"45 minutes of hatred" - Guardian journalist slams Channel 5 cycling documentary

bigbiker101 wrote:

I think we are being a bit over sensitive here, there are a fair few cyclists who really are a "Scourge Of The Streets", I come across them daily, but thankfully this is a small minority of millions of others who are not.

I would also say that this is true with car drivers, I must get passed by thousands of cars everyday and that a vast majority are good drivers with only a few who are also "Scourge Of The Streets”, there have been loads of programmes about bad drivers but nobody complains about those programs because they are showing the truth, unfortunately I am in no doubt that this programme will show a fair amount of bad riding also, it exists and I have no issues with it being shown the way it is.
 

The problem here is the language employed by the producers of the programme and that C5 is happy with this as it acts as click bait for them, ups their viewing figures and pleases their advertisers during the 45minites. Part of me is curious to how many motoring ads will be screened over the duration of the documentary. 

Going by the trailers and by Peter Walkers column it looks like a highly biased and skewed doc towards motorists. Words like scourge, locusts, lawless and scum are all highly negative and I imagine that motorists who watch this will be justified in their attitudes towards vulnerable road users. 

What amazes me is that a cyclist jumps a red light and it warrants much frothing and indignity from motorists yet they don’t express the same indignity when there are reports on the 1 million uninsured vehicles on our roads or the fact that there are close to a million unlicensed vehicles and growing due to the govt removing the need to display a disc.  I don’t even want to contemplate the levels of unlicensed motorists on the roads.  Meanwhile speeding/parking fines are a ‘war on the motorist’ and a ‘revenue generator’ and an infringement on their rights.  This is further demonstrated by Mr Loophole who consistently has high profile motorists escape fines and points.  

Personnaly I’m apprehensive of my commute tomorrow as experience has taught me that everytime a programme or news article that is anti cycling there is inevitably a spike in motorists attitude toward cyclists.  This is also applied to safety campaigns as was my most recent experience when there was a close pass campaign here in Scotland.

giff77 wrote:

Personnaly I’m apprehensive of my commute tomorrow as experience has taught me that everytime a programme or news article that is anti cycling there is inevitably a spike in motorists attitude toward cyclists.  This is also applied to safety campaigns as was my most recent experience when there was a close pass campaign here in Scotland.

 

Exactly and it seeps into officialdom held views on cyclists as well, Suffolks KSIs for cyclists have increased by 150% in just one year, 2 fatalities & 43 serious injuries.whilst only accounting for 1% of miles covered on roads,they account for 20% of all Suffolks recorded KSIs.

But the Suffolk police & crime commissioners view is summarised as 'It was for both cyclists and motorists to be responsible on the roads' '.. as the figures likely include cases of irresponsible cyclists and irresponsible motorists'

Im sure that will make anyone on the Dunwich Dynamo run feel much safer riding through Suffolk this weekend.

Socrates wrote:

ChairRDRF. How could anyone in all honesty complain about a programme that they didn't watch, using the opinion of another person.

We all know what to expect but if you don't watch it then you have no recourse to make a judgement.

just saying.

I know this is skirting close to invoking Godwins Law, but...

If C5 were showing a documentary called "Blacks and Jews: Scourge of the earth?" (remember the question mark, cos that obviously makes it all alright ), perhaps featuring,  say, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's lot giving their oh-so-un biased opinions, are you saying that everyone would just wait until its aired rather than accept the opinions of a well-respected journalist and complain pre-emptively?

Socrates wrote:

ChairRDRF. How could anyone in all honesty complain about a programme that they didn't watch, using the opinion of another person.

We all know what to expect but if you don't watch it then you have no recourse to make a judgement.

just saying.

I understand your line of logic, but to know that a piece is filled with hate speech and is inflamatory to the target audience such that the producers/deliverer could expect to incite violence is enough that it should be shut down. For example, I never experienced the preachings of Abu Hamza, but if someone were to plan a re-delivery of his 'sermons' I would hope the authorities would prevent that from entering the public domain.

I know we are in our own little echo chamber on this forum, but cyclists are increasingly being portrayed as an out-group, as Walker is claiming this show is perpetuating, and such we should be protected from the escalating manufactured "us vs them" war and the inevitable hate speech and discrimination that ensues. The producers of this show are willfully poking at a known sore point to incite some friction and response so people will watch it and validate the paychecks from the advertisers, with no care or thought for the collateral that will follow.

In short, if it gets put into the public domain it's too late to do anything about it, the damage will have already been done

Socrates wrote:

ChairRDRF. How could anyone in all honesty complain about a programme that they didn't watch, using the opinion of another person.

We all know what to expect but if you don't watch it then you have no recourse to make a judgement.

just saying.

I get that point, but really, realistically, it's pretty damn obvious what this program is.  And why the hell should I have to buy a TV and a licence (and I dislike the BBC almost as much as C5) just to be able to object to propaganda that is intended to cause me harm?

Pilot Pete wrote:

I like the angle of complaining to the advertisers. I shall be recording the programme and making a note of every advertiser before, during and immediately after the programme. I suspect hundreds of complaints from cyclists to these organisations would have more effect on Channel 5.

Perhaps I’ll add all the names of those companies on this thread and let’s see if we can use the power of the internet to change opinions.

PP 

Cyclist boycott!

That's an excellent idea - I'd be up for sending some indignant emails.

HoarseMann wrote:

I've been doing this cycling thing all wrong! I didn’t realise I ought to be lawless rampaging scum. Thank you CH5, I will endeavour to conform to your stereotype from now on.

best if you do it in Hull.

ChairRDRF wrote:

I think Burtthebike has highlighted elevant sections of Ofcome code which could be useful.

 

Peter Walker has heroically watched it for us - the rest of us don't have to watch this inflammatory shit.

I already wrote to OFCOM and to CH5 last week stating these sections with a length explanation as to why the programme would breach these regulations. and should not be aired.n I have had no answer by either organisation!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I already wrote to OFCOM and to CH5 last week stating these sections with a length explanation as to why the programme would breach these regulations. and should not be aired.n I have had no answer by either organisation!

Ofcom can't assess complaints about programmes that haven't yet aired, so you may have to submit a fresh complaint now that it's been broadcast. They are also unlikely to respond to you personally, they just record stats on complaints received each week and publish their decisions. 

Re: the idea elsewhere in this thread of contacting those that advertised during the programme, they are highly unlikely to have requested placement during that specific programme. I suspect most will buy ad packages through an agency and have very limited control over the programmes during which their ads are broadcast, and possibly not even over the day or channel on which they feature. It is possible to buy specific primetime slots, but I can't imagine anyone will have specifically asked to be associated with this programme. 

quiff wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I already wrote to OFCOM and to CH5 last week stating these sections with a length explanation as to why the programme would breach these regulations. and should not be aired.n I have had no answer by either organisation!

Ofcom can't assess complaints about programmes that haven't yet aired, so you may have to submit a fresh complaint now that it's been broadcast. They are also unlikely to respond to you personally, they just record stats on complaints received each week and publish their decisions. 

Re: the idea elsewhere in this thread of contacting those that advertised during the programme, they are highly unlikely to have requested placement during that specific programme. I suspect most will buy ad packages through an agency and have very limited control over the programmes during which their ads are broadcast, and possibly not even over the day or channel on which they feature. It is possible to buy specific primetime slots, but I can't imagine anyone will have specifically asked to be associated with this programme. 

No, but the fact they have now been associated with it and a load of complaints landing on their twitter feed/ inbox might nudge them into some sort of complaint to C5 by them, which would hold some sway.

PP

Xena wrote:

Who the f*** watches channel 5.  Don’t watch it . Let it rot and disappear like all the other shit they show . Don’t bite or next week they will do the same thing to taxi drivers ,then bus drivers then etc etc 

just don’t watch it. It’s shit tv  like most tv . Dumbed down for the mindless screen watchers .

well Police Interceptors, which youd assume would appeal to the same genre style of viewership, can pull in 1.25million viewers for them, so I reckon this will easily pull in 1million viewers, which is why they make these things if no-one watched the channel anymore, it wouldnt exist because the advertisers wouldnt pay for their ads anymore, and they arent uniquely funded to just make stuff.

and CH5 have sent out plenty of promo material to everyones favourite collection of newspapers so The Sun have an article already, Im sure the Daily Mail and Express will follow later, just go read the comments under those articles, those are the people who will watch this, agree with the cabbies and those are the people you will be sharing the road with on your bike on Wednesday.

Awavey wrote:

well Police Interceptors, which youd assume would appeal to the same genre style of viewership, can pull in 1.25million viewers for them, so I reckon this will easily pull in 1million viewers, which is why they make these things if no-one watched the channel anymore, it wouldnt exist because the advertisers wouldnt pay for their ads anymore, and they arent uniquely funded to just make stuff.

And that's the rub.  Whoever advertises on this - let them know, loudly, you won't buy their products.  Advertisers don't pay to lose custom.