I must begin by making it clear that I am NOT a McCann supporter!
The list that has been provided earlier in this thread as the sources used by RH is actually a list of useful links. His primary source of reference, particularly in disc 3 seems to be the MSM. In disc three he spends 20 minutes or so reading from an article written by Christine Toomey in the Sunday times (a Murdoch Group newspaper). This section comprises roughly one third of the videos total length. He also uses references at length from the Daily Mail and The London Evening Standard. This hardly bodes well for someone who is attempting to prove that this story has been "Buried by the mainstream media"
Richard also fails to mention that the Mccann's sued the Express Group in 2008. The Express Group had printed over 100 articles that implied the Mccann's were involved in the 'disappearance' of their daughter. This indicates that, far from burying the story, the express group were keen to print all aspects of the case. I have no doubt that without the threat of litigation the Express group would still be reporting in the same fashion, after all it sells newspapers which is their business. I raised this issue, via e-mail with Richard and got the reply that the Express Group could have deliberately overstated the Mccann's involvement in their articles in order to get silenced! In other words, Richard proposes, that the Express Group may have deliberately got themselves sued.
Another area where Richard makes a fundamental mistake is in his belief that Clarence Mitchell 'controlled' what came out in the media. This is taken from a Spanish article where the verb 'monitor' has been translated to 'controla' and then mistranslated back to English as 'control' Clarence Mitchell's function as the head of the media 'monitoring' unit was to read the newspapers and highlight to the PM anything of note. He did not have meetings with editors and journalists at 3am telling them what they could and could not print.
Richards agenda is to highlight the covering up of stories in the mainstream media. On this showing he falls short of the mark. He has little interest in the case of Madeleine beyond his vision of a cover up. While he does highlight a few of the many inconsistencies in the case he fails to grip the viewer to any degree. I am interested in the case and have been since day one. I happen to believe that the Mccann's were involved in the death of their daughter and the subsequent hiding of evidence. I further believe that the 'fund' has been used for purposes other than the search for Madeleine. I am also suspicious of the high level involvement in the case. In all of these aspects I find myself agreeing with Richard, however, with his poor methodology and tedious presentation this DVD series will not convince many '[ censored word ]' or neutrals.
Finally, while it is true that Richard has waived copyright on these DVDs and has asked that they be distributed freely and they are freely available on YouTube, we must remember that not everyone is solely motivated financially. For some publicity is what drives them and in this respect Richard may have hit the jackpot!
Welcome to the forum, Eddie.
You certainly have nailed your colours firmly to the mast.
I hope you are able to spare a thought for
Madeleine McCann; she is the important one here; what you may think of her parents is an irrelevance except when that might impede in any way the current investigation into her case.
Your point that the mainstream media have in the past done rather the reverse of burying information such as may be contained in this documentary is well made.
The damaging media frenzy you describe was curtailed with the release of the actual forensic results; that there were out of court settlements made confirms that it was immediately realised that the information they had previously printed was false.
One wonders why there are people who cannot come to terms with this; the fact being that if a statement is libellous it must be unfounded and cannot be proved; the mainstream media have been made aware of this, and therefore to a large extent try not to replicate untruths exemplified in scurrilous documentaries such as this.
I agree with your point that some have publicity thrust upon them but the motivating factor for others is to achieve publicity by whatever means possible ~ and I think that is the purpose of these videos.
Self promotion seems to be the name of the game here; not concern that the 'truth' is ever told about Madeleine McCann.
