Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I explained what it would get them. If you were someone that didn't want 'damaging theories' discussed in the press, give the press a silly, innocuous story to become preoccupied with.

You are supremely naive if you don't think P.R. companies do this sort of thing imo.  What do you think Clarence does all day?  Are there any McCann related stories in the last few years that don't have the 'friend of the family' source?
  What a coincidence that the McCann's 'friends' keep flapping away to the press and they are not bothered about it, it's not as if they're litigious are they?

According to you the only reason “damaging theories” are being discussed in the press is because the McCanns using CM are feeding them these stories.  So I’m sorry, your theory makes little sense, as if the McCanns weren’t behind these stories then according to you presumably there would be no stories at all!

BTW, are you under the impression that Clarence Mitchel spends all day, every day beavering away in his office on behalf of the McCanns, planting fake stories for them?

[G-Unit]

How do Kate and Gerry KNOW that their daughter was abducted and simply didn’t get up and wander off to her fate?   Why do they determine the line of investigation?

They have put a tremendous effort into convincing the world that their theory is fact. On a certain level they've succeeded.

[Gertrude]

According to you the only reason “damaging theories” are being discussed in the press is because the McCanns using CM are feeding them these stories.  So I’m sorry, your theory makes little sense, as if the McCanns weren’t behind these stories then according to you presumably there would be no stories at all!

 I didn't say the damaging stories were fed by Clarence, that wouldn't make sense would it?

In the first few years there were quite a few damaging stories not fed by Mitchell and they tailed off quite sharply due to litigation and a climate of fear. In the last few years as I said, there does seem to be a tentative re-emergence of some stories that involve criminality of the parents. These are the ones that p.r. would want to distract from.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I didn't say the damaging stories were fed by Clarence, that wouldn't make sense would it?

In the first few years there were quite a few damaging stories not fed by Mitchell and they tailed off quite sharply due to litigation and a climate of fear. In the last few years as I said, there does seem to be a tentative re-emergence of some stories that involve criminality of the parents. These are the ones that p.r. would want to distract from.

Really?  When?  Please cite them.

[Gertrude]

Really?  When?  Please cite them.

You want me to list all damaging ( to the parents)  stories over a number of years? sorry I don't think that's reasonable?

 Perhaps a quote from Clarence Mitchell ( friend of the McCanns) saying negative stories were planted would suffice?

He had to return to his government role, and others handled the McCanns’ PR. But even then, he says, the family still called him for advice in his own time. ‘We had bec­ome friends,’ he says. ‘But I couldn’t help them beyond the odd phone call, bec­ause officially the Government couldn’t be seen to be involved.’ In September, he quit his government role in order to work for the family, at a time when much of the media seemed to be turning against the McCanns.

Mitchell is clear about the reasons for this change of feeling: ‘I have to be careful what I say, but somebody who has good connections with the police decided early on, it appears, that they were somehow involved, and decided to plant stories.’

The Portuguese press ran these stories – ‘they have a very lurid end to the tabloid market, just as we do,’ he says Mitchell is obviously angry with the press, many of whom he believes were simply ‘recycling rubbish’: ‘As a former journalist myself, some of the behaviour of the British press has been shameful.’

Mitchell played a great part in quashing the most negative of these stories...

https://www.prweek.com/article/769746/profile-clarence-mitchell-spokesman-mccann-family

An interesting read actually.   "In his current role, of course, Mitchell is far from neutral – indeed, he is vehemently convinced of the McCanns’ innocence, a fact that has not been lost on the press covering the story. One national newspaper journalist describes Mitchell’s work with the McCanns as a ‘crusade to right what he perceives as a real injustice’.'

As a P.R. representative he can't be neutral. The whole point of P.R. is to present your client in a favourable light.
  Apparently around 1 in 5 media stories ( or more) are P.R. generated according to some studies.

I have no doubt Clarence is feeding most of the McCann stories to the press, most certainly the ones with a 'friend' as source. Who else could it be logically when it's Clarences job and 'crusade' ?

[Vertigo Swirl]

You want me to list all damaging ( to the parents)  stories over a number of years? sorry I don't think that's reasonable?

 Perhaps a quote from Clarence Mitchell ( friend of the McCanns) saying negative stories were planted would suffice?

https://www.prweek.com/article/769746/profile-clarence-mitchell-spokesman-mccann-family

An interesting read actually.   "In his current role, of course, Mitchell is far from neutral – indeed, he is vehemently convinced of the McCanns’ innocence, a fact that has not been lost on the press covering the story. One national newspaper journalist describes Mitchell’s work with the McCanns as a ‘crusade to right what he perceives as a real injustice’.'

As a P.R. representative he can't be neutral. The whole point of P.R. is to present your client in a favourable light.
  Apparently around 1 in 5 media stories ( or more) are P.R. generated according to some studies.

I have no doubt Clarence is feeding most of the McCann stories to the press, most certainly the ones with a 'friend' as source. Who else could it be logically when it's Clarences job and 'crusade' ?

No, not over a number of years, just the very recent ones that you believe this latest Sun story was designed to deflect from. 

[faithlilly]

You know Clarence Mitchell works for them do you not? He is somewhat of an expert.

P.R. companies try and control narratives, they do plant stories in the media and many of them have been caught lying and getting involved in all kinds of nasty political intrigue.

I was watching a programme last night about an ex Eastenders actress who’s husband had physically abused and killed their daughter with her knowledge.

 As a young baby the child had been given into the care of her grandparents but after a concentrated PR campaign coordinated by Max Clifford, Lord Justice Hogg ( the judge who had such sympathy for the McCanns ) gave custody back to the child’s parents, claiming that the child’s father was the victim of a concentrated campaign to malign him.

He killed his daughter within weeks.

The power of PR.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You want me to list all damaging ( to the parents)  stories over a number of years? sorry I don't think that's reasonable?

 Perhaps a quote from Clarence Mitchell ( friend of the McCanns) saying negative stories were planted would suffice?

https://www.prweek.com/article/769746/profile-clarence-mitchell-spokesman-mccann-family

An interesting read actually.   "In his current role, of course, Mitchell is far from neutral – indeed, he is vehemently convinced of the McCanns’ innocence, a fact that has not been lost on the press covering the story. One national newspaper journalist describes Mitchell’s work with the McCanns as a ‘crusade to right what he perceives as a real injustice’.'

As a P.R. representative he can't be neutral. The whole point of P.R. is to present your client in a favourable light.
  Apparently around 1 in 5 media stories ( or more) are P.R. generated according to some studies.

I have no doubt Clarence is feeding most of the McCann stories to the press, most certainly the ones with a 'friend' as source. Who else could it be logically when it's Clarences job and 'crusade' ?

Interesting article - from 2007. Have you anything a bit more up to date about Clarence’s emploment by the McCanns?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I was watching a programme last night about an ex Eastenders actress who’s husband had physically abused and killed their daughter with her knowledge.

 As a young baby the child had been given into the care of her grandparents but after a concentrated PR campaign coordinated by Max Clifford, Lord Justice Hogg ( the judge who had such sympathy for the McCanns ) gave custody back to the child’s parents, claiming that the child’s father was the victim of a concentrated campaign to malign him.

He killed his daughter within weeks.

The power of PR.

Do you agree with Gertrude that these latest articles in thr Sun are part of an orchestrated campaign by Team McCann to deflect from recent news stories painting the McCanns in a criminal light?

[Gertrude]

No, not over a number of years, just the very recent ones that you believe this latest Sun story was designed to deflect from.

I said "In the last few years as I said, there does seem to be a tentative re-emergence of some stories that involve criminality of the parents. These are the ones that p.r. would want to distract from.""

A re-emergence of stories, they are the same negative stories as were discussed in the beginning and we all know what they are, Dogs, accidents, etc. So I don't see why I need to cite ALL that negative press.

[Gertrude]

Interesting article - from 2007. Have you anything a bit more up to date about Clarence’s emploment by the McCanns?

Why? P.R. spokesmen are not neutral. It is their job to paint clients in a favourable light.

You asked for a cite re. negative stories in the press and I gave you one straight from the mouth friend and P.R. spokesman of the McCanns. I think he should qualify as someone who knows whether the stories were negative.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I said "In the last few years as I said, there does seem to be a tentative re-emergence of some stories that involve criminality of the parents. These are the ones that p.r. would want to distract from.""

A re-emergence of stories, they are the same negative stories as were discussed in the beginning and we all know what they are, Dogs, accidents, etc. So I don't see why I need to cite ALL that negative press.

You claim this latest article was to detract from negative news stories that involve criminality of the parents.  If there have been none of those recently, then why the need to “plant” this story now?  To distract from what?  A news story a couple of years ago?

[Gertrude]

I was watching a programme last night about an ex Eastenders actress who’s husband had physically abused and killed their daughter with her knowledge.

 As a young baby the child had been given into the care of her grandparents but after a concentrated PR campaign coordinated by Max Clifford, Lord Justice Hogg ( the judge who had such sympathy for the McCanns ) gave custody back to the child’s parents, claiming that the child’s father was the victim of a concentrated campaign to malign him.

He killed his daughter within weeks.

The power of PR.

Yes, horrible shocking case. I remember the parents going on breakfast TV to appear 'normal', I didn't know they'd employed Clifford. He was quite open about lying on behalf of his clients and planting stories.

[Gertrude]

You claim this latest article was to detract from negative news stories that involve criminality of the parents.  If there have been none of those recently, then why the need to “plant” this story now?  To distract from what?  A news story a couple of years ago?

There is such a thing in P.R.  as pre-empting or controlling bad news. Get control of the story early on (For instance Police visiting McCanns) or spam the news with fairly innocuous stories that you know are rubbish and don't paint your client in a terrible light before something worse comes out.
 
It's a constant business of holding back unfavourable news not just one story.

[faithlilly]

There is such a thing in P.R.  as pre-empting or controlling bad news. Get control of the story early on (For instance Police visiting McCanns) or spam the news with fairly innocuous stories that you know are rubbish and don't paint your client in a terrible light before something worse comes out.
 
It's a constant business of holding back unfavourable news not just one story.

Or if unable to hold back unfavourable news malign the messenger.