Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC
By Chris Hastings, Arts and Media Editor, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 11:56pm BST 07/04/2007



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 with his Victoria Cross


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.

advertisement"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.



Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

A positive story would be the expansion of the green zone-- where Bagdad was peaceful.  

A positive story would be a treaty between the Shi'ites and Sunnis.  

Bravery and valor in the war is a different subject.  This is an inspiring story for him and his army-- it keeps them going through the negative situation. A positive story would be something boring: the lack of the need for valor.

The story will be played sometime soon.  I assure you Bill.  Nobody forgets anything like that.

I think this one is too in it's own light. But so does the BBC.

However, for mew the real story is that the BBC has decided this is a positive story AND, it's customers don't want that!!!

"""""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."""""

IMO, this war is a mess BOTH for wellworn examples of poor planning BUT ALSO this incredibble need to denigrate Bush/Blair at all costs.

At home, the Dems decided that THIS was the way to the White House as evidenced by Dean's popularity in NH and they have been piling on ever since.

As you know, I did'nt vote for Bush but the above is a big reason I'd NEVER vote for 99% of the Dummyrats either.


-- Modified on 4/10/2007 4:19:38 PM

end any discussion that the supposed "fair and middle of the road" media has no hidden agenda. The mere fact that some of the history tellers and history keepers would even acknowledge that the historical record should be what the masses want it to be shows how brazen they have become.

The fact that are willing to admit this, then in fact says to me that the real reason is of course based on what they want the masses to think.

Trying to follow market surveys is about as middle as you could get.  

Let me ask you: how does the fact that he's a hero effect policy in Iraq?  How much should it?

Does it really weigh against the hundreds of people being killed and maimed in Bagdad every day?

I expect the BBC to broadcast it sometime.  I mean, he's not going away.  It's not topical, but  People would always like to hear the story.

-- Modified on 4/10/2007 5:34:07 PM

His heroism doesn't weigh much considering the people being killed in this conflict.  That's not a matter of hating Bush, or Blair.  That's just the truth of the Iraqi casualties mounting now.

I suppose after people have been demonstrated to be poor leaders and have wretched judgment, the ordinary response should be to just ignore and pretend it isn't so.

I'm sorry, when somebody fucks up in the way you agree Bush did, people are going to put him down-- a lot.  It doesn't have to be "at all costs."  It comes naturally.  In this case, it's like having a boss for a company who has been thoroughly, publicly discredited.  Underneath it all, everyone fears for their jobs because of it.  Now, how would it be there if that guy doesn't resign or isn't asked to resign.

The reason Howard Dean won was more complicated than what you think.  I could think of other reasons: because the Democrats were also being treated badly in Congress. There were other abuses that liberal bloggers noted. There was also the fact that people didn't want another Clinton, didn't want another Kerry, to try to counter it.    

Being pissed off at Bush is just a focusing point.

Why should the decsion be based, even in part, on whether or not it affects Iraq policy?

It is extremely topical. As I read it, they decided NOT to FILM the story. So if they ever DO "make" the story, it most assuredly will be when it eventually becomes non-topical.

I'll reiterate for you. You and I don't seem to live in the same world.

anything esle goin on in iraq has nothing to do with wehther or not his is a story of heroism and is completely beside the real point, which is since when is
"Good news reporting" based on what you think the reader wants to hear?

you missedf my point about dean. when it became clear dean was a frontrunner as early as NH, THATS when dickfaces like Kerry decided they were against the  war. Yeah, sure, Bush has made mistakes and mistakes make it much easier to piss backwards if being popular is what you're all about like kerry.

I have no problem with guys who were against the war staying that way. what i have a problem with is assholes like kerry/ clinton getting the US into a war then when things turn tough, pissin up their own legs.

-- Modified on 4/10/2007 6:27:38 PM

a right wing newspaper that is based on what appears to be one anonymous source. I've read the story several times and I can see no corroboration. In fact the "too positive" quote is not sourced to anyone at all.  "While I am sure that that is good enough for you, I tend to need more than just "because I said so" as proof.

-- Modified on 4/10/2007 10:52:09 PM

If Hillary wins the nomination, Dean has lost.

Does it occur to you that both Clinton and Kerry might have taken the President at his word, and changed when they found out they had been tricked, or that they didn't know how badly planned the invasion was?  It's quite possible. Almost all of the US was either tricked and/or presumed Bush was competent and professional.  

It's embarrassing for them now.  They might have thought it was in competent hands.  I'm reminded of Curly from the three stooges when a guy asked them if the work would be in competent hands: "Sure, we're all incompetent."  

I know that's a little presumptuous of me, because Kerry hasn't said anything like that.  Hillary has hinted at this, probably, when she said if she had been president we wouldn't be in Iraq, but she needed to consult with her team of handlers before she would even say that much.  

I could see after being taken in by lies and wishful thinking, they wouldn't want to bring it up.  What angers me about her is she has to consult the her crack campaign management team to say anything like that; she's supposed to be the intelligent woman, remember?  The critical thinker.  Believe me, that's not lost on the new wing of the Democratic party.  Now it's too late for her to say anything.  IMO, she's cooked.            

On the other subject, I didn't say it was good news reporting, Bill, but it was by all standards, middle-of-the-road.  Middle as you could get for market share.  

Moreover, holding the story wasn't a matter of reporting at all.  It was an editors' decision.  In other words: management.  

To judge the press by the politics of reporters is like judging GM as liberal by taking a poll of the UAW.

-- Modified on 4/11/2007 6:07:11 PM

They are talking about entertainment. A film, a docu-drama.  They didn't think it would get an audience.  This is different thing entirely.  

To judge that people wouldn't be entertained by it right now is a completely different decision.  If that's the case, it's totally a marketing decision.  If the BBC has calculated that this isn't going to get an audience, it's their right.  

I'm a fool.  I skimmed it.  I should have read it more closely.  Guess what?  It had been reported as news-- three weeks ago.

Then I re-read it, slowly this time, and realized they we're talking about a docu-drama, not journalism.  They were judging whether it would have an audience.  Since it's then purely a business venture, they don't have the same ethics to consider.  "Based on a true story" leaves a lot of room for interpretation.  

Now our argument is hypothetical, but since the can of worms is now open: I told Bill I didn't say it was (or would have been) good journalism. They will make fiction based on fact (which is what a docu-drama is) depending on whatever they think people will buy, for whatever reason.  Whether they buy it in advertising, subscriptions to BBC, or revenue from overseas distribution.  

Journalism, though is different, or should be.  A reporter writes a story.  It goes to the editor for massacre, um . . . editorial decisions.  The editor considers what the publisher wants.  The publisher considers what would maximize revenues. The editor looks out for the publisher's interests.  The reporter usually knows what the editor will and won't print, and doesn't like to have a story killed, or over-edited, because if it's killed, that's a lot of work down the drain and a loss of prestige. If too many are killed, the reporter is looking for a new job. See how the press might not be too liberal?

Now, assuming he's making his publisher happy, the editor may make a decision about a story based on, what?  It could be whether he thinks it's pertinent to what's important about Iraq.  Be it the debate on policy or whatever else is foremost in him mind about the Iraqi war.  

What I gave about effecting policy is a hypothetical editor's decision.  You don't like it, take it up with the editors.  They're management.  They make that decision.  Finally it depends on the bottom line.  Even NPR has to attract donations.

I'll emphasize again that the editor has the publisher's interests in mind, not the reporter's.  Also, he only gets a sample from his reporters of what's going on. This depends on reporters being in the right place, or if they are in the wrong place, asking people who were in the right place. It might be a good sample or it might be a bad sample.

The reporters in the field, if they are doing their jobs (and they can get very cynical about it given the editorial decisions) should report directly what they perceive, and put it into words  that an editor could use-- after it has been ground up. Reporters most often will describe things in ways that they think will make the editors cut. When you reach the level of an anchor, like say, Dan Rather, he didn't do any real reporting, he was a face used for marketing.

After I wrote my post proceeding yours, I figured out there was an angle from which it was pertinent. The angle of looking at how troops are behaving in the field under bad conditions.  We have heard some awful stories.  This story would show that some are exceeding their duties.  Like Beharry.  It is pertinent that there are heroics in the face of tragedies, but IMO, Iraq shouldn't have been made into a tragedy.

WE will never know exactly, for sure, why they didn't go with the story.