Juxtaposing distortion

Has anyone else noticed the bizarreness of this Channel 4 Islamist documentary thing? On the one hand we have some bloggers calling for all 56 hours of footage to be released publicly in order to satisfy their curiousity, presumably because they don't trust the CPS who have viewed the tapes, but, what is more bizarre is the whole accusation underlying the "scandal".

Apparently, there is a belief amongst many that the documentary committed the crime of "incitement to religious and racial hatred" because it sought to portray Muslims as mentalist loonies. However, when the CPS looked at the all the raw footgae they came to the conclusion that there was no way charges could be brought. The issue then moved to something that was said in the CPS statement about distortion and this is where it gets interesting. The CPS lawyer statement said,

The CPS has demonstrated that it will not hesitate to prosecute those responsible for criminal incitement, but in this case we have been dealing with a heavily edited television programme, apparently taking out of context aspects of speeches, which in their totality could never provide a realistic prospect of any convictions.

So, effectively they're saying the selective editing was wrong, but at the same time it could not be seen as incitement. That must mean that the raw footage itself contained enough dodgy stuff to justify the angle the documentary took? And, frankly, why not? There are preachers out there who are not moderate and are infecting people's mind with Islamist political ideology. The chattering classes may wish to bury their heads in the sand about it, or as many on the Left do, get into bed with it because the common enemy is America, but that's a pretty stupid angle to take.

Of course what is truly bizarre is this belief that documentaries are somehow pure and selective editing to drive home a starting premise are never made. It is utter naivity. Any documentary, on whatever side of the political divide you may be on, does it . Michael Moore does it, the Taking Liberties movie did it, and TV documentaries have been doing it for years. A filmmaker starts with a premise and seeks to create a film that puts the premise across to the viewer. It is very rare that something other than that happens.

What did make me laugh more as I read about all this in the papers this morning was the Independent's coverage. The headline on the page was Prosecutors accuse Channel 4 of distorting footage of preachers, over on the opposite page was another headline, Cheap flights cause rise in skin cancer. They could equally have said "Rising salaries cause rise in skin cancer" or "Desire to lay in the sun cause rise in skin cancer". The irony of talking about distortion on one page and then having a distorting headline that fits in with the climate change orthodoxy is, I must say, beautiful.

It's almost as amusing as the irony that the Indepednent's readership that buys it because it thinks it is a good newspaper are also the very same people who sneer at the Daily Mail. Yet the papers are almost one in the same when it comes to the absurd distortion of news to fit an editorial line.

Update: It's been pointed out in the comments that accusations of incitement were directed at the preachers, not C4. That wasn't my understanding of the situation. Although it's interesting to note that if, as some say, C4 deliberately misrepresented the views being expressed, then surely they would now be being accused of incitement themselves anyway? I also think it's worth noting that no one has threatened to sue C4 yet. If, as the preachers say, they were misrepresented, then why are they not suing?