Morning:
8°c
Palin show censured over inaccurate facts of war in former Yugoslavia
Updated 10:44am on 5 Aug 2008
War and peace: A viewer complained that Michael Palin's New Europe was a political commentary rather than a travel programme
A Michael Palin documentary on Eastern Europe has been censured by the BBC's governing body.
The BBC Trust said the former Monty Python star had been inaccurate and had oversimplified a complex subject.
In the first part of Michael Palin's New Europe, the presenter explored Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia and Albania after the wars in former Yugoslavia.
Palin, 65, a veteran of popular BBC travel documentaries such as Around The World In 80 Days, caused controversy after stating that 'there was no reason for the destruction' of the Mostar Bridge'.
A viewer complained about the statement and the trust said there had indeed been a reason for the bridge's destruction, to isolate the Muslim community in West Mostar.
The viewer also complained that Palin implied that the Serbs were no more to blame than other groups for the conflict, saying it was equivalent to suggesting that the Nazis and the Jews were equally responsible for the Second World War.
The trust said the programme, broadcast last September, 'could have done more to have highlighted Serbia's role in the conflict' and 'could lead some viewers to believe that responsibility for the 1990s Balkan War was shared amongst all sides'.
It said: 'The phrasing over-simplified what was in fact a very complex and controversial subject. The comment needed balance and context.
'The comment on the destruction of the Mostar Bridge, in which it was stated that 'there was no reason for the destruction' was inaccurate,' it said.
Michael Palin sitting on railings in Gdansk, Poland. Palin riled viewers in his documentary over comments regarding the destruction of the Mostar Bridge
Palin's other comments included: 'When Bosnia-Herzegovina rose from the ruins of Yugoslavia, the various ethnic groups that made up the country, Bosnian Serbs, Bosnians, Muslims, Bosnian Croats suddenly felt vulnerable and began to fight to safeguard their territory.'
The committee concluded: 'The programme was a travel programme... however, the programme makers had decided to deal with one of the most bitterly controversial events in the recent history of Europe - the break-up of Yugoslavia.
'The choice of the title War And Peace underlined the fact that the programme-makers wanted to report and comment on the recent history as well as the present situation.
'Given that ambition and the highly contentious nature of the debate about the wars in former Yugoslavia, the programme-makers should have taken greater care to ensure accuracy and impartiality.'
A BBC spokesman said: 'We note the Trust's findings.'
Reader views (4)
1). There was no civil war in former Yugoslavia because the date of breakup and succession was the 8th of October 1991 (as stated by the Badinter Arbitration Committee). The fighting started after that (apart from a few minor skirmishes before that), so we already have separate states fighting at that time: there cannot be a civil war between countries, but rather only within a single one.
2). In regard to 1)., it is easy to see that, when we have countries that are sovereign under international law (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina) and military forces from another sovereign country (Serbia) engaged in those other countries, we can actually point the "blame stick" at Serbia with great accuracy. To put it simply, once there is a single Croat soldier in Serbia, the Croats can accept blame. There were thousands of Serbian soldiers in Croatia, thus...
3). In regard to 2), that is not to say that we cannot all accept blame for war crimes we have respectively committed. We all can and must prosecute everyone who committed war-crimes, regardless of their allegiance. We all must, as well, express grief for all the casualties of this war, simply because, as human beings, the deserve no less.
4). The Mostar bridge was sadly destroyed by Croat forces, and indeed, the tactical value, though present, was minuscule, as opposed to it's historical value and beauty. For that I am ashamed.
- Sandro, Sisak, Croatia, 06/08/2008 10:41
Report abuse
So, truth is not politically correct?
Mr Palin was just telling the truth.
- Stole, Serbia, 06/08/2008 08:00
Report abuse
This censorship + the reasoning behind it is outrageous!
Comparing Serbs (who fought Nazis in the WWII) with Nazis is just plain ignorance: it was a civil war, therefore Mr Palin's comment is very accurate. Pity it doesn't comply with the official version of Bad Guys (Serbs) vs Good Guys (Bosnian Muslims, etc.) that the media still wants to prolong, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
Great kudos to Mr Palin for his courage, and great shame for BBC's censors.
- Dejan Ognjanovic, serbia, 05/08/2008 11:03
Report abuse
'Could there be some truth in his comments about all sides being responsible, mmm' I think 'so' and many do not like to hear it. Think about it!
- Milan, adeliade australia, 05/08/2008 07:12
Report abuse
