Author Topic: Wendy Murphy on FOX  (Read 33595 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Sherlock Holmes

Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
« Reply #135 on: October 12, 2013, 03:42:03 PM »
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

Yip, Fox are interested in their advertising revenue, BFB, end of story.

This is their first McCann story for a while - I don't remember seeing anything of the trial on Fox, so if they did mention it, it was only in passing. For their next main update on the McCann case, they could have reported the case from all sorts of angles. Their decision was to structure their report around someone who pulls Scotland Yard and the BBC to pieces. Just creating drama, nothing more.

Offline BigFatBlonde

Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
« Reply #136 on: October 12, 2013, 03:51:25 PM »
Yip, Fox are interested in their advertising revenue, BFB, end of story.

This is their first McCann story for a while - I don't remember seeing anything of the trial on Fox, so if they did mention it, it was only in passing. For their next main update on the McCann case, they could have reported the case from all sorts of angles. Their decision was to structure their report around someone who pulls Scotland Yard and the BBC to pieces. Just creating drama, nothing more.

Yes, but it is a Murdoch station and, historically, his outlets have always been highly supportive of the couple.

I would guess that for most americans this could be the first time they have really been exposed to the idea that the McCanns are anything other than victims in this affair.

Just an observation - I'm not trying to imply anything just thought it was interesting that it happened on Fox.

N

Offline Sherlock Holmes

Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
« Reply #137 on: October 12, 2013, 04:00:24 PM »
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).

Interesting what you say, Anne, but that's very much a judgement call. Kate would have been very scared at that point - whether she was guilty of anything or not - and being overwhelmed by events and unfamiliar with the Portuguese legal system, her instinct would probably have been to listen to her lawyer. The fact that Gerry did not, is a mark of his more forthright personality.

As for Wendy Murphy, she does state near the start of the interview that Madeleine is dead, 'and doesn't have a voice.' The truth is that we just don't know whether she is dead, and the way of giving her a voice, i.e. seeing that justice is done, involves not making assumptions based on statistics, but keeping an open mind and pursuing the different options accordingly.

It may be hard to believe that there is a new suspect, but Wendy sounds as though she has information on this that the rest of us don't. Again, a misleading account.

Something else to bear in mind here is that although theoretically Fox News is watched worldwide, it is produced and edited primarily for an American audience. Here in America, people have heard the name Madeleine McCann, but I don't think you will find many people who are aware of the case in any kind of detail. An American audience, listening to Wendy Murphy, is going to have little ability to discern fact from opinion, something the programme-makers will well know. Whatever our personal viewpoints on the case as slightly more well informed critics, this has to be bourn in mind when assessing the credibility of the piece.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2013, 04:13:41 PM by Sherlock Holmes »

Offline Sherlock Holmes

Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
« Reply #138 on: October 12, 2013, 04:12:31 PM »
Yes, but it is a Murdoch station and, historically, his outlets have always been highly supportive of the couple.

I would guess that for most americans this could be the first time they have really been exposed to the idea that the McCanns are anything other than victims in this affair.

Just an observation - I'm not trying to imply anything just thought it was interesting that it happened on Fox.

N

It's an interesting point. I am going to look at some other outlets over here and see if the story has ever been presented in the way that Fox is now doing.

The bottom line is, however, that Fox's loyalties don't lie with the McCanns, and never have done. They only chose to present the story in a pro-McCann light because they judged, for whatever reasons, that it suited them as a commercial operation to do so. That portrayal did not necessarily reflect their own personal views behind the scenes.

That makes them no different from any other media organisation which will cut and paste at whim according to its own agendas. The subject of an article can he a hero one day and villain the next - the McCanns are not the first. 

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
« Reply #139 on: October 12, 2013, 04:13:58 PM »
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!

Telegenic? Hardly pamela anderson!
 @)(++(*

Much ado about nothing.....there have been many commentators on USA shows who both question the Mccanns behaviour and their story....it is nothing new....I remember one participant on an ABC show after listening to an interview given by the Mccanns saying they answer like politicians not as grieved parents......I would say in the USA opinion is probably  around 50 50 in this case......which is quite good, as we know how ferocious Americans are regarding child welfare...end of the day I have to agree in general its their viewing figures/impact that matter ultimately rather than solid journalistic content

Offline Sherlock Holmes

Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
« Reply #140 on: October 12, 2013, 04:21:51 PM »
Telegenic? Hardly pamela anderson!
 @)(++(*

Much ado about nothing.....there have been many commentators on USA shows who both question the Mccanns behaviour and their story....it is nothing new....I remember one participant on an ABC show after listening to an interview given by the Mccanns saying they answer like politicians not as grieved parents......I would say in the USA opinion is probably  around 50 50 in this case......which is quite good, as we know how ferocious Americans are regarding child welfare...end of the day I have to agree in general its their viewing figures/impact that matter ultimately rather than solid journalistic content

Now who's insulting her looks, Red?!

Anyway, it seems overall that this is a piece of so-called entertainment, rather than a piece of news.

Thanks for the info about ABC and so on. I am going to investigate a few stories over here and see if I can find something that borders on news rather than sensationalism. Unlikely I will find it, but will try..

Rachel Granada

  • Guest
Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
« Reply #141 on: October 12, 2013, 04:31:42 PM »
Hi Sherlock and thanks for your input.  Hope you don't mind me asking, are you American or a "Brit abroad"?

Offline Sherlock Holmes

Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
« Reply #142 on: October 12, 2013, 04:43:23 PM »
Hi Sherlock and thanks for your input.  Hope you don't mind me asking, are you American or a "Brit abroad"?

I am actually from Edinburgh, Rachel, but I have been living overseas for a few years.

Rachel Granada

  • Guest
Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
« Reply #143 on: October 12, 2013, 04:49:05 PM »
I am actually from Edinburgh, Rachel, but I have been living overseas for a few years.

OK many thanks.  OT: going down to the library next week so some Sherlock Holmes novels are on my list!

Back on topic, sorry!   8()-000(

Offline Sherlock Holmes

Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
« Reply #144 on: October 12, 2013, 05:12:34 PM »
OK many thanks.  OT: going down to the library next week so some Sherlock Holmes novels are on my list!

Back on topic, sorry!   8()-000(

Sherlock Holmes and the great Sir Arthur are always 'on topic' in my view!

Rachel Granada

  • Guest
Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
« Reply #145 on: October 12, 2013, 05:16:08 PM »
Sorry messed up the quotes a bit...


LOL!  I will get a couple of novels next week and report back with my views.


SORRY FOLKS!! Back on topic now, promise!  8((()*/

drummer

  • Guest
Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
« Reply #146 on: October 18, 2013, 07:51:30 PM »
WENDY MURPHY: Dead little girls + drugs = suspicion of child porn
The Patriot Ledger
Posted Mar 28, 2009 @ 05:00 AM

QUINCY —
When children die – and parents are potential suspects – we often talk about abuse and neglect.

But when sedatives are found in a child’s body or at a crime scene, we need to talk about something else, too.

Child pornography.

The FBI has long taught about the use of sedative drugs in the making of child porn. Benzodiazepines such as Valium and Klonopin – and cheap alternatives such as chloroform – are commonly used to keep kids calm. Many of these drugs also cause short-term amnesia such that the victim has little or no memory of the event when the drugs wear off.

It’s scary to think that ANYONE would do such a thing to a child, but get this: According to the U.S. Attorney General, child porn is a multi-billion dollar industry and the people most likely to be making it are the victims’ parents.

This sick “industry” not only destroys innocent souls – it is a life-threatening “business” because the build-up of sedatives in kids’ bodies can cause deadly seizures.

If we’re going to protect children from this scourge, we have to talk more openly about it, especially during high profile cases when millions of people are watching.

Take the following stories, for example, though it should be emphasized that we have not heard from law enforcement whether there is any correlation between the deaths of these little girls and child porn.

JonBenet Ramsey was a beautiful dyed-blonde 6-year-old when she was found dead in the basement of her home. The day her body was found, her parents hired criminal attorneys and refused to submit to separate police interviews. Three search warrants were issued for child porn, and while police said none was found in the home, we really don’t know the details of what if anything was found elsewhere – or why they were looking for child porn – because the files in the case are being withheld from public view. We DO know that undigested pineapple was found in the child’s stomach and we know that a bowl of pineapple found on the kitchen table was taken as evidence, presumably tested for the presence of drugs. But we don’t know the results because, again, the file is being hidden. We also know that the child had “chronic” vaginal injuries including an “eroded” hymen, which many experts say is evidence of prior ongoing sexual abuse. When the parents eventually agreed to be interviewed by police, they were asked at length about sedatives in the home, such as Xanax and Klonopin.

Caylee Anthony was a sweet little 2-year-old when she “went missing” from her home in Florida. Her body was later found and her mother stands charged with her murder, in part because she failed to report Caylee missing for more than a month, and then lied about the circumstances of her disappearance. Human decomposition was found in the trunk of her mother’s car – along with Caylee’s hair and traces of chloroform. Law enforcement officials said that photographs of Caylee had recently been deleted from her mother’s computer.

Maddie McCann was an adorable 4-year-old who “went missing” from her hotel room in Portugal while on vacation with her British parents. The child’s hair and human decomposition were reportedly found in the trunk of her parents’ rental car. Early news reports indicated Maddie had been sedated by her parents to keep her asleep in the hotel room while they socialized nearby. The parents hired criminal attorneys and, after Maddie’s mom was named a suspect, she refused to answer police questions.

I don’t know if these cases are related to child porn. But I’m certain of three things. 1. Sedating victims is common. 2. The most valuable child porn depicts young, cute kids. 3. All three cases involve sedatives and young, cute kids.

According to the federal government, demand for child porn has skyrocketed because of the Internet, and will continue to rise unless we do a better job recognizing and talking about the problem when we see it.

It won’t be easy – in part because this stuff happens in secret, but also because we resist thinking about things that don’t feel good – and let’s face it – it doesn’t feel very good to believe parents sell their children for sex and porn.

But what’s more important? Children – or the comfort of our denial?

Wendy Murphy is a leading victims rights advocate and nationally recognized television legal analyst. She is an adjunct professor at New England Law in Boston and radio talk show host. She can be reached at wmurphy@nesl.edu

http://www.patriotledger.com/opinion...-of-child-porn


Spot the errors, falsehoods?