Madeleine McCann Press coverage - Was it a Saviour or a Damnation?

[stephen25000]

Hence The Leveson Inquiry.  Trial by Media has to stop.  Too many innocent people are tainted by this.  Who is innocent or guilty is the remit of The Courts.

How do you know it is going to stop ?

and as I said, if investigative journalism reveals criminal activities,are you prepared to say that journalists should not engage in that?

[Eleanor]

I agree in a way with that Eleanor, but how do you propose to stop people talking about/discussing stuff? In a way the press is just an extension of the public discourse. The worse possible scenario is a world in which we muzzle the press.

Thanks, Pookles.

It is possible to discuss things without direct accusations and deliberate innuendo.  It just requires a bit of self control and an improved use and knowledge of The English Language.  Inverted Commas and IMO won't do if Libel is implied.

[Eleanor]

How do you know it is going to stop ?

and as I said, if investigative journalism reveals criminal activities,are you prepared to say that journalists should not engage in that?

Fine if they can Prove what they are saying.  Otherwise they will have to take their chances with The Laws of Libel.  As some of them discovered.

It is already much better under control.  Most of the more responsible Media Outlets are now refusing to accept comments.

[John]

A gentle reminder on this glorious Spring day to keep on topic please and to keep posts polite but firm where appropriate.   

[Carana]

I agree in a way with that Eleanor, but how do you propose to stop people talking about/discussing stuff? In a way the press is just an extension of the public discourse. The worse possible scenario is a world in which we muzzle the press.

I doubt that many posters here are against a responsible press.

The anarchy generated by the "free speach (sic) but only for me" brigade unleashed by the explosion in social media will - at some point - have to give way to democratic values of rights and responsibilities. Hopefully, at least.

[stephen25000]

Fine if they can Prove what they are saying.  Otherwise they will have to take their chances with The Laws of Libel.  As some of them discovered.

It is already much better under control.  Most of the more responsible Media Outlets are now refusing to accept comments.

What then will stop criminals using the laws of libel to hide their crimes.

e.g. Jeffrey Archer and the case of the prostitute.

True in the end he was sent to prison, only because the newspaper involved persevered afterthze initial court case.

[Eleanor]

This Thread is about Madeleine McCann Press coverage.  It has already gone quite far enough Off Topic.

[Benice]

So if the media was to find out through investigative journalism that people have committed serious crimes, that would be wrong, and I am talking in general here.

As to trial by media, it has happened since the invention of the 'media' and you're naive if you believe , it will go away.

and pray tell me, why should anyone believe the mccanns story, when they are contradictions in their accounts of events ?

No-one is objecting to ''investigative journalism''  -  but investigative journalism has nothing whatsoever to do with  the barrage of scurrilous lies printed about the McCanns over a period of several months.     IMO the only 'investigations'  carried out in that regard -  was into how much extra profit the papers would make if they went ahead and printed them.   

[faithlilly]

Would you rather that people base their opinions on discredited and false information promoted by the press than on the few facts which are in the public domain?

That was a rhetorical question in case you failed to notice.

Your post may have been viewed with the respect you so obviously think it deserves if you didn't illustrate almost every one of your arguments with a link to some tabloid article or other.

Cherry picking at its best I'd say.

[Mr Gray]

So if the media was to find out through investigative journalism that people have committed serious crimes, that would be wrong, and I am talking in general here.

As to trial by media, it has happened since the invention of the 'media' and you're naive if you believe , it will go away.

and pray tell me, why should anyone believe the mccanns story, when they are contradictions in their accounts of events ?

so you would support Brunt investigating Brenda Leyland

[Brietta]

Fine if they can Prove what they are saying.  Otherwise they will have to take their chances with The Laws of Libel.  As some of them discovered.

It is already much better under control.  Most of the more responsible Media Outlets are now refusing to accept comments.

I think the fact that the majority of responsible newspapers find it impossible to allow comment on Madeleine McCann's case or any related story because of the tawdry comments certain to be posted is an utter disgrace.

There are responsibilities which go hand in hand with the right to freedom of speech; the relentless self congratulatory campaigns have taken that right away from the general public when it comes to publishers having to make sure they stay within the law in their comments sections.

Really very sad.

[stephen25000]

I think the fact that the majority of responsible newspapers find it impossible to allow comment on Madeleine McCann's case or any related story because of the tawdry comments certain to be posted is an utter disgrace.

There are responsibilities which go hand in hand with the right to freedom of speech; the relentless self congratulatory campaigns have taken that right away from the general public when it comes to publishers having to make sure they stay within the law in their comments sections.

Really very sad.

Does that include the mccanns, their friends or associates, attacking others using the media, via 'sources close to the McCann's'. ?


 %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#

[sadie]

Does that include the mccanns, their friends or associates, attacking others using the media, via 'sources close to the McCann's'. ?


 %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#

When did that happen Stephen?

I saw no attacks.

[Brietta]

Does that include the mccanns, their friends or associates, attacking others using the media, via 'sources close to the McCann's'. ?


 %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#

Please cite any evidence you may have and/or occasions when the people you have mentioned have lied about people and libelled them ... thanking you in anticipation of your first provision of a requested cite.



There are retrospective reports from many journalist who were on the ground in Praia da Luz and who bitterly regretted the copy which they sent back to their editors.

The retiring editor of the Daily Express noted that a regret of his career was printing what the journalists were gathering from their sources regarding Madeleine McCann's disappearance. Although accepting that it was his job and theirs to sell newspapers, which Madeleine McCann's name did in abundance.

Hindsight is indeed an exact science and newspaper professionals have accepted that they perpetrated dreadful calumnies against the parents of a missing child.

The clincher I think may have been when they had sight of the FSS files and not the misunderstood interpretation of them. Nobody likes being taken for mugs ... and they were collectively taken to the cleaners!

Wonder why there are those even today who have not quite grasped the reality of that situation.


**snip
But he is contrite about the sad episode that ended with Express Newspapers being landed with one of the most expensive legal bills in newspaper history – the coverage of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Hill's paper and its three other titles, the Daily Star, Sunday Express and Daily Star Sunday. He says: "I did too much on the story. I accept that."

Too much wasn't the only problem though. There were also the stories that suggested Madeleine's parents, Gerry and Kate McCann, might have been complicit in her disappearance, which in its apology Express Newspapers admitted were "seriously defamatory".

Asked whether he regretted libelling the McCanns, he replies: "Of course I do. And I insisted on apologising on the front of the newspaper when it became clear that it was a complete fabrication. We gave them £500,000. It doesn't redound to my credit but it did help them to continue the search."

Leaking stories
So why did it happen? "It was a huge story, and every adult in the country had an opinion on it. I admit it helped to sell the paper. There were many factors involved, such as the way Maddy's parents sought publicity in an unprecedented way.
"All the way through, our principal focus was on 'what's happened to Maddy?' The Portuguese police and British legal sources were leaking stories that implied the McCanns were guilty in some way. We were not to know that the Portuguese police were ineffectual and, in some cases, corrupt."

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/feb/21/peter-hill-daily-express-madeleine-mccann

[stephen25000]

so you would support Brunt investigating Brenda Leyland

Perhaps you should read again.

sky and brunt, took the law into their own hands.

If they suspected Brenda of criminal activity, they should have taken the evidence to the police.

They didn't.

She's dead.

They acted as vigilantes.

The consequences of that are well known.