McLibel:  Two Agaist Two

            The fight that David Morris and Helen Steel put up against the McDonald’s corporation would not have been so difficult if they hadn’t also had to fight the media that refused to publicize their story with due attention.  Franny Armstrong’s film McLibel: Two Worlds Collide, in its original 60-minute form, is uncompromising, thorough and minimal, just as Morris and Steel were during their whole court process.  Its clear assertions are not veiled in romanticized protest or obligatory sensationalism.  And yet, media outlets such as the BBC and Channel 4 backed away from its distribution again and again, because of “the question of libel”.  Ironically, investigative journalism in that instance failed in its responsibility to confront the very problem in question – instead, allowing itself to be intimidated by the legal system under which Armstrong, Steel and Morris were not deterred.  It proves valuable to identify what these qualities were, that the film McLibel dared to uphold, and that created problems before which all major television stations in the UK were made powerless.
            Foremost, this straight-forward documentary slowly follows the verdict of the case, which found McDonald’s guilty of three of Morris and Steel’s accusations:  the company paid low wages, was responsible for cruelty to some animals used in its products, and exploited children in its advertising campaigns.  Armstrong skillfully exposes the nature of these offenses by showing images inside the hectic kitchen environment, at the precarious animal farms, and in public parks where Ronald McDonald shows up to donate money and take photos with children.  Even though the film clearly goes through every step of the judge’s decisions (mostly with word-for-word reenactments of the courtroom proceedings), including those decisions that favored the McDonald’s corporation, news stations were hesitant to support the film.  Alan Hayling, a documentary commissioner at Channel 4 said:  “Nothing resembling this program could be broadcast in Britain because it was repeating allegations that had already been found to be defamatory in the High Court.  If we showed it, McDonald’s was highly likely to sue us and win.”  In other words, Armstrong’s documentary was prevented from exposing the allegations which the corporation was guilty of, because it mentioned and suggested crimes which the company was yet to be found guilty of.
            The reason for this press-inhibiting fear was clearly explained by the legal advisor for Armstrong’s production company: “when you’re trying to assess libel risk you have to take into account not only the wording of an item but also if it is about the sort of person or organization likely to sue for libel.”  Here was Fanny Armstrong, trying to garner support for a film that exposed the ridiculous circumstances of two citizens facing libel, and she herself was told it was impossible to do this without worrying about libel.  The potential distributors of her film backed away, claiming to have problems with the form and content of the film:  “ITV said there was ‘not enough action’… the BBC didn’t feel ‘sufficiently enthusiastic’… 60 minutes had to be reduced to 40… Clandestine recording of McDonald’s abortive settlement attempt infringed BBC guidelines… The use of McDonald’s advertisements raised copyright issues.”  (Petley, Julian.  An Unsavory Business)  All of these were concerns that should matter little when compared to the opportunity to expose a story that certainly holds part of the truth, and attempts to investigate the rest.  None of these concerns of the media can disguise the fact that, when it comes down to it, “nobody would insure the program against libel,” no matter how engaging and “full of action” it was.  This is a serious problem.
            By its form, execution, publicity and repercussions in the public arena, McLibel: Two Worlds Collide has exposed undeniable flaws, not only in the way Morris and Steel’s case was handled, but also in the functioning of the free press.  It has demonstrated that the whole media shebang concerns itself, as does the corporation that first intimidates it, with public image, and whether unsupported suggestions as a result of free speech will draw away a percentage of costumers from a multi-billion-dollar business (especially one that supports the media through advertising money).  McDonald’s sued two protesters because it was concerned they would draw their customers away.  It seemed to be of no one’s concern whether or not McDonald’s should be held accountable for the three proven misdemeanors, and investigated for the other allegations of which the company was hardly found completely innocent.  A major boundary that McLibel seems to be confronting, therefore, is the baffling premise that filmmakers, artists and the press should not feel free to report on information or even explore subjects that have not already been fully and undoubtedly substantiated by the legal system.  They should instead, wait for the legal system to make up its mind.  Even when that legal system allows a libel hearing on these matters to go on for 313 days without providing representation for two citizens (human), who have been pitted against the legalities of a non-corporeal entity (corporation).

 

back to writing