Wendy Murphy on FOX

[Luz]

I would  say that a normal human being with 2 neurons and a natural curiosity to learn about this case, by reading available information, like for instance the one organized in the mccanfiles site, would reach the same conclusion as Wendy Murphy, but few would have the courage and intelligence to state it so succinctly and accurately as she did.

Fortunately there are still some people left that are not afraid to state their mind, against the installed mind controlled current.

[Benice]

I would  say that a normal human being with 2 neurons and a natural curiosity to learn about this case, by reading available information, like for instance the one organized in the mccanfiles site, would reach the same conclusion as Wendy Murphy, but few would have the courage and intelligence to state it so succinctly and accurately as she did.

Fortunately there are still some people left that are not afraid to state their mind, against the installed mind controlled current.

It takes more than reading a few lurid headlines to research a case enough to make valid comments on it.  It's plain from her comments that she has no more real understanding of this case than my neighbour's cat.

[Sherlock Holmes]

It could be useful to list them. Could you help ?

Wendy Murphy makes a number of mistakes, and statements that are hard to swallow:

'There is no new suspect, and there will never be a new suspect, until the parents answer questions' - Wendy has the ability to know exactly what information is known to Scotland Yard before it is released; she also has the ability to predict the future.

'The child's mother refused to answer a question about what she saw when she entered the room from which Madeleine went missing' - but Kate McCann writes about the matter extensively in her book, and has also spoken publicly about it. It was for legal reasons that this and other questions were not answered at the time.

'The little girl is dead, I believe' - very few people, perhaps only one person, currently know the answer to that question. And Wendy Murphy is not one of them.

'The Portuguese police did a very good job' -  say what you want about that.

And finally, she speaks throughout the piece of the fact that the McCanns refused to answer questions put to them by the PJ. It is common knowledge that this was for legal reasons.

The newscaster, for her part, attempts to create balance by stating that the PJ did not make inquiries of anyone at the resort - we know that dozens of statements were taken.

The piece as a whole is clearly very badly researched and therefore misleading.

As for Pat Brown, that's another kettle of fish entirely!

[icabodcrane]

Wendy Murphy makes a number of mistakes, and statements that are hard to swallow:



The newscaster, for her part, attempts to create balance 

You watched that news clip and concluded that the Fox anchor-woman presented a  'balanced'  point of view  ? 

...  you really thought that  ? 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You watched that news clip and concluded that the Fox anchor-woman presented a  'balanced'  point of view  ? 

...  you really thought that  ?

Not at all. She tried to, but failed - because she had the wrong information.

[icabodcrane]

Not at all. She tried to, but failed - because she had the wrong information.

Seriously  ? 

...  you watched that news clip and concluded that the Fox anchor was trying to take a  'balanced' view  ?

Do you also believe  Bill  O'Reilly's  spot is  'fair and balanced'   (  as promoted  )  ?   

That anchor-woman came in  'on message'  (  as they invariably do on  Fox )  ...  Wendy responded like a breath of fresh air  ...  honest,  from the shoulder,  no-nonsense,  American freedom of expression  ... even on  FOX !

It was so unexpected  and refreshing

[Sherlock Holmes]

Seriously  ? 

...  you watched that news clip and concluded that the Fox anchor was trying to take a  'balanced' view  ?

Do you also believe  Bill  O'Reilly's  spot is  'fair and balanced'   (  as promoted  )  ?   

That anchor-woman came in  'on message'  (  as they invariably do on  Fox )  ...  Wendy responded like a breath of fresh air  ...  honest,  from the shoulder,  no-nonsense,  American freedom of expression  ... even on  FOX !

It was so unexpected  and refreshing

That's not what I mean, icabod.

The anchor was presenting a completely one-sided account (containing inaccuracies), as was Wendy Murphy.

This is the format on American 'news' programmes.

The guest is often chosen for their contentiousness with regard to a particular topic, not necessarily their expertise. It's a piece of theatre. The studio, represented by the news caster or anchor, takes an oppositional view, again, for the sake of entertainment, not because that standpoint might represent their editorial policy or desire to present an objective or fair picture.

This is what I refer to by the word balance - a dramatic device, rather than an attempt at fairness or seeking truth.

In Europe of course, the model used in this kind of broadcasting is very different. The studio attempts (or at least, claims) to present a fair and neutral view, and invites guests on for the purpose of giving over better-sourced  information and insights. Ranges of opinion are expressed through the use of a variety of guests with opposing views. The news anchor or castor remains the 'neutral' arbiter in the debate.

In America it is very common to see the news caster putting in his or her comments at the end of a segment - something we don't see in Britain, where it would be considered unprofessional.

[Redblossom]

Maybe was a bit of a harsh comment, and I agree, it is her professionalism, or lack of it, that should be under scrutiny. It does sound as if she is parroting Pat Brown, who for all her pronouncements about the need to stick to facts, brought a huge number of false assumptions and personal prejudices in her analysis.

Name me one professional who is perfect...everyone is a talking head.....with their own beliefs and assumptions.....some have meticuoous research others dont.......they all get air time....much ado about nothing.. As for you criticising her for saying she believes the little girl is dead as if she stated it as a fact...no she didnt

[Redblossom]

  Not only that, but she was the CPS lawyer who:

1. Denied the Hillsborough families justice by advising that their petition for a second inquest should be refused - thus delaying justice for the Hillsborough victims for another 20-odd years - leading to currnet calls by the Hillsborough families group for Alison Saunders to deselected as the next DPP (GoogleL Hillsborough Families Alison Saunders)

AND

2. Recommended that the prosecution of 3 men for the murder of Daniel Morgan be abandoned in 2010, despite the SIXTH police review in this case (Daniel had an axe buried in his head back in 1987) having positively identified three men as the likely conspirators or killers, one of them closely linked to Andy Coulson, former NOTW Editor and later David Cameron's Directror of Communications (2009-2011), where he appointed CLARENCE MITCHELL (McCanns' chief PR and reputation manager for the past 6 years) as his Deputy.

Thanksfor that, bloody awful........

[BigFatBlonde]

To me it's not so much about the details of what was said. It is the fact that Fox news allowed this opinion to be aired. They may be a fairly lousy news channel but they have massive influence and they would have known what was going to be said.

N

[AnneGuedes]

Wendy Murphy makes a number of mistakes, and statements that are hard to swallow:

'There is no new suspect, and there will never be a new suspect, until the parents answer questions' - Wendy has the ability to know exactly what information is known to Scotland Yard before it is released; she also has the ability to predict the future.

Which mistakes actually, apart from the assumption that Mrs McCann wants to make a written statement (She might have asked to, nobody knows) ?
The "new suspect" issue is difficult to swallow for those who believe beyond rationality that Madeleine was taken by some kind of weirdo who, thanks to her natural grace, let her develop in a loving environment.
Mrs Murphy is right in saying that a serious and independent investigation should begin with the closest persons being constrained to dissipate  the many discrepancies the AG underlined.

[AnneGuedes]

'The child's mother refused to answer a question about what she saw when she entered the room from which Madeleine went missing' - but Kate McCann writes about the matter extensively in her book, and has also spoken publicly about it. It was for legal reasons that this and other questions were not answered at the time.

She didn't answer according to her lawyer's advice (he did the same with Mr McCann who disobeyed, he wasn't the first on the crime scene and described it by hearsay).
The lawyer was defending a potentially guilty client, he had to be careful and the most secure was not to answer. But, doing so, he (and she) proved that the search for Madeleine was secondary (if not, he at least would have advised his client to answer "no" to the final question).

[Mr Gray]

She didn't answer according to her lawyer's advice (he did the same with Mr McCann who disobeyed, he wasn't the first on the crime scene and described it by hearsay).
The lawyer was defending a potentially guilty client, he had to be careful and the most secure was not to answer. But, doing so, he (and she) proved that the search for Madeleine was secondary (if not, he at least would have advised his client to answer "no" to the final question).

Absolute rubbish...her lawyer advised her to answer no more questions and she took his advice

[Redblossom]

the lawyer also advised gerry mccann not to answer any questions, but he had no qualms in doing so

[Sherlock Holmes]

Name me one professional who is perfect...everyone is a talking head.....with their own beliefs and assumptions.....some have meticuoous research others dont.......they all get air time....much ado about nothing.. As for you criticising her for saying she believes the little girl is dead as if she stated it as a fact...no she didnt

The point is that she was chosen by the TV channel for her telegenic qualities and entertainment value, before her professional abilities. That's the way it works. She may well have a great number of professional accomplishments - her CV is impressive - but that's not why Fox news were interested in her. If you think her professional status is being diminished, that's the work of Fox news, not me!