Snapshot of public opinion

by xtrouble 31.05.11 10:53

My first proper post, I did post in the guests thread at the weekend.

I saw this earlier on HUKD

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/madeleine-mccann-holiday-pack-1-75-findmadeleine-com/948680#comments

And the comments are fascinating, obviously the general public are haters as well, as there are very few positive posts for the McCanns, but why is the press coverage always positive ? It cant be for fear of being sued, as many of them flew (and are flying !) very close to the wind with the super injunction row.

I just dont understand !

by Guest 31.05.11 11:01

Hi xtrouble and welcome to the forum welcome

by pauline 31.05.11 11:42

xtrouble wrote:My first proper post, I did post in the guests thread at the weekend.

I saw this earlier on HUKD

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/madeleine-mccann-holiday-pack-1-75-findmadeleine-com/948680#comments

And the comments are fascinating, obviously the general public are haters as well, as there are very few positive posts for the McCanns, but why is the press coverage always positive ? It cant be for fear of being sued, as many of them flew (and are flying !) very close to the wind with the super injunction row.

I just dont understand !

I can't understand either.

There is no fear of libel if you word the article properly ie you say for example that 'Tony Bennett of the Madeleine Foundation believes that....' or 'many parents question the McCanns leaving 3 children under 4 in an unlocked ground floor apartment..' Or you mention the FACT that there was a professional babysitting service available at reasonable cost that the McCanns made no attempt to book.

In fact the coverage is totally unprofessional because the journalists are ignoring the fact that there is no (or limited to be charitable) evidence of an abduction and many people do not believe the McCanns. Large sums of money have been contributed by the public to the Fund and now the British taxpayer is to fund a review which may or may not be independent. These matters are worthy of comment. It is as if the journalists cannot can to terms with the fact that the Mccanns may not be telling the truth - though in my experience, journalists I have met are quite cynical characters!

by Guest 31.05.11 13:06

Yes it is very odd that so many journalists have subscribed to the Gospel according to Kate and Gerry. The media has at times played an important part in rooting out corruption and crime. What is different about this case that has caused journalists to behave so unprofessionally?

by The Rooster 31.05.11 13:51

The newspapers in the UK are businesses. They exist to create profit. I am sure the editors/ owners realise that there is a narrow window of opportunity that won't last long to sell papers by writing supportive articles about the McCanns. When the tide turns and the McCanns are held to account for their actions and the variance within, then the papers will write unsupportive articles that again will sell newspapers, but this time in bucket loads.

It's only business.

I say boy... I heard you want jam today and jam tomorrow, that true boy!!

by Guest 31.05.11 14:34

Nicely put Rooster. Snapshot of public opinion 351181

by **PeterMac** 31.05.11 14:54

pauline wrote:...- though in my experience, journalists I have met are quite cynical characters!

Some are. Others write stuff to sell newspapers, and for no other discernible reason. A half decent investigative journalist would probably have torn this whole thing open 4 years ago, but Murdock was involved. The person who claims to have been the first English journalist at the scene that morning sold his stuff to the Sun for over 4 months before he wrote a piece in his own Spanish newspaper, and by that time the damage had been done. He cannot now go back and say that what he wrote was nonsense.
Only last week he published a story about a couple being gassed in a hotel apartment, the woman raped and all their money stolen by a man who fled, naked, when the husband woke up. Pure tosh. 50 cubic metre room, no gas cylinders lying around, (a gas incidentally to which the naked man was obviously immune (rather like Gerry and Kate being immune to Chloroform, and failing to smell it)), no clothing left at the scene, no receptionist recalling seeing a naked man with gas cylinders entering or leaving, no couple taken to hospital for tests and observations, and so on and stupidly on. Now they have gone home, and are probably making a claim on the insurance for money. But the journalists asked no questions, and other than using the word 'alleged' once, present it as fact.
This is the same paper whose principal reporter brought us the Angolan Bouncer who had "fled to Spain", when in fact he has played basketball regularly for the Spanish team. See MF article for full details.

by Guest 31.05.11 15:01

PeterMac wrote:no receptionist recalling seeing a naked man with gas cylinders entering or leaving

Sounds just like your observation about the abductor not only carrying Maddie but also the spare bed!

by Zelina 01.06.11 11:49

I'm currently working in Europe and I haven't met a single person over here who believes in the abduction theory.

This could because there was a fair amount of speculation and debate about the case in the media. Tabloids exist over here too but their circulation is small compared to the UK. Journalists are (slightly) more professional.
Another thing is the thinly veiled xenophobia against the Portuguese would not be tolerated in newspapers here.