An Assessment Of Govt. Pressure On The Media To Withdraw Or Alter, Politically Sensitive Material Essay, Research Paper
In August 1985, “Real Lives: At the Edge of the Union ” was due to be shown, focusing on the lives and theories of two of the leading figures in Northern Ireland, Martin McGuiness of Sinn Fein and Gregory Campbell of the Democratic Unionists. McGuiness, who at the time was accused of being the Chief of Staff of the I.R.A., was to be given extensive coverage, the sort of publicity the government says terrorism relies on. In 1976 the Northern Ireland Secretary, Roy Mason had accused the B.B.C. of unwittingly serving terrorist propaganda. This was clearly the fear again when the Home Secretary asked the Governors of the B.B.C. to withdraw it. After an initial uproar from the broadcasters, it was eventually shown later in the year, but with additional inserts, reminding the viewer of the carnage caused by the I.R.A. The tradition of the B.B.C. laid down by its original Director General, Lord Reith and expanded in the 1960’s by Hugh Greene, was that it is a provider of a public service, there to educate and inform the public. So in the Real Lives film did the B.B.C. educate and inform the public on the issues of the province, giving a balanced and impartial view, or did it play into the hands of terrorist propaganda. The film gives a balanced and impartial view of the issues. Both men take it in turns to air their views in similar surroundings and conditions. The two men it pics, however are far from a political balance. They represent the two extremes, literally at the edges of the Union. The feelings of moderates and the Government are not covered in this film. Instead the film is concentrating on trying to understand the motivations of these tow extremes. The impartiality shown in the film, means McGuiness and Sinn Fein are given equal time to air their grievances. This, most probably, is the main reason the Government objected to it, and why additional material, designed to tilt the balance against Sinn Fein, was later added. Both men are shown in family conditions. It has been argued that this “humanises” McGuiness. I do not think the film is trying to show him in a more positive light. The idea behind these shots is to show how two family men, two religious men, like McGuiness and Campbell, have been drawn into such extreme positions by the conflict. The family shots do not make the men more ordinary, but just emphasise how the situation in which they live if far from being ordinary. What the film does show is how alike the two men really are. It does this in a number of ways, as well as the portrayal of family life. For example, the film shows how both men have become victims of their positions. Campbell is clearly seen to require high security, following an attempt upon his life, due to his outspoken judgements. He is almost a prisoner inside his own house. McGuiness’ freedom is likewise shown to be restricted due to his beliefs. He is shown being pulled over at a checkpoint and the film makes reference to press speculations over his connections with the I.R.A. Possibly more alarming to the Government, the film indicates how close the two men stand on the use of violence and how unhappy they are with the Government. McGuiness, obviously follows an anti-government line, placing all responsibility for the violence in the province since 1968, with the Government. Campbell also to an extent disagrees with the Government. He is a hardliner, showing himself to be a strong advocate of a shoot to kill policy, wishing the Government to take greater action against terrorism. The two men’s stance on the use of violence is also seen to be similar, in the film. McGuiness never condones the violence and although he would like to do it peacefully, he can see no other alternative. Campbell earlier on condemns this as unchristian, but through out the film advocates a violent Government response to terrorism. Campbell goes on to state, that if Sinn Fein were to force the protestants into a minority within a catholic republic, he would not have second thoughts about taking up arms. This is not only a contradiction of his earlier sentiments, but indirectly justifies the current Republican cause, by basically saying that if the boot was on the other foot, we would do the same. The film therefore shows that both men advocate violence. McGuiness does come across better on the film. He is more relaxed than the tense Campbell, and he presents what comes across as a reasoned argument, compared to the bitter and contradictory argument of Campbell. This may well concern the Government, but the film makers have remained impartial and balanced throughout. The viewpoint the B.B.C. is pushing appears to be that peace has little chance, with the complex problems of Northern Ireland seeming insolvable. This is not what a government who are trying to solve the province’s problems want to here. McGuiness may well say the withdrawal of troops would lead to peace, but with the advantage of knowing Campbell’s equally strong views, we know this will not bring peace. There is an overall feeling of hopelessness. I think the audience is always aware that McGuiness may well just be using the programme for propaganda purposes. He may come across the best of the two for the camera, but he never condones the violence. This does makes the audience suspicious of him. Did the Government really need to try and censor it? The film does also give the other extreme view. The addition of clips of footage of the carnage caused and the statistics of the troubles, have been put in to remind us how dangerous McGuiness is. This attempt by the Government to alter the impartial nature of the film seems hardly necessary. In the end the film does show that the two men are alike. This is the worrying thing as it makes peace look a long way off. The B.B.C. does carry out its responsibilities as a public service. It was probably a mistake to withdraw the programme, as the censorship was only to heighten publicity. In a way by asking for it to be withdrawn the Government were fuelling the “oxygen of publicity” that they say terrorist propaganda crave for.
3c7