You are here:   Civilisation >  Television > Jon Snow and the Gilded Cage
 
It is easy to feel that way, particularly when you watch Channel 4 News. A few months ago, Snow provoked furious protests from soldiers after the Drudge Report broke the media silence on Prince Harry’s service in the Afghan war. “I never thought I’d find myself saying ‘thank God for Drudge’,” Snow declared in his daily bulletin for viewers. “Editors have been sworn to secrecy over Prince Harry being sent to fight in Afghanistan. Drudge has blown their cover. One wonders whether viewers, readers and listeners will ever want to trust media bosses again.”

Never mind that reporting troop movements in wartime stands alongside shouting “fire!” in a crowded theatre as a restriction on freedom of speech that all but the most anarchistic journalists accept, and consider the double standard.

If the Sun were to reveal the secret location of Maxine Carr, the former girlfriend of the murderer Ian Huntley, Snow would have kittens and say that a populist tabloid was endangering her life. Yet when editors decide not to endanger British soldiers in battle, they are guilty of a breach of trust.

While I was writing this article, the Ministry of Defence announced the death of the 100th British soldier in Afghanistan. Channel 4 News said that it was “duty-bound” to examine Gordon Brown’s claim that our soldiers had died in a noble cause. “Reliable measures” were hard to find, it concluded with a shake of the head. The conservative Spectator went wild and pointed out that the army had pushed the Taliban back to the Pakistani border, allowed the preparations for the upcoming elections and prevented al-Qaeda from re-establishing an Afghan base.

The failure of Channel 4 to grasp that the struggle against a movement that executes teachers for the crime of teaching girls to read and write was a liberal struggle struck me more forcibly. Its report could not allow the notion that radical Islam was against every good liberal principle in the minds of its liberal audience. Doubts and awkward moral questions might follow, and that wouldn’t do.

The bias feels all the more insidious because of the huge advantage politically committed broadcasters enjoy. Politicians realised long ago that taking them on is like swearing at the ref or throwing your racket at the umpire — a mug’s game they can never win. As soon as they are challenged, broadcasters retreat behind the mask of impartiality and present themselves as mere adjudicators. It is no good using the normal tactics of argument against them by pointing out the previous failures of their ideology or their hypocrisies and blind spots. Talking back makes you seem a spoilsport who won’t play by the rules.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
J. Isaacs
July 23rd, 2008
5:07 PM
Snow's most recent outing is as an amateur cook on Gordon Ramsay's "the f word" cookery show, where he burns his cakes. Gordon then gives him a present of a red tie with the f word printed on it. Snow says he will wear it for special events. Not very manly. Perhaps he is preparing to transfer his talents to light entertainment.

Sorab Shroff
July 18th, 2008
2:07 PM
Jon Snow recently interviewed the Chinese ambassador to the UK. "Thank you so much for joining us, a rare glimpse, for once, of the official chinese point of view," he said at the end, almost salivating at the woman, the Chinese ambassador. In the interview, she claimed the chinese police who ran around the Olympic flame in London were, "young boys...PHD students, kind boys, I ran with them myself in Chinatown. Jon, in China their parents will be sad to hear people in England referred to them as paramilitaries. In China parents only have one child." He then said to her, tenderly, "People here are concerned about the human rights of people in China. Do you think, it is a case of perception? That, the notion of western concepts of human rights and democracy is different from that in China?" She goes on to condemn the Dalai Lama, employing the most amusing sophistry, "Is he a spiritual leader? Or is he a politician?" She smiles pithily. Jon Snow looks at her in awe - as if she has, at a stroke, ended all arguments on this issue. Read the nuts interview printed here : http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/in...

seth
July 17th, 2008
12:07 PM
I don't agree 100% with what NIck Cohen says all the time but at least he seems to look at things with more intelligence and thought than the typical knee-jerk leftie-liberals in the guardian. Its getting to the point where the more traditionally right wing papers are actually the showcase for the intelligent liberals and the guardian for the journalists that make you think "I can't believe they're paid for this"

Vernon
July 9th, 2008
7:07 PM
I thought the use of the word 'unmanly' made the piece myself. The whole article was building up to it. Noone would object to 'feminine', so it's sheer nonsense to carp at an adjective that suggests there are positive masculine virtues and in certain individuals a lack thereof. I might go so far as to suggest that those who object to the term are most likely themselves exceedingly unmanly.

Robert Williams
July 9th, 2008
4:07 PM
I liked this Telegraph comment about Snow's outburst over Harry.. "I hope Mr. Snow will be equally incandescent with the Editors of his own programme if the detailed activities, timetables and specific whereabouts of Channel Four Journalists reporting in Zimbabwe or in the Sudan are intentionally concealed from the public. Then again, surely he will be sufficiently principled to broadcast this information without waiting for approval from his superiors. The possibilities for the murder or long-term imprisonment of his work colleagues surely are hugely outweighed by his personal sense of morality and application to journalistic truth? Come on John Snow, next time one of your office buddies is on an exposee of the Burmese Junta, make sure you tell us precisely where they are in country, and broadcast clear and recent images of such journalists and mobile crew. Your personal crusade of pompous self-importance demands no less." Posted by Douglas Carter on March 1, 2008 1:18 AM

Richard
July 8th, 2008
4:07 PM
There is a reason that I left (reading) the Guardian and that was not because of people like Nick. Rather it was because of the complacent, post-modern, valueless people (such as Madeline of Our Sorrows and George Moonbat) who argued that rescuing people from tyranny was evil. Nick's book "What's Left?" was wonderful and a real shock to read and discover the moral depravity of the modern left.

Anonymous
July 7th, 2008
12:07 AM
Again Nick Cohen shows why he is our top journalist. His recent absence from The Observer is disconcerting. I only hope he is writing a new book.

Daggo
July 6th, 2008
10:07 PM
Snow's bias is never more clear when you contrast the way Ch4 reports Gitmo prisoner cases in contrast with allegations against troops in Iraq. The Gitmo guys claims are always accepted at face value, no matter how ludicrous. In contrast American and British accounts of engagements are disregarded in favour of lurid and unverified claims of "atrocities",

Anonymous
July 4th, 2008
12:07 PM
such a load of hot air. The whole article boils down to Snow unhapiness with not being able to report the harry/afghanistan. Supposedly this is like reporting "troop movements in wartime" or the "secret location" of maxine carr,neither of course are honest comparisons as it was snows wish to report that he was serving in afghanistan rather than give the taliban gps co-ordinates.poor

Fred
June 30th, 2008
8:06 PM
Good piece, though I agree that the use of the adjective 'unmanly' was puzzling, and not really appropriate.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.