BBC Accused - ' Frankie's Story'

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by BlackBuckOne, Nov 23, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Did anyone see this last night ?

    I'm not surprised Colonel Tim Collins blew his stack about it a few weeks ago.

    I thought I'd watch the drama myself first and make my own mind up, but Col. Collins was exactly right, what a complete load of contrived bollocks it was from start to finish.

    The performances of the actors was fine, it was just the script and story line which was a complete and utter mess with totally unbelievable things going on from start to finish.

    So-called 'beasting' - yet we never saw an officer in the whole programme or anyone above the rank of Sergeant. We are also led to believe that nobody else would have got involved and a suicide of a soldier in Afghanistan was successfully covered up by these people.

    Come on.............please.

    But that's not all, there's plenty more bullshit to be had in the twists and turns as the drama unfolds.

    The BBC has a great deal to answer for by screening utter trash like this, and I don't give a toss if it was from one of our nation's leading writers, it was a disgrace to portray life in the forces, especially in Afghanistan, like this.

    Jimmy McGovern should hang his head in shame for writing such utter crap.

    Black Buck One - Out
  2. The Beeb has form when it comes to making pisspoor programmes about the military. Remember Russel Sharp's breathtakingly bad 'undercover' report about bullying at Catterick?
  3. I've said it before and I'll say it again - the BBC is NO friend to the armed forces.
  4. B - british, B -bored, C - communists.
    They have an agenda and won't let the truth stand in the way of a sensationalist effort for entertainment purposes.
  5. For those who remember Undercover Soldier, where a useless novice reporter revealed a lot of hopeless anecdotal, third hand drivel about 'allegations of bullying', I cut and paste the following from

    I would love to know what happened to the five instructors he made allegations about?

    QUOTE: It’s a story that has seen a hive of online activity: the BBC puts a new reporter in the army for six months (he’s never worked in the media before); puts out a documentary, based on mainly anecdotal evidence; the army suspends five people (not clear how many were a result, if any, of the investigation); the mainstream media reports on the whole thing (Telegraph report linked here, as an example).

    A Facebook group has been created criticising the reporter for the programme – suggesting he should be tried for treason – which at the time of writing has 1,460 members.

    Yet nowhere on the BBC website is there anywhere to post a comment. Although BBC news stories don’t always allow comments, this could have been ideal discussion material for a blog. But because there wasn’t any we’ve seen a flurry of activity on our own site, from users who probably wouldn’t normally use a journalism news site. Likewise, Digital Spy had a fair number of comments. The other place with high level of comment is an unofficial Army forum, Arrse (British Army Rumour Service).

    People reacted to the question I asked on Friday ‘why the low ratings?’ with a range of suggestions.

    Most, if not all, the commenters disagree that the footage was ‘shocking’ or ‘remarkable’. I agree with those that think the documentary had flaws in its method and reportage, but stand by my original comments. Whether it needed this type of ‘undercover documentary’ to give exposure to racism and bullying in the army (anecdotal evidence, or otherwise) is another matter (that was the discussion I was expecting to be provoked).

    Bizarrely, if you currently search for ‘Russell Sharp’ on Google you’ll come to our own website, rather than the BBC’s. While we welcome the additional comment and discussion on our own site, would this not have been better placed on

    I emailed the BBC Press Office a number of questions about their online management. Initially I was told that there had been an opportunity for feedback in the phone-in on Radio 5 Live, immediately after transmission. I know, I tried to listen. Russell Sharp was supposed to be on it, but was replaced at the last minute – the explanation on air was that he was (or had been?) ‘holed up’ in an edit suite.

    I’m posting here the full response from a spokesperson at the BBC in regards to the response to the programme.

    I asked why the BBC decided not to open up comments to the public:
    They said: “It’s good to see our journalism promoting debate and discussion. We don’t always provide an opportunity for people to comment on every story posted on the news website – decisions are taken on a case by case basis. In this case there was also a phone in discussion on 5Live which examined the issues raised and heard from people with an interest in the story.”

    I asked if they were disappointed in the low ratings. They said: “The broadcast of Undercover Soldier last week is absolutely in keeping with BBC One’s commitment to placing agenda setting investigative journalism at the heart of the peak time schedule. We are proud to have ensured the maximum number of viewers had the opportunity to see it. An audience of 2.3 million viewers alongside the media exposure it brought to the issue of bullying in the army is an illustration of public service broadcasting at its best.”

    I asked them what they thought about this story that appeared in the Sun, which suggested Sharp could be called back into the army.
    They said: “The Sun approached us for a response to their story on Friday but sadly didn’t see fit to include it in their piece. It was as follows…..
    ‘We would never comment on a hypothetical situation but the MoD will no doubt want to focus on the issues raised by the programme rather than the individual who helped raise them. We are cooperating with the Army in their investigations’.”

    The discussion continues, as does our blog traffic. When I posted on Thursday I expected a few reactions from journalists criticising the reportage of the documentary, to explain its low ratings, or a comment on the interests of the viewing public.

    Instead, it became apparent that there has been very little outlet for the viewers of the programme to voice their concerns with the BBC’s methodology and subsequent reporting.
  6. I agree. Frankie's Story was an absoulte joke. And I find it shocking to have something so, completely innacurate shown on television when family's of troops working over there can watch this. Everyone serving knows just how rediculous this story is, but anyone with no connections to the forces can be given the totally wrong impression of british forces serving in afghanistan or any war zone for that matter
  7. I have been howled down a number of times (including on this site) for pointing out that for many years - certainly since the late 1960's -certain parts of the BBC have had an agenda of deliberately denigrating the efforts of the ordinary people of this country in favour of those who would destroy it. This is described as being "edgy". However it has little to do with honesty, integrity, or respect for others.

    This is excused as being essential to maintain viewer numbers. The BBC produces many excellent documentaries. Does it not occur to anyone there that while they are selling such programmes around the world they are perceived as the producer of rubbish like this at home. They do not need to go "down market", Lord Reith would not have allowed it: let the commercial channels produce the trash.

    The contempt for their captive revenue source (the "soft" targets in the UK) is evident.

    By the way is anyone on here old enough to remember "That was the Week that Was", with David Frost in a key role?
  8. Could'nt agree more BB1 & more debates here
  9. I have been told by a very good source that the Mil Advisor was Adnan Sarwar. Funnily enough when I looked him up on Google his website was down and this is what I found of him. Next to his profile is a link to a story. Shocking!!!

    Adnan Sarwar |
  10. Gremlin

    Gremlin LE Good Egg (charities)

    Got an agenda then have we?
  11. We heard you the first time on the other thread. Fell out with your boyfriend and want the nasty soldiers to shout at him?
  12. Totally irresponsible broadcasting!

    Not the sort of thing that the parents of little 18 year old Jimmy of the 1st Battalion XYZ currently serving in Afghan want to see or hear about from their friends!

    And I am sure as with all our recent conflicts there are a fair few little Jimmys out there.
  13. I think the words you are all looking for are:

    FICTION and DRAMA ^_~
  14. Before you know it McGovern will be penning another load of fantasy about how Saint Rafa saved you lot and then went and ruined Inter!!
  15. I have been told by a very good source that VMazing's agenda is to post shite on the internet.

    Actually, I recon it's Jimmy McGovern trying to ridicule Adnan and use him as a scapegoat for the inaccuracies in his dogmadrama.