GS
As a journo I do like Alan Little very much - always have.
His report was pretty reasonable, up to the point where he showed this Amazon page (describing it as "his website" - as mentioned on the last page), and then vox popped the neighbours who talked of the accused's alleged "interest" in studying murders.
I have zero interest in the clacking tongues of neighbours, and certainly not when we don't get to hear the questions put to them - which could be, "did he strike you as a creepy/dangerous man?" or "did he ever tell you he was interested in crimes against women?".
Who the hell knows what leading questions these lay people and relative strangers were asked; but either way their opinion is neither news nor in the public interest.
Just the facts are required. A name, an age and where he lived. Beyond that and it strays into the unnecessary and ghoulish.
I expect more from the Beeb, as I will tell Mr Snoddy, should he pick up the phone.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
The journalists revelling in this case are surely in no position to make judgements on other peoples interests in murder.
As a journo I do like Alan Little very much - always have.
His report was pretty reasonable, up to the point where he showed this Amazon page (describing it as "his website" - as mentioned on the last page), and then vox popped the neighbours who talked of the accused's alleged "interest" in studying murders.
I have zero interest in the clacking tongues of neighbours, and certainly not when we don't get to hear the questions put to them - which could be, "did he strike you as a creepy/dangerous man?" or "did he ever tell you he was interested in crimes against women?".
Who the hell knows what leading questions these lay people and relative strangers were asked; but either way their opinion is neither news nor in the public interest.
Just the facts are required. A name, an age and where he lived. Beyond that and it strays into the unnecessary and ghoulish.
I expect more from the Beeb, as I will tell Mr Snoddy, should he pick up the phone.
TM
Purely for info, but the Attorney General’s Office has issued an advisory to all news media today expressing concerns about the nature of reporting in this case and the fact that such reporting has continued and may escalate despite charges being brought against a suspect. All news organisations are urged to take necessary steps to ensure they are not in contempt of court. This may well be standard practice in such high profile cases, but thought it interesting given some of the earlier comments in this thread ...
Last edited by Telly Media on 29 May 2010 3:27am - 2 times in total
GS
Gavin Scott
Founding member
Channel Four News, who have removed both stories now, have commented on the continuing messages on their facebook page:
As I have pointed out to them - the rules of contempt have not changed because of social networking, and I don't believe there is a "big debate" to be had. To suggest otherwise is clearly an attempt to justify their decision to report what they did last week.
Why didn't they just do the right thing in the first place?
Very please the AGO has intervened with a warning to news gatherers in this case; and gratifying to know that someone listens to complaints.
Quote:
Hi all - thanks for commenting on our coverage of this story. Clearly there's a big debate to be had about the law and the changing way the news is reported, especially in the internet age.
As I have pointed out to them - the rules of contempt have not changed because of social networking, and I don't believe there is a "big debate" to be had. To suggest otherwise is clearly an attempt to justify their decision to report what they did last week.
Why didn't they just do the right thing in the first place?
Very please the AGO has intervened with a warning to news gatherers in this case; and gratifying to know that someone listens to complaints.
JA
Why would they be bothered? They only care for the BBC. If anything he should write to Al Jazeera's Listening Post or Channel 4's TV Show
Did you write to BBC Newswatch, Gavin? Did anything come of it?
Why would they be bothered? They only care for the BBC. If anything he should write to Al Jazeera's Listening Post or Channel 4's TV Show
CW
Reminds me of an article on the Editor's blog: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/08/baby_peter_and_anonymity.html
Charlie Wells
Moderator
Channel Four News, who have removed both stories now, have commented on the continuing messages on their facebook page:
As I have pointed out to them - the rules of contempt have not changed because of social networking, and I don't believe there is a "big debate" to be had. To suggest otherwise is clearly an attempt to justify their decision to report what they did last week.
Why didn't they just do the right thing in the first place?
Very please the AGO has intervened with a warning to news gatherers in this case; and gratifying to know that someone listens to complaints.
Quote:
Hi all - thanks for commenting on our coverage of this story. Clearly there's a big debate to be had about the law and the changing way the news is reported, especially in the internet age.
As I have pointed out to them - the rules of contempt have not changed because of social networking, and I don't believe there is a "big debate" to be had. To suggest otherwise is clearly an attempt to justify their decision to report what they did last week.
Why didn't they just do the right thing in the first place?
Very please the AGO has intervened with a warning to news gatherers in this case; and gratifying to know that someone listens to complaints.
Reminds me of an article on the Editor's blog: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/08/baby_peter_and_anonymity.html
DA
Gavin mentioned in a jokey way a few posts ago that he would be writing to Ray Snoddy about this case and the BBC's reporting of it.
Why would they be bothered? They only care for the BBC. If anything he should write to Al Jazeera's Listening Post or Channel 4's TV Show
Gavin mentioned in a jokey way a few posts ago that he would be writing to Ray Snoddy about this case and the BBC's reporting of it.
GS
In the case of the BBC not so much as a reply or acknowledgment, which was disappointing - but that said, their reporting was the least concerning that I saw.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
Did you write to BBC Newswatch, Gavin? Did anything come of it?
In the case of the BBC not so much as a reply or acknowledgment, which was disappointing - but that said, their reporting was the least concerning that I saw.
BR
Not directly related to C4 News or this issue, but on the question of ethics so you think it's right for news organisations to name victims "identified locally" before the police release such details. Usually names are held back for good reason so family can be informed - and Sky at least had named one victim by mid-afternoon I'm sure close relatives would have known by then, but the wider family probably wouldn't.