Obviously a story about Johnson Beharry could never do that. You couldn't have a scene where he suddenly turned around and denounced the war because he just wouldn't do that.

"The film is now on hold and it will only make it to the screen if another broadcaster picks it up."

The independent production company which was developing the project for a prime-time slot on BBC1 is now believed to have taken the script to ITV.

Pte Beharry, 27, who was awarded the VC in March 2005, was the first person to receive the country's highest award for valour since 1982 and the first living recipient since 1965. He was honoured for two acts of outstanding gallantry which occurred just over a month apart while he was serving with the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, in the Iraqi town of al-Amarah, in 2004.

He was cited for "valour of the highest order" after he drove a Warrior tracked armoured vehicle through heavy enemy fire in May 2004 to come to the rescue of a foot patrol that had been caught in a series of ambushes. The 30-ton Warrior was hit by multiple rocket-propelled grenades, causing damage and resulting in the loss of radio communications. Pte Beharry drove through the ambush, taking his own injured crew and leading five other Warriors to safety. He then extracted his wounded colleagues from the vehicle, all the time exposed to further enemy fire.

The following month, Pte Beharry was again driving the lead Warrior vehicle of his platoon through al-Amarah when his vehicle was ambushed. A rocket-propelled grenade hit the vehicle and Pte Beharry received serious head injuries. Other rockets hit the vehicle incapacitating his commander and injuring several of the crew.Despite his very serious injuries, Pte Beharry then took control of his vehicle and drove it out of the ambush area before losing consciousness. He required brain surgery for his head injuries and he was still recovering when he received the VC from the Queen in June last year.

The script of the film about his heroics was being developed by Darlow Smithson, the production company responsible for the Bafta-winning Touching The Void and the docu-drama Tsunami, which was recently aired by the BBC. The Ministry of Defence is believed to have been supportive of the project and was offering the film-makers technical advice.

The BBC's decision to pull out will only confirm the fears of critics that television drama is only interested in telling bad news stories about the war.

The Ministry of Defence recently expressed concern about Channel 4's The Mark of Cain which showed British troops brutalising Iraqi detainees. That programme was temporarily pulled from the schedules after Iran detained 15 British troops.

A spokesman for the BBC admitted that it had abandoned the VC project but refused to elaborate.

link

so much for unbiased reporting from bbc the man deserves recognition for his actions.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the BBC is unbiased, still I don't think we should confuse BBC News with the separate division of the BBC which handles drama and entertainment.

Curiously, in that article there's actually no direct explanation of why the movie was cancelled other than a vague quote attributed to the word of an unnamed "source close to the project". If you really read it, there isn't much meat to the article, but rather thinly veiled opinion. If we're really talking about bias, how about we start there.... Its a pretty good example...

Edited April 9, 2007 by erekose

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Swept Under the Carpet?

VC hero Beharry awarded promotion

Victoria Cross holders honoured

Iraq hero opens new military wing

In pictures: War hero awarded VC

VC hero Beharry splits from wife

[Otto 83]

I can't recall the last 'positive' story/theme on a network here - It's a shame when that happens - opposition to the war is understandable, but the soldiers deserve some positive credit. IMO

[Ban Hammer 14,449]

Swept Under the Carpet?

VC hero Beharry awarded promotion

Victoria Cross holders honoured

Iraq hero opens new military wing

In pictures: War hero awarded VC

VC hero Beharry splits from wife

followed quickly by them "advancing to the rear" on the topic.

now did you read the rest of the article?

"The corporation has cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq."

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

BBC PWNED!!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Swept Under the Carpet?

VC hero Beharry awarded promotion

Victoria Cross holders honoured

Iraq hero opens new military wing

In pictures: War hero awarded VC

VC hero Beharry splits from wife

followed quickly by them "advancing to the rear" on the topic.

now did you read the rest of the article?

"The corporation has cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq."

If you mean "the rest of the article" yes its safe to say I read beyond the 4th paragraph

My point was that the factual material behind the Telegraph article is extremely thin, relying entirely on an un-named, unindentified source apparently "close to the project" who said:

"The BBC has behaved in a cowardly fashion by pulling the plug on the project altogether," said a source close to the project. "It began to have second thoughts last year as the war in Iraq deteriorated. It felt it couldn't show anything with a degree of positivity about the conflict.

"It needed to tell stories about Iraq which reflected the fact that some members of the audience didn't approve of what was going on. Obviously a story about Johnson Beharry could never do that. You couldn't have a scene where he suddenly turned around and denounced the war because he just wouldn't do that.

Even so - the journalist hasn't added any information of his own (based on his own research) to support the claims being made by his source.

Incidentally, you referred to the story as an example of biased reporting from the BBC. A movie dramatization is not "news reporting", and if you do a little research on the BBC website (as I did) you will find a whole page of links to old articles on the original story as well as video interviews, and clips of Beharry receiving the Victoria Cross from the Queen. The story has been covered fairly comprehensively as I see it...

Edited April 9, 2007 by erekose

[Dr_LHA 3]

BBC PWNED!!!

What? Nessa and Charles seem pretty "pwned" by Erekose to me. What the hell has some BBC drama got to do with BBC News? Nothing at all that's what.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

BBC PWNED!!!

What? Nessa and Charles seem pretty "pwned" by Erekose to me. What the hell has some BBC drama got to do with BBC News? Nothing at all that's what.

Not to make too many assumptions - but I'd really like to think that most people could tell the difference between BBC News and BBC Entertainment, although given the tabloidisation of most of the major US networks I can understand the confusion.

Half of the article is a rehash of the original story about Beharry's actions. The rest of it doesn't seem to be qualified at all. Some simple questions

1) Who is the quoted source?

Though this is not necessarily important as journalists often conceal their sources (usually for stories involving major scandals - this story doesn't fall into that category IMO). That said, clearly it makes a difference if the source is a senior BBC executive, a disgruntled employee from the production company or Wilf the janitor.

2) What is the sources statement based on?

It seems wholly unsubstantiated - there's no mention of how the source arrived at the conclusion he did and nothing is offered to back it up. I mean did he attend a meeting and overhear or see some minutes pertaining to the cancellation of the movie? How does he know that the cancellation was due to the BBC not wanting to show "positive aspects of the war"? None of this is explained and in my view it is rather heavy on opinion. The journalist even questions the BBC's patriotism but doesn't provide any quotes from critics of the BBC (of which there are a lot). That's pretty sub-par journalism IMO - but it certainly illustrates the problem of trying to write a story when you have nothing to actually write about...

Edited April 9, 2007 by erekose

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

BBC PWNED!!!

What? Nessa and Charles seem pretty "pwned" by Erekose to me. What the hell has some BBC drama got to do with BBC News? Nothing at all that's what.

Typical liberal media only wanting to show one side if the story.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Typical liberal media only wanting to show one side if the story.

Umm... they did show the story.

[Dr_LHA 3]

Typical liberal media only wanting to show one side if the story.

Bawk! I'm a parrot! Bawk! I can talk like a real person. Bawk! Repeating phrases from Fox News! Bawk!

Seriously now, what is your issue here? You can't debate what's being said here, you can only come up with stupid strawman arguments about the "liberal media". As Ekerose pointed out several times in this thead, the BBC News covered this story extensively. How exactly are they not showing "both sides of the story here". Did you even read the story and this posts in this thread? Do you have anything meaningful to add?

Edited April 9, 2007 by Dr_LHA

[homesick_american 1]

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the BBC is unbiased, still I don't think we should confuse BBC News with the separate division of the BBC which handles drama and entertainment.

Curiously, in that article there's actually no direct explanation of why the movie was cancelled other than a vague quote attributed to the word of an unnamed "source close to the project". If you really read it, there isn't much meat to the article, but rather thinly veiled opinion. If we're really talking about bias, how about we start there.... Its a pretty good example...

Oh, you'd be surprised. Maybe nobody here thinks that, but I'm hit with that particular nugget on a near-daily basis. Mostly it's anti-American British/European people and Americans who don't know any better, but it's still out there.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Being relatively out of touch with BBC drama I'd be wondering whether the BBC has made any movies / TV series about the Iraq war. Perhaps someone can answer that...

Edited April 9, 2007 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 14,449]

My point was that the factual material behind the Telegraph article is extremely thin, relying entirely on an un-named, unindentified source apparently "close to the project" who said:

so all sources have to be quoted for it to be a credible news source then to you?

"The BBC has behaved in a cowardly fashion by pulling the plug on the project altogether," said a source close to the project. "It began to have second thoughts last year as the war in Iraq deteriorated. It felt it couldn't show anything with a degree of positivity about the conflict.

"It needed to tell stories about Iraq which reflected the fact that some members of the audience didn't approve of what was going on. Obviously a story about Johnson Beharry could never do that. You couldn't have a scene where he suddenly turned around and denounced the war because he just wouldn't do that.

Even so - the journalist hasn't added any information of his own (based on his own research) to support the claims being made by his source.

Incidentally, you referred to the story as an example of biased reporting from the BBC. A movie dramatization is not "news reporting", and if you do a little research on the BBC website (as I did) you will find a whole page of links to old articles on the original story as well as video interviews, and clips of Beharry receiving the Victoria Cross from the Queen. The story has been covered fairly comprehensively as I see it...

still, backtracking on the 90 minute tv show due to their fear of alienating members of the audience is pandering to one segment of the audience, and in doing so they are not really being credible, are they?