The Queen to ban BBC documentary
It seems the Queen is taking Royal Anecdotes’ advice on the controversial BBC film, A Year With The Queen, in which she is shown apparently storming out from a photoshoot with starry American snapper, Annie Leibovitz. In fact the footage was taken of her arrival at the session.
Regular readers may recall our reaction : “… the Queen should remove permission for the film to be shown.”
The MoS is reporting, “Well placed sources say a heated behind-the-scenes dispute is going on between the BBC and Buckingham Palace over the Corporation’s refusal to scrap the documentary.”
Let’s hope the Palace is successful. The trailer was an outrage and was clearly remixed for sensation rather than accuracy. The attempt may falter though because the documentary series has already been sold to a broadcaster in the USA, and to other countries.
Royal programming on British TV is now big business. A trawl through the listings for the coming week alone reveals four shows on Royal themes across the networks :
Sunday (today) — BBC1, The Great British Village Show has Prince Charles and Camilla handing out prizes at a typical summer competition for the best-kept village.
Monday — Channel 5, Diana: Last Days Of A Princess, a drama-documentary in which actors play the parts of the principals over those final few days.
Tuesday — Channel 5, Charles and Di — The Wedding: Revealed, which promises to tell all about the wedding of the century back in 1981.
Tuesday — ITV1, Guarding The Queen, an excellent and often hilarious documentary series about how young Grenadier Guards are trained for ceremonial and guard duties at Buckingham Palace — in between painful interludes in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban.
And that’s just three day’s worth. Television is going large on Royalty at the moment. It remains the greatest fairy tale around.
Well, I dunno - I dislike censorship of any kind - if the BBC were to correct the documentary, then I see no problem with showing it, but if they were going to show it the way the filmed it, then a disclaimer should be shown.
By On The Outside on July 29th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I don’t think it’s censorship. If one sequence has been fixed to create a bias, common sense suggests there may be others too. And the tone of the commentary may well be skewed to that point of view. Why should the Palace risk it?
By John on July 29th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
I agree with the Queen and with you, John. The BBC clearly has a few staff problems and this is seriously impacting their credibility. I don’t blame the Queen for demanding that the documentary be shelved. If the BBC would stick to the unbiased truth, there would be no need to terminate this project.
By Gigi on July 29th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I happen to agree with everyone on this issue. A doucumentary is supposesd to be accurate with it’s information. Judging by the way the photo session was edited how many more gross misrepresentation are in there. And for the record that was a gross insult to HM.
By Trudie on July 29th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
You guys do realize that all documentaries are biased, right? The issue here is not whether “the truth” was captured, but the fact that the filmmakers are not competent enough to tell the story they want without heavy editing. The Queen deserves to be slandered by better.
By ClassyCanuck on July 29th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Well said, Trudie. It was absolutely an outrageous insult to Queen Elizabeth II who has never given anyone cause to treat her with such disrespect. If the BBC want to insult a member of the Royal Family so badly, let them insult the Duke of York. He is behaving like Casanova yet again. He is entirely out of hand!
By Gigi on July 29th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Bias is perhaps inevitable, ClassyCanuck, but it should never involve gross disrespect unless the person concerned has done something particularly bad or demeaning. But altering the sequence of events to distort the truth about the Queen — who hasn’t — is unworthy of a Corporation that receives $6billion in public subsidy a year.
By John on July 29th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Such behavior is unworthy of any corporation, John. This very type of agenda drive journalism is a part of the commerce without conscience that has made the civilized world so mean spirited and avaricious. One by one the standards of civility, honesty and decency are being destroyed to satisfy the media moguls’ desire for greed and power. The damage is incalculable.
By Gigi on July 29th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Actually Gigi I think the Duke of York is in a mid-life crisis and has regressed back to his youth as Randy Andy too bad his looks are gone and he still can’t grow up.
By Trudie on July 29th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
OntheOutside you’re right on point. As an American this kind of censorship is a little unsettling. Can the Queen ban something which puts her in a bad light? I believe the BBC was totally wrong, but banning a documentary, even an inaccurate or unflattering on? That’s a little out there and scary. Has the Queen similarly objected to or banned favorable or fawning documentaries about her?
By Positive on July 30th, 2007 at 2:09 am
Banning the documentary altogether seems extreme to me too. I prefer a healthy debate, a “behind the scenes” explanation, BBC expose, etc. etc. to a complete dismissal. It strikes me as dangerously egocentric for the reasons “Positive” lists. Are excessively fawning and unrealistic documentaries allowed (even with inaccuracies), while an admittedly grossly overblown negative program is not? I prefer to have the good and the bad presented to the public. I worry that my own country has started down the slippery slope of censoring that which is “offensive,” to ill end. Yes I realize that the documentary was in poor taste and offensive. But complete censorship makes me uncomfortable. Just my two cents.
By Marie on July 30th, 2007 at 6:03 am
The bit we’ve seen of this documentary is defamatory. It totally distorts the Queen’s character and actions. That’s a strong basis for legal action in both America and Britain, so it’s got nothing to do with censorship.
The Palace has to stop people broadcasting lies about her or there would be open season for every snarky anti-monarchist in the land.
Imagine if your local TV station showed some CCTV footage of you apparently stealing something from a shop, when actually the footage had been reversed and you were putting something back.
Would it be censorship to demand a retraction and removal of the program from air? After all, how many other people may have been traduced in the same way?
By John on July 30th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Retraction and removal are different than “banning,” which is the language originally used in the post. And, yes, defamation of character is objectionable, and a real problem these days in the media where public figures are concerned. I’ve always understood that invasion of privacy is even worse for celebritis in the UK than in the States. But my time living in the UK has been somewhat brief, even though I have ties there, so it’s hard to know for sure.
I can agree to disagree with everyone on this subject. And certainly can agree to disagree with you, John, as you have never been anything but lovely and fair to all of your posters on what is after all your site!
If you struck a nerve and some of us responded as we did, it’s just because the last 7 years or so have been disturbingly trying for some of us in the US.
By Marie on July 30th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I understand that, Marie, and the last ten years have been trying for all of us, especially where the power of the media crashes against that of the individual. The Queen also is an individual and should not be subject to defamation of her character by an organization that’s massively subsidized by the state.
It’s a tough call, I grant you, but when someone is dishonest, you have to question their other work and whether it should be broadcast on a public-funded outlet.
By John on July 30th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Well, see, I’ve always liked the UK because people tend to have better manners than in the US. From the outside it has always seemed to me that you can count on people to do the right thing by appealing to a sense of decency in the UK, whereas this is much more difficult in the US. Over here, matters are often resolved through the help of lawyers. And once you’ve been through a legal dispute, it really sours you as to how lawyers make the big bucks by settling arguments, when an appeal to decency and manners ought to be able to take care of most problems.
It makes me sad that the BBC can’t issue a formal apology and come up with a constructive way to “set things right” in its own house, and in its relationship with the public and the Queen. This would strike me as a more civilized and properly British (or English if you want to get specific, but I’m marrying a Scotsman so I tend to use words like “UK” and “British”) way of handling such a fiasco.
The fact that the Queen actually has to go to the lenths of “banning” to protect herself is really disturbing. Hopefully the lawyers don’t have to get involved as well, as I’d hate to see this ugly aspect of American culture invade your shores. And, yes, the matter is made much more complicated by the fact that the BBC is publicly funded.
NPR has had its own battles from those who feel its reporting used to be too left leaning for a government sponsored entity–and now people complain that it is too right leaning.
It’s in tricky matters like this that an issue like censorship becomes interesting–or challenging, depending on your emotional makeup, I guess. In the early days of this Iraq war, much ink was spilt over the major media outlets’ decision not to show caskets coming home. Censorship? Decency? Manners? Adult life sucks sometimes.
By Marie on July 30th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
I’d hate to lose the opportunity to see what may be a fascinating documentary simply because of one poorly edited trailer. I don’t know what agreement HM struck with the BBC, but I’d hope it would include an opportunity for her to review the film and request corrections.
Getting the film right, if possible, and then showing it would be my first choice. If the film truly is beyond repair, then HM would be within her moral rights, imho, to withdraw her permission to show it. I don’t know what her legal rights would be in this situation.
By Aunt Pierre on July 30th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
You’ve got it in a nutshell, Marie. Unhappily for us, Blair introduced the American system of No win No Fee ambulance chasing lawyers and the system changed for the worse.
The Queen can’t actually “ban” the BBC from showing the program but she can “exert her human rights” — another Blair innovation. You really couldn’t make it up.
The Beeb has appointed an old crony, Will Wyatt, to examine the whole issue. With luck he’ll tell them to back off. But he knows the whole BBC establishment personally, so decide for yourself what will happen.
By John on July 30th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I agree with you, Marie, that people in the UK have far better manners and in general behave with more gentility and civility than here in America. I am all for free speech and freedom of the press, but not to the extent that they can publish lies and half-truths to make money for their shareholders and themselves. The rights of the BBC to make money and gain market share end where the rights of the Queen to preserve the truth of her character and reputation begin. This ruthless, arrogant attitude on the part of the media is entirely out of hand. They have chosen to ignore the Canons of Journalism (and in some cases to shatter them) and therefore have surrendered the moral high ground. The Queen has the right to protect herself, and she should.
By Gigi on July 30th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
I’m sure the Palace will, Gigi. The BBC gets a lot of work from the Royal Family and will not want to make an enemy of the Monarch.
By John on July 30th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
I believe that ship sailed, John. I would not blame the Queen if she decided that some other media outlet should be awarded the business they formerly gave to the BBC. Actions have consequences.
By Gigi on July 30th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Uh, isn’t that part of the problem? Who else is there really aside from the BBC?
By Marie on July 30th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Good grief, is there only one broadcasting company in Britain? I did not know that. If so, that is a problem. It is also an monopoly.
By Gigi on July 31st, 2007 at 2:53 am
Well, I mean there are other smaller ones like Sky and Channel 4. But the BBC really is the powerhouse and it’s hard to picture documentaries on the royal family on those other networks.
We don’t really have a comparison for the BBC in the US–the Beeb is sort of like, I don’t know, ABC, NBC, CBS, Top 40 Radio, NPR and a million other major media outlets rolled up into one.
But obviously John is more of an expert on this subject, so I’ll let him step in and correct me.
By Marie on July 31st, 2007 at 3:39 am
ITV is the big commercial rival to the BBC. At its best it can produce output that exceeds the BBC : Inspector Morse, for example, and the superb Brideshead Revisited. Its news bulletins are also much fairer than the horribly politically correct BBC, which plods the same old anti-British, pro-EU line on most of its shows.
In the fact, Channel 4 makes the best documentaries now, but always with an edge. Most docs are made by the same outside production companies, like RDF, so there tends to be a sameness across most of the broadcasters.
By John on July 31st, 2007 at 10:03 am
Oh good. Thanks, John. At least there is a viable alternative should the Queen choose to take her business away from the BBC and place it elsewhere. I urge the Queen to do just that.
By Gigi on July 31st, 2007 at 7:35 pm
She does that already, Gigi. Her Christmas broadcast is now split on alternate years between the BBC and ITV. That happened after yet another dispute a few years ago.
By John on August 1st, 2007 at 8:25 am
I am pleased to hear it. Do we know anything more about the BBC’s decision on the status of those repsonsible for that video fiasco?
By Gigi on August 1st, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I’ve not heard the results of Will Wyatt’s deliberations, but I’m rather busy right now, so may have missed it. I don’t think so though.
By John on August 1st, 2007 at 2:50 pm