I think the point is that the highly sensationalist nature of the news coverage of this story is fuelling mass hysteria - something which is never helpful to anything.
In this case it has resulted in a man
who has not even been arrested
becoming a national hate figure. Robert Murat may have had nothing whatsoever to do with Madeleine's disappearance. His life however, has been made a misery thanks to this hideous pack mentality where an individual is rounded on just so we've got someone to blame.
In this case it has resulted in a man
who has not even been arrested
becoming a national hate figure. Robert Murat may have had nothing whatsoever to do with Madeleine's disappearance. His life however, has been made a misery thanks to this hideous pack mentality where an individual is rounded on just so we've got someone to blame.
Quite - it's not all that far away from a public lynching and I think that there's something quite insidious and disturbing about it, regardless of whether or not the person in question is guilty.
The other recent example of this "guilty before proven innocent" phenomenon was the bloke who was first arrested over the Ipswich murders. Because the bloke was a bit of an oddball, the media took that to mean that he must surely be guilty - of course they couldn't say so out loud, but the insinuation was sure there. And then of course, the police arrested and charged somebody who, by most accounts was "normal".
I think the point is that the highly sensationalist nature of the news coverage of this story is fuelling mass hysteria - something which is never helpful to anything.
In this case it has resulted in a man
who has not even been arrested
becoming a national hate figure. Robert Murat may have had nothing whatsoever to do with Madeleine's disappearance. His life however, has been made a misery thanks to this hideous pack mentality where an individual is rounded on just so we've got someone to blame.
Absolutely, it's outrageous that the police think it acceptable to seize his personal property on flimsy evidence - and they have clearly only rustled up a 'culprit' to satisfy the media.
That said, the tabloid channel equivelents seem to be in play
Whilst I agree that the media coverage is well over the top for this particular case, my original point was more to do with the similarities with a previous case where the father turned out to have done it.
Point your search engines at Zoe Evans, Miles Evans, and Pepper Place Warminster Wiltshire.
I sincerely hope they don't find this particular girl stuffed down a badger set, but all the "methinks he doth protest too much" from the father has striking similarities.
In fairness it's probably not best to throw accusations around, it hardly helps this really does it? I'm not trying to be a dick, but when there are so many things that are wrong with the reporting of this investigation, it would surely be better to talk about those than pet theories everyone has. It's a bit distasteful to accuse people and the police of things of that nature without solid evidence.
The media are turning into vigilanties now, taking great pride in telling us they've got certain people arrested because they didn't like the look of them!
The real importance of this story is shown by how quickly it falls down the news agenda if anything minorly news worthy happens.
C4 News seemed to have it spot on last night - relegating it to just the lead story of their "other news" recap.
The other recent example of this "guilty before proven innocent" phenomenon was the bloke who was first arrested over the Ipswich murders. Because the bloke was a bit of an oddball, the media took that to mean that he must surely be guilty - of course they couldn't say so out loud, but the insinuation was sure there. And then of course, the police arrested and charged somebody who, by most accounts was "normal".
Did I hear that the first suspect has since commited suicide?
As for Nick's libelous suggestions, I don't know how someone could abduct a child from her room whilst in a restaurant a few hundred metres away.
GM
nodnirG kraM
Newsroom posted:
but as this awful story continues...
I agree - awful awful awful to disguise this as news.
What gets my gander up is a week or so ago the reports were suggesting the girl is still alive and within a radius of five miles. Great. So were she alive at the time, whoever has her has been informed that everybody's on to him [the correct pronoun as we don't know the culprit's gender] and it's time to make a rash decision: run with her further, or "get rid" of the evidence once and for all.
Add to that the mindnumbing banality of interviewing locals from near her home about their take on the situation: "aww it's terrible, I hope they catch whoever's done this" "you just don't think this sort of thing's going to 'appen do you" etc; then devote hours of rolling news airtime to a church service in her honour ... it just makes me want to vomit.
Nothing makes me want to flick channels more quickly than sensationalist "news". Except Jade Goody.
What gets my gander up is a week or so ago the reports were suggesting the girl is still alive and within a radius of five miles. Great. So were she alive at the time, whoever has her has been informed that everybody's on to him [the correct pronoun as we don't know the culprit's gender] and it's time to make a rash decision: run with her further, or "get rid" of the evidence once and for all.
i'm with you on the whole but i don't understand your point here. Are you saying that reported speculation about a missing child's whereabouts should be banned?
GM
nodnirG kraM
I'm suggesting news agencies be sensible with information that is pretty much useless to the general public but could become a key factor in the outcome of a situation.
