Bush assassination film condemned

The announcement yesterday that Channel 4, Britain's third largest terrestrial television station, has made a film which will be based around a dramatisation of President Bush being assassinated has been accompanied by the media hysteria and public condemnation which its publicity-hungry producers were surely hoping to attract. The film, entitled Death of a President, will begin with a portrayal of Bush being killed by Syrian gunman, a scene which has apparently been created by a clever mix of archive footage of the real Bush and computer-generated sequences. The remainder of the film will then concentrate on the investigation into the President's death and, it is claimed, provides a thoughtful debate on the world which America's war on terror has created.

Such a sensitive issue was bound to court controversy and critics of the film, which is yet to be shown, have been coming forward in droves. The TV watchdog MediaWatch rather ridiculously claims that seeing the American President being murdered on television will inspire someone to actually do it in real life, declaring that 'this may well put ideas into people's heads'. Bush has already picked up plenty of enemies though, and it seems unlikely that a film such as this would drive an an opponent to assassination. The London-based group Republicans Abroad cry that 'this is an appalling way to treat the head of state of another country', while one former Presidential aide labels the film 'horrible' and 'irresponsible'. It wasn't long ago that a Danish newspaper published cartoons which offended millions of Muslims but many western commentators claimed that the independent media should not be prevented from exercising its right to free speech. Now, it seems, they are not so happy about media freedom.

Perhaps the most ridiculous condemnation I have read so far comes from Mitchell Reiss, the US special envoy to Northern Ireland. He fumes: 'What on earth is the justification for television like this? Why stop at this? Why not show some of the slaughter in Darfur?' Well, actually, why not show some of the slaughter in Darfur? In this age of cheap and cheerful, meaningless television surely we should be applauding a film which raises debate about the world we live in and the choices our governments have made. While the jury is still out on whether television can encourage violence, it is highly unlikely that a film could inspire someone to kill the President. This film promises to raise important issues which television, obsessed with viewing figures and entertainment, is often reluctant to face, and should be welcomed rather than condemned.