A Question of Propaganda.

[ferryman]

Or simply doubting the story they have told.

Maligning, denigrating and seeking to alter the truth.

[G-Unit]

Good post G-Unit.

thank you Faithlilly.

[jassi]

Maligning, denigrating and seeking to alter the truth.

I wasn't aware that one could alter the truth.  One can perhaps alter the perception of  truth

[G-Unit]

If you understand real journalism, you will know that it has to be an unbiased presentation of facts. MSM is only allowed to publish information which does not compromise the ongoing investigation in any way. That is not, as you put it, a McCann stranglehold.
On the internet, however, there is a plethora of unregulated propaganda, orchestrated by sceptics, often on an almost daily basis (hence you cannot immediately direct me to any pro-McCann blogs). Most supporters have already educated themselves simply by reading the files and need no prompting to do so. The same cannot be said of those who still believe in syringes & disposed refrigeration products.

Well, if you think journalists write unbiased presentations of facts there's no hope for you I'm afraid. How about all the wild 'arrests imminent' headlines when Redwood was around? Was that compromising or not? I have not been impressed by supporter's familiarity with the files. A quick skim is ne thing, a proper study another. There are those who insist on referring constantly to an 'abduction' and an 'abductor' when there is no evidence that such a person ever existed.

[ferryman]

I wasn't aware that one could alter the truth.  One can perhaps alter the perception of  truth

There is truth.

Perceptions of truth can be accurate or inaccurate: sometimes inaccuracies are because of fallibility (despite honest endeavour to be accurate); sometimes, because of distortion, manipulation and intent to deceive.

[Mr Gray]

Well, if you think journalists write unbiased presentations of facts there's no hope for you I'm afraid. How about all the wild 'arrests imminent' headlines when Redwood was around? Was that compromising or not? I have not been impressed by supporter's familiarity with the files. A quick skim is ne thing, a proper study another. There are those who insist on referring constantly to an 'abduction' and an 'abductor' when there is no evidence that such a person ever existed.

I'm not impressed with your understanding an interpretations of the files......as I have said before ...if the parents are telling the truth then abduction is almost a certainty

[faithlilly]

Maligning, denigrating and seeking to alter the truth.

The files are on the Internet for all to read. Obviously amongst those who have read them, the majority doubt the McCanns version of events. The number of. individuals joining sceptic sites makes this self-evident.

[stephen25000]

I'm not impressed with your understanding an interpretations of the files......as I have said before ...if the parents are telling the truth then abduction is almost a certainty

If, is the operative word.

[jassi]

If, is the operative word.

I wa going to post exactly the same.  None of us know what the truth is - we all choose our own version.

[Mr Gray]

The files are on the Internet for all to read. Obviously amongst those who have read them, the majority doubt the McCanns version of events. The number of. individuals joining sceptic sites makes this self-evident.

I would say that most of those who have read the files have no understanding of assessing evidence..I would also say that the majority of those who have read the files did not start with an open mind

[misty]

Well, if you think journalists write unbiased presentations of facts there's no hope for you I'm afraid. How about all the wild 'arrests imminent' headlines when Redwood was around? Was that compromising or not? I have not been impressed by supporter's familiarity with the files. A quick skim is ne thing, a proper study another. There are those who insist on referring constantly to an 'abduction' and an 'abductor' when there is no evidence that such a person ever existed.

True journalism is exactly what I previously stated.
Were any of the sensationalist headlines attributed to the more respected newspapers in the UK or were they in the ones the sceptics use for much of their anti-McCann propaganda?
You believe the evidence in the files points to parental involvement. I don't - and I have seen a lot in the files which points to stranger means, motive & opportunity. That doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong as the truth has yet to be determined.

[Mr Gray]

I wa going to post exactly the same.  None of us know what the truth is - we all choose our own version.

we all choose our own version based on our interpretation of the evidence..some of us are better at assessing evidence than others........SY have shown they believe the mccanns...that is evidence they are telling the truth

[jassi]

It doesn't mean it is true, though - it is only their belief.

[Mr Gray]

It doesn't mean it is true, though - it is only their belief.

Doesn't mean its true but it is another vote for the mccanns innocence

[Mr Gray]

It doesn't mean it is true, though - it is only their belief.

do you feel you have evidence of the mccanns guilt or is it just a belief