Introduction and Links to other pages .Complaint 2 - Politicisation of Dr Who The use of Dr Who as a political vehicle concerned me greatly. Writers should write for the creation, not themselves. Here is my initial complaint to the Information unit: 1 June 2005 I would like to register a complaint about content in the new series of Dr Who ... To my disappointment ... the programme has been used for expressing political viewpoints. Examples "He's gay and she's and alien" This was a comment by the Doctor on reading a magazine. The basis for this complaint is lack of relevance to Dr Who. It is the writer talking, not the character. Religion Early on in this episode, a spaceship commentator says, "…the on-board use of weapons, teleporters and religion is forbidden" (or something similar). I took this as a gibe against religion. Again, it is the writer speaking, not the character. WMD/MWD & 45 minutes/45 seconds There were numerous political points in the second of these two episodes. I am interested in politics, but not when watching Dr Who. I am not interested in the political views or concerns of the people making the programme. Here is the Information Unit's reply, dated 28 July 2005: A more substantive complaint was submitted to the ECU on 18 October 2005: 18 October 2005 Dear Sirs ... Before explaining the complaint, I would like to address a comment made by Mr Briggs of the Information Unit. Mr Briggs described Dr Who as a success with viewers, the implication being that this cuts the ground from underneath my complaint, or renders it irrelevant. I regard such a view as a 'red herring' because I am not, of course, making a complaint about Dr Who itself but about certain lines that I regarded as inappropriate or offensive. The analogy that I would draw is that of litter in a park. A park may be beautiful, but litter is not. It is not a defence of litter to say, "The park is beautiful, thousands of people enjoy it". I also enjoyed much of the series of Dr Who, but my enjoyment was significantly marred by certain aspects. The complaints that I make relate to the "litter", not Dr Who. Political Content The series contained a large number of political references. My original complaint referred to three examples, including the existence or otherwise of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the claim that such missiles could be launched in 45 minutes. Mr Briggs responded that no political party or MP was identified. That is so, but that does not change the fact that the writer was referring to the government's claim of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The writer inverted the words "weapons of mass destruction" to "massive weapons of destruction" and referred to a launch of missiles in "45 seconds". It is perfectly evident what the writer was doing; it was not necessary to say "Iraq" to make the point clear. The other two references in my original complaint were a one-word quip regarding religion in "The End of the World", when a spaceship commentator says, "…the on-board use of weapons, teleporters and religion is forbidden" (or something similar), and the remark by the Doctor on reading a magazine, "He's gay and she's an alien". My complaint was that in both instances it was again the writer speaking, not the characters. Although BBC Information says there was nothing wrong with the lines, I think there is something very wrong when writers start writing for themselves rather than the characters. Members of the Dr Who production team said in television interviews and in the Radio Times prior to the show's airing that the programme would engage in political commentary. As the series progressed, other examples included off-the-cuff references to "immigration", the "welfare state", and so on. In the Long Game, a character is described as "This person has not quite made their mind up, but thinks they're bisexual!" (I write from memory). The remark had no purpose other than the writer wanting to refer to bisexuals. The political emphasis was explained by the writer-producer to an enquirer (I highlight remarks of relevance): Question from enquirer, April 2005 I have to query one of your lines of dialogue in Aliens of London. Rose to the Doctor: "You're so gay." I realise you're hardly going to use the series as a soapbox to preach, but when you have the chance to show a positive example to the millions of youngsters watching, is such a line really a good idea? Does it not, in fact, reinforce a dreadful attitude (that 'gay' is acceptable as an insult) which is echoed by children in schools every day? How would you have felt? Answer from Writer-Producer Russell T Davies It was a complicated moment which required a great deal of thought … there's a vital political issue burning away here, and you do nothing about those issues if you ignore them. I've put it right at the heart of BBC1 primetime. Put it this way: let's imagine a viewer who has, roughly, yours and my sensibilities. Let's call him A. Now, before that comment, there were millions of kids using the word 'gay' as an insult, and what was A doing about it? Probably nothing. Yes, there are activists out there, but most people don't, so A was left passive. Nothing changes. On the other hand, Rose says 'You're so gay', A objects, and - here's the crux - A DOES SOMETHING. He gets up off his seat. He tells his nearest and dearest that he objects. He might even go so far as to contact the author, to complain. Fantastic. Good television isn't television which makes you smile all the time and agree. If it makes you stand up and object - especially where you weren't expecting it - then that's a brilliant and powerful thing. That's why it's important that the word comes from Rose; lovely, kind Rose (who's exactly the right age to be using that word in that context). If a villain had said it, then he's a villain, and therefore an idiot, so there's no problem. When the good guys say it, as they do, then that causes a problem. And that problem is good. It's agitation. And it works. If one parent - watching a family show - objected about the usage of 'gay' in front of his or her kids; if one teacher thought that was wrong, that this pernicious insult has invaded even Doctor Who; if one man has gone to the effort of contacting a writer in order to tackle a vital subject, and will then take that debate into other areas of his life, then that is absolutely excellent. If Rose had said nothing, less would happen. You can't always make your point in life by saying the right thing and being nice (not in my opinion anyway, and unfortunately, I'm the writer!). You have to provoke. And there's a long game at work here. Let's imagine, say, viewer B, who is an idiot. And B chuckles along in Beavis-and-Butthead style at Rose's comment, agreeing; he thinks, I like this show, I hate the gays, Doctor Who is good. Fine. So he keeps watching. And in a few weeks time, the Doctor gets a strapping, heroic male companion... who is clearly and resolutely bisexual. Viewer B's head implodes. My work is done. My reasons for objecting are as follows: » Like many viewers, I work for a living. I do not take advantage of the time or facilities provided by my employer to pursue my own political concerns. That is an activity that I undertake on my own time. Similarly, I expect the same from people employed elsewhere, including the BBC. Refraining from allowing personal interests to intrude in one's professional capacity is doubly important at the BBC, because of the power of television to influence. » In paying a TV licence, I am entitled to a number of services, including entertainment. Entertainment is a diversion to the stress that I and other viewers undergo during our working week; as such, no viewer should have to apologise for wishing to be entertained; it is a product that we have paid for and to which we are entitled. Consequently, it is an abuse when people who are employed to provide entertainment take it upon themselves to preach, manipulate or otherwise "agitate" viewers out of their period of relaxation to think about "issues". » The issues raised in Dr Who reflect only the concerns and prejudices of the writers. The writers did not, for instance, throw in a reference to "single currency". They did not make an implied criticism of a "ban on hunting". They used the show only for what they themselves considered important. » I am not saying that issues raised by Dr Who writers are not important. In my view, religion, immigration, Iraq, the welfare state and homophobia are all important. But it is neither respectful nor competent for a writer to toss in a word and to think he has "dealt with an issue". The welfare state, for instance, is a complex matter; although intended to deliver care equitably and efficiently, the welfare state practices both discrimination and mal-administration. I did not see either of these referred to by the writer. » But whether or not I agree with the issued raised by Dr Who writers is not the point of my objection. It is their use of the Dr Who programme for self-expression that is unacceptable. If members of the Dr Who office wish to engage in political commentary, then programmes exist for this purpose (e.g. Panorama, That Was the Week That Was). Alternatively, they can promote their political interests in their own time. To use Dr Who as a vehicle for drawing attention to political concerns is a misuse of the programme. If I may refer again to the analogy of the park made in my introduction, a person who feels strongly about an issue may - in their own mind - feel perfectly justified to drop leaflets around the park with political information or messages. However, such leaflets are common litter, no different from sweet wrappers and crisp packets. It does not matter how laudable the messages are; the leaflets are litter by virtue of the way they are deposited. Normally, the job of a park attendant is to prevent litter. In the case of Dr Who, the park attendants are the chief litter louts. The ECU's response was dated 10 November 2005: This complaint was appealed to the Board of Governors on 18 May 2005. Click to go to Complaint 3.