Crufts 2010 Broadcast Coverage Under Scrutiny Over Impartiality Claims
Published on March 11, 2010 by K9 Magazine News Editor · 4 CommentsThe media industry magazine ‘Broadcast’ has today published an article calling in to question the editorial integrity of this years’ Crufts television coverage.
Following the BBC’s decision to remove Crufts from its programming schedule – due to concerns raised about animal welfare, the controversial event was picked up by More4, part of Channel 4′s stable of specialist channels.
Today’s ‘Broadcast’ article reveals concerns about the impartiality of the coverage given the client/supplier relationship of The Kennel Club and Sunset & Vine, the production company responsible for the More 4 broadcast.
The relationship between broadcaster, ‘client’ and production company prompted animal welfare campaigner Philippa Robinson to lodge a complaint with broadcast regulator Ofcom and Channel 4, labelling it “inappropriate”.
The coverage has attracted criticism from Jemima Harrison, the filmmaker behind the explosive canine health documentary, Pedigree Dogs Exposed, who pointed out that the Kennel Club paying Sunset and Vine to produce online coverage of Crufts called in to question the impartiality and editorial integrity of its coverage for More4. She told ‘Broadcast’:
“Let’s face it, it’s hard to bite the hand that feeds you.”
Tinopolis owns both Sunset and Vine and Mentorn Media, the latter has recently been commissioned by Channel 4 to produce a documentary about canine health entitled ‘Good Dog, Bad Dog’, a move some people view as a cynical attempt to be seen to be airing both sides of the animal welfare debate surrounding Crufts.
Philippa Robinson:
“Is Mentorn going to give us a true picture of the Kennel Club when it is a paying client of Sunset + Vine? I’m seriously concerned at the lack of transparency,” she told ‘Broadcast’.
C4 rejected the claims of impartiality being compromised:
“Any suggestion of a conflict of interest that would compromise the editorial independence of Good Dog! Bad Dog! is entirely wrong.”
Tinopolis chairman Ron Jones was more direct in his rejection of the claims, dismissing the concerns as “bollocks”.
He added:
“I don’t have to justify to the world how we operate. This is the most absurd allegation I’ve ever had put to me. They are just whingers and the world is full of them.”
Jemima Harrison added:
“I am not questioning the editorial independence of the Mentorn doc, although given the controversial nature of the subject it would, perhaps, have been more appropriate for More4 to have commissioned the programme from a different.. kennel. But I do think it’s legitimate to question the Sunset + Vine coverage of Crufts given that the company is being paid by the Kennel Club .”
Phillipa Robinson is unconvinced and believes there is a case to answer:
“I sent a polite email to David Stranks, who heads up Sunset +Vine asking him for reassurances regarding the coverage of Crufts. He failed to supply any but said he’d pass on my concerns to both Channel4 and the Kennel Club. He failed to tell me who at Channel 4, again in answer to a polite request. Now a week later I have their response which they failed to send to me directly but preferred to answer my questions through the media. I wonder if this is common practice in
independent television? I have not had any reassurances back from the Kennel Club either.”
Broadcasting industry insiders have suggested to K9 Magazine that the closeness of the relationship between the producer and the Kennel Club is highlighted by virtue of the producer openly admitting to passing on concerns to the Kennel Club, the client.
Independent production for British television would be seriously compromised if controversial subjects are being tackled by production companies who enjoy a client/supplier relationship with the subject of that very controversy.
Could we think for a second how we’d feel if a broadcaster was to air a documentary about whether McDonald’s is to blame for a growing obesity epidemic if we were to then learn that McDonald’s was a ‘client’ of the company producing the documentary?
The BBC opted to send Crufts to the doghouse on the back of substantive concerns about animal welfare issues surrounding Crufts and competitive dog showing / breeding in general. It’s move to Channel 4, via More 4 received the backing of then president of the British Veterinary Association Nicky Paull, but there are those who believe, strongly, that the event is far from being a clean bill of health. It will be interesting to observe how much critical coverage is dedicated to the broadcast given the concerns raised.
Highly Recommended: This could be the most important link you EVER click as far as your dog’s life is concerned – see why….!
Tags: crufts dog show
Thanks for posting this article. Very interesting!
How can Phillipa and Jemima complain about More 4 when the BBC programme was deliberatly produced to give a one sided view (their view)of Crufts and of the Kennel Club. If Jemima had given both sides in the augument fair coverage in her programme then perhaps she would have more of a legitimate complaint instead of whinging.
We haven’t seen ‘good dog, bad gog’ yet…. But the crufts coverage is not a documentary, it is coverage of an event, do we need critical coverage? When a sports channel covers a boxing match, do they talk about the rights and wrongs, or a tv show about fashion, do they start talking about anorexia??
Personally I think that Crufts is more than a beauty pageant. I haven’t the faintest interest in showing but watch (and sometimes visit) to see & learn about agility, flyball, obedience, HTM, stories where dogs turn lives round… Learning about the different breeds, such as from the commentary when dogs are being judged is important as hopefully this will mean that some potential owners realise their life doesn’t suit their favourite breed.
I do wish that people would stop making politics out of what is a celebration of dogs – in a world which seems to be coming increasingly anti-canine. Of course animal welfare is crucial, there are breeds of dogs that I currently would never have because of ‘mistakes’ made from interbreeding but kindly give me the chance to make up my own mind. I don’t need signs pointing to ‘good’ or ‘bad’ to make my own judgement.