Mosque manages to censor BBC.
Richardcoulter
Posts: 30,331 Forum Member
✭✭✭
I have just watched my recording of a BBC3 programme that I recorded yesterday.
Ironically, it was called 'Free Speech' and came from a mosque. One of the subjects was about homosexuality. A short film was shown and then the presenter explained that the mosque did not want such a subject to be discussed. He went on to say that it would be discussed in the next programme in a different venue.
I find the fact that this was allowed to happen astonishing on a few levels:
There was no obvious reason for the programme to come from a mosque. I am assuming that this was done by the BBC for 'diversity' and 'inclusivity' reasons. These same people being pandered to then start discriminating against other minority groups!!
I am assuming that they were paid rent for use of the building, so what has it got to do with them what is discussed? There would be outrage if, for example, a local village hall was hired and one of the conditions was that the discussion of the muslim faith was forbidden.
Why did the producers of this programme not clarify the position beforehand, or if the demands were made at the last minute go ahead anyway (after explaining the concept of free speech that so many died and suffered for in this country). Another option could have been to refuse to broadcast the programme altogether, rather than have their editorial independence interfered with.
What do others think?
Ironically, it was called 'Free Speech' and came from a mosque. One of the subjects was about homosexuality. A short film was shown and then the presenter explained that the mosque did not want such a subject to be discussed. He went on to say that it would be discussed in the next programme in a different venue.
I find the fact that this was allowed to happen astonishing on a few levels:
There was no obvious reason for the programme to come from a mosque. I am assuming that this was done by the BBC for 'diversity' and 'inclusivity' reasons. These same people being pandered to then start discriminating against other minority groups!!
I am assuming that they were paid rent for use of the building, so what has it got to do with them what is discussed? There would be outrage if, for example, a local village hall was hired and one of the conditions was that the discussion of the muslim faith was forbidden.
Why did the producers of this programme not clarify the position beforehand, or if the demands were made at the last minute go ahead anyway (after explaining the concept of free speech that so many died and suffered for in this country). Another option could have been to refuse to broadcast the programme altogether, rather than have their editorial independence interfered with.
What do others think?
0
Comments
To my knowledge no other religion in this country has censored a live television debate before (happy to be corrected if they have).
You are either kidding or blind to what goes on in GD because if there's not a thread running about Christianity, where the Catholic church's attitude gets dragged into it, then there's one on Islam's homophobic attitude which is then derailed by the Catholic church getting dragged into it.
Open your eyes before criticising members.
There's no hypocrisy, as Christianity often comes up here for discussion about its homophobic attitudes.
What's your view on the actual subject of this thread?
This is the classic line, nicely delivered...
As others have mentioned, other religions get FAR more criticism. I suppose it's because other religions are FAR less militant (nowadays)
and
Really it's for government to stop letting religion dominate. But the Conservatives are very heavily influenced by Christianity at the moment.
It's amazing that in 2014 we have such a malign force as religion still around and powerful in the UK.
Its very fair. Infact, its very BBC.
They raise a contentious issue, say that the host's have prohibited discussion but agreed to the original question being put and understand that the discussion will take next week.
They then invite you to make your own conclusions, and of course to build audience for next week's show. As I said very BBC!
Agreed.
YEP and they know it.
Who are "they" in this case?
In future the BBC would certainly need to make it clear that the venue cannot decide on the topics to be discussed.
What a daft comment. Not just on the homophobic issue but religions in general. It seems it's ok to poke fun at christianity and other religions but if anyone dare say anything untoward about the prophet Muhammad it seems like the whole world comes crashing down on you (almost literally).
But, of course, that view is just down to 'demographic of the kind of people coming on DS', isn't it?
I couldn't agree more!
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/13/bbc-censorhip-free-speech-mosque
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/bbc-criticised-for-preventing-debate-on-homosexuality-in-islam-to-take-place-in-birmingham-mosque-9190824.html
Yes, it's worth mentioning that the gay man in the film that they wouldn't allow to be discussed was a gay muslim man who also did a drag act- makes you think.
I suspect that the mosque did it at the last minute too to effectively force the BBC to accept their conditions.
In my view the programme should have been postponed, with full reasons given to viewers, to send out a clear message that cencorship of what a broadcaster wishes to discuss is not acceptable in our society. In my view this is all the more relevant when this is the state broadcaster.
As I said above, I believe that the BBC should have left after hearing of this preposterous condition.
Sorry, but the fact that a subject "may cause trouble" isn't a good enough reason to not discuss it. Silencing people by the use of real or perceived threats is in itself a form of terrorism.
Thanks for those interesting links. I'm really glad that this has been picked up by the wider media, this behaviour needs nipping in the bud and fast.
"Programme's makers say topic in live show was pulled after threats were received by the mosque where it was filmed"
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/14/bbc3-free-speech-debate-gay-muslim
Pre-Birt, a programme such as this would have been make by the BBC, using BBC resources,
possibility a hired OB site and a contracted-for-the-series or staff programme editor.
That programme editor is responsible for the subjects discussed, the time allocated to each topic and
generally abiding by programme editorial guidelines that are appropriate to that style of broadcast.
The situation today is very different:
a commissioning editor, employed directly by the BBC, has sought a contractor
to fulfil a programme idea in accordance with the Channel Controller's wishes.
Mentorn won the contract for the production of this series of 'Free Speech' -
it has a legally binding contract with the BBC,
Mentorn has agreed to comply with many obligations, including abiding by the
editorial guidelines issued by the BBC.
Mentorn is free, in turn, to contract as it sees fit production staff, technical
facilities and staff and location of origin for the live outside broadcast;
one of those hired staff will have programme editorial responsibility for
the transmission and, no doubt, liaises closely with the commissioning editor.
Your suggestion is that, in this case, Mentorn has struck a contract with whichever body
deems it their role to hire out a car park of a mosque on which a further contractor erects
a temporary structure that enables Mentorn to fulfill its contract with the BBC
and that, in so doing, Mentorn has passed some or all of the programme's editorial control to the 'mosque'.
What reason have you for saying this?
"In theory", if the mosque asked the programme to leave on editorial grounds and there
had been no show then Mentorn would have been in breach of its contract with the BBC.
The 'Today' item yesterday did suggest there was weakness in Mentorn on such matters -
was the pre-Birt BBC more robust? I think so!