tim ireland : search engine optimisation : viral marketing : weblog marketing
to front page
to date archives
to category archives
national service
© Tim Ireland 2004-2006
Design by Wibbler
RSS | RSD | Atom
« Iraqi interpreters: the government responds in its own special way | Main | We all scream for... »
August 8, 2007OK, let's have it
Times - Channel 4 in row over mosque film
Transcripts, please. Raw footage. All I'm seeing on Channel 4 right now is Krishnan Guru-Murthy acting like Iain Dale.
UPDATE - AHAHAHAHAHA! At the close, Krishnan made a point of mentioning that the police had chosen not to speak to them (*gasp*)... but failed to mention that the other party in the matter - i.e. Channel 4 - somehow failed to come forward publicly with the raw footage that could clear this up in a jiffy. FFS, they had the commissioning editor, who pretty much paid for it, right there in the chair, minus a tape (that he pretty much paid for), and the poor dear was reduced to assuring us that the footage that he could not show us 'spoke for itself'.
Posted by Manic on August 8, 2007 7:16 PM in the category Old Media
Pings (Trackback)
For trackbacks, this is the URL:
http://www.bloggerheads.com/cgi-bin/mt-tbbh_20x07.pl/1522
Comments
Exactly. What does Channel 4 have to lose if its evidence really is as damning as the edited parts shown in the film are? They clearly made outrageous and indefensible comments, but it's got to have taken something for the police to consider charging Channel 4 rather than the ranters themselves.
Posted by: septicisle at August 8, 2007 10:45 PM
To be fair, it is the West Midlands Police and CPS that are making the accusations against C4, so it is they who should be presenting the evidence. They have 56 hours of footage at their disposal, but so far have produced no evidence that the speakers' views had been "totally distorted", as they claim.
Posted by: mww at August 9, 2007 2:14 PM
But surely the producers who are claiming that the footage speaks for itself will be familiar enough with it to be able to lay their hands on the minute or so that does speak for itself?
Posted by: Manic at August 9, 2007 3:38 PM
My impression was that the footage which speaks for itself was shown in the documentary. The accusation is that this footagw was taken out of context and misrepresents the true views of the speakers. It is the evidence to back up this accusation that is currently absent.
Posted by: mww at August 9, 2007 6:27 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you're new to Bloggerheads, you may need to be approved by the moderator before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)