[Mark Rabinowitz] UK newspaper The Guardian is reporting on its website that a number of publicly funded documentaries are somewhat less objective than some think they ought to be. Ofcom, the UK regulator of matters such as this are planning on investigating claims that one of the docs, "Beat: Life on the Street" about police community support officers, broke sponsorship rules when it aired on UK broadcaster ITV.

The newspaper reports that critics of the film "which was commissioned by the Home Office and received £800,000 in government funding, portrayed the officers as helpful and effective, despite criticism of the scheme [that’s "plan" in UK-ese. -Ed.] from opposition MPs and the police."

Er....say what, now? £800,000? That's about a million six in our increasingly worthless currency. Claims of non-objectivity aside, the government of the UK is paying out $1.6 million for TV docs? Where do I sign up? This reminds me of the old joke about the screenwriter who, after returning home from a meeting finds his street blocked off and crowded with police and emergency service personnel. Approaching a cop, he identifies himself. "What's the problem, officer?" "Mr. Jones," the officer replies, "I am sorry to tell you this, but earlier today your agent came to your house, killed your wife and children, butchered your dog and burned down your house." Stunned, the writer wobbles back against a police car, his hand on his head, his eyes wide. "My agent actually came to my house?"

See what I was going for there? For me the story isn't so much about a government-sponsored film that might not exactly be objective (Duh!) but more that in the UK, someone's willing to pony up that kinda scratch for a documentary.

I'm only sort of kidding about the lack of import of the actual story, though. Of course, any film that's funded in part by any governmental body ought to be gone over with a fine tooth comb and should be clearly labeled as to which state body funded the film, which in this case was the Home Office (roughly the UK equivalent of parts of the Justice Department mixed with a little Homeland Security). One nice thing about the UK is that Ofcom is actually "the independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries."

Sounds nice, hunh? Wouldn't it be great if the FCC or Congress were really independent? Then again, a machine that turns garbage into bacon and chocolate would be nice, too. Nope. Not holding my breath for that one, either.

The story also contains a rare bit of puzzling writing from this otherwise excellent newspaper, to wit:

"Media freedom campaigners and opposition politicians said last night it was inappropriate for the government to fund documentaries which purport to be independent and objective."

Really? Isn't that exactly what we want docs produced by the government to claim and to be? I mean, taking this statement on face value, the alternative would be government-funded docs that purport to be subjective and biased in favor of the government's politics and goals. Surely not a good use of public money and (I hope) not what opposition groups meant.

The article goes on to quote a Tory MP who states:

"I think that it is very dangerous for the government to get involved in funding documentaries that deal with politically controversial topics such as this one on police community support officers," he said.

"It may be that there is sometimes a need for the government to make information films on other less controversial issues but it is crucial that these are clearly labelled as government-backed projects."

I am all for labeling programming that is funded by the government as such but to suggest that maybe they should be restricted to less controversial issues is a slippery slope. I realize that films funded by the Home Office and those funded by the BBC are likely to be different in style or scope but the bottom line is, they're both publicly funded bodies. If you start dictating the content of documentaries that are funded from one public source, what's to stop the same thing from happening with other, more arts-oriented sources? If you start pressing for "information films on other less controversial issues," you'd better settle in for a long stretch of engrossing films about the history of lemonade and "Plaque: The Silent Killer."