According to some posters on DS, the BBC are now apparently quoting the police who are saying the 99% match was false. I haven't seen anything, but it might explain why Sky have taken their banner off.
Hmm, it seems Sky are still reporting the evidence as correct.
An hour ago Sky seemed to hype their sources info as being conclusive proof that Madeleine's body had been in the hire car. Now their modifying how this is being presented by saying (what we already new) that unless it is blood that is found, the DNA may have been transferred by any numbers of sources without any sinister intent. Talk about making something out of nothing.
No wonder the BBC didn't run with it.
Seems that they're now clamouring over each other to get evidence of the McCann's guilt with equal vigour to the way they were trying to defend them before.
I happened upon that bloke on Sky around 8pm tonight. Gillian Joseph asked him whether there was a chance that the DNA could have been transferred from a secondary object (i.e. a cuddly toy, clothes etc.) and his answer was a firm "no". Now, I may be wrong, but he isn't an expert. Surely he could have presented it in the form of "yes, there is a chance that it could have been transferred, but it is more likely, given the evidence, that...". Talk about balanced reporting
Anyway, I was pleased to see that ITV News had come to their senses tonight. The McCanns were reduced to a brief mention half way through the programme.
I agree with you on that. I think I've mentioned this before, but Tom Bradby exemplifies your point in his political reports.
I don't want to hear
his
views, that's what you're supposed to interview politicians for; the journalist is there to provide facts and deliver the story objectively, opinions come from interviewees. That's my view on things anyway.
And what gives them licence to carry on that way is that many of these opinions are difficult to disagree with - last week for example, "Jailed, the SICK stepmum who killed her child". Whether people agree with it isn't the point. TV news is there to report the FACTS, not pass judgement on them.
I quite agree, ITV News is all getting very tabloid-esque with emotive language like that. Nor did I want to hear what Tom Bradby thought of the TUC conference last night-- not his place to say!
The latest headline on the Daily Mail website doesn't make for good reading...
"Large amount of Madeleine's hair 'found in tyre well in boot of parents' hire car'"
Daily Mail extract posted:
Substantial quantities of Madeleine McCann's hair were found in the tyre well of the boot of her parents' hire car, it was revealed today.
I agree with you on that. I think I've mentioned this before, but Tom Bradby exemplifies your point in his political reports.
I don't want to hear
his
views, that's what you're supposed to interview politicians for; the journalist is there to provide facts and deliver the story objectively, opinions come from interviewees. That's my view on things anyway.
And what gives them licence to carry on that way is that many of these opinions are difficult to disagree with - last week for example, "Jailed, the SICK stepmum who killed her child". Whether people agree with it isn't the point. TV news is there to report the FACTS, not pass judgement on them.
I quite agree, ITV News is all getting very tabloid-esque with emotive language like that. Nor did I want to hear what Tom Bradby thought of the TUC conference last night-- not his place to say!
Yes, that is getting on my nerves, too. I'm not interested in Tom Bradby's opinions. I just want the facts to enable me to draw my own conclusions. I've noticed that the bulk of Bradby's reports are now heavily skewed and employ lots of irrelevant gimmicks. It's becoming so off-putting that I'm not watching ITV News as often, as politics is one of the main areas of news and to me, they are not giving a balanced report.
