The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Sunday Times apology

Page 3 of 14 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 8 ... 14  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Guest on 29.12.13 20:00

aiyoyo(sorry can't quote on mobile version).
sometimes i can't see the truth from the lies butter would be inclined to believe the PI's and Sunday times. If you read between the lines of the apology they have still not apologised for the rest of the article.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Guest on 29.12.13 20:54

@Over The Hill wrote:
@TMH wrote:Hmmm but there have been numerous times that the press and media have reported wrongly? The Daily Mail even has a regular slot on page 2 titled "corrections".
Yes but the printed press tend to stick their necks out a bit more and just print an apology if it turns out to be wrong (as has happened in this case)

BBC, ITN and Sky newsrooms are instructed from the very top to check stories out and not use them unless they are verified

I know that the Beeb in particular has made a few cock-ups in the last year or so, but those of us who work in this field of activity were amazed at the lack of professionalism in those cases, and those responsible paid with their jobs

Nice to meet you. Your expertise will be very welcome, I'm sure

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Guest on 29.12.13 20:59

Portia, I thought you'd left the forum.  Glad to see you're still here.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Over The Hill on 29.12.13 21:13

@Portia wrote:Nice to meet you. Your expertise will be very welcome, I'm sure
Contrary to what many posters believe, there are plenty of people in the news media who are interested in this case, but they have to treat it in the same professional manner as all other stories, ie only report facts and don't guess or speculate
I've been looking in on this forum for a few years, from both a personal and professional perspective, but it's impossible to develop the latter because there are so few facts

There is no conspiracy to cover anything up, and no conspiracy to report in a biased way
But if there are no facts, there is no story
News editors will tell you that when it comes down to it, the only fact is that a girl is missing

Newsrooms don't have the same freedom to comment like internet forums
Have a look back at the original ST story thread:
Sunday Times link
How many of you would like to re-write your posts now? Broadcast journalists can't do that

The ST story looked interesting, but nobody could make it stand up, and it turns out that it is flawed
If any duty newsroom editor had given air time to it, even just reporting that the ST was saying it at the time, they would have been in big trouble
Not because the Maddie story is being massaged by the broadcast media, but because this development couldn't be proved (just like everything else)

Over The Hill

Posts : 82
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Daisy on 29.12.13 21:16

Glad to see you back Portia, never did have you down as a quitter.

____________________
“Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.”   

Unknown


“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.” 

Friedrich Nietzsche

Daisy

Posts : 1245
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-15
Location : Yorkshire, England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Guest on 29.12.13 21:51

@Over The Hill wrote: [...]

The ST story looked interesting, but nobody could make it stand up, and it turns out that it is flawed

It is only "flawed" in the sense that, the McCanns indeed didn't "sit" on it for 6 years. It was only 1+ year later, that they gave the E-fits to the PJ & Leicester Police [when the case was archieved]. It was only 5+ years later, that they handed the report to NSY, after a "request" to the Fund by NSY, when they became aware of the existence of such report.

If any duty newsroom editor had given air time to it, even just reporting that the ST was saying it at the time, they would have been in big trouble
Not because the Maddie story is being massaged by the broadcast media, but because this development couldn't be proved (just like everything else)
***
Blue text and underlining is mine.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Okeydokey on 29.12.13 22:47

@Over The Hill wrote:
@Portia wrote:Nice to meet you. Your expertise will be very welcome, I'm sure
Contrary to what many posters believe, there are plenty of people in the news media who are interested in this case, but they have to treat it in the same professional manner as all other stories, ie only report facts and don't guess or speculate
I've been looking in on this forum for a few years, from both a personal and professional perspective, but it's impossible to develop the latter because there are so few facts

There is no conspiracy to cover anything up, and no conspiracy to report in a biased way
But if there are no facts, there is no story
News editors will tell you that when it comes down to it, the only fact is that a girl is missing

Newsrooms don't have the same freedom to comment like internet forums
Have a look back at the original ST story thread:
Sunday Times link
How many of you would like to re-write your posts now? Broadcast journalists can't do that

The ST story looked interesting, but nobody could make it stand up, and it turns out that it is flawed
If any duty newsroom editor had given air time to it, even just reporting that the ST was saying it at the time, they would have been in big trouble
Not because the Maddie story is being massaged by the broadcast media, but because this development couldn't be proved (just like everything else)

Nonsense. There are loads of facts in this case: the rogatory interviews for instance, which as far as I know have never been reproduced verbatim in the UK press. The press could publish for instance MO's claims about see the twins breathing and then show photos of where he said he was standing. This is all factual. That's just one example. It's also factual  that the McCanns' website hasn't taken down the Tannerman pic despute  it being discredited by Redwood. It's not illegal to ask questions about that. If the press was doing its job it would. It might be of course that they have been intimidated by legal machinations/proprietor interference etc.

Okeydokey

Posts : 919
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-10-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Miraflores on 29.12.13 23:11

...... and no conspiracy to report in a biased way....

But until very very recently, this hasn't stopped the press referring to the abduction, as though it's a fact.
Or what about a straightforward reporting of Amiral's book being banned, and then the ban being overturned? That is a fact, but there was hardly a squeak in our papers.

This to me, is bias.

Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Guest on 29.12.13 23:18

This reminds me: has the BBC ever corrected and apollogised for maintaining that Dr. Amaral said: "F*ck the McCanns", when leaving the Lisbon Court during the first days of the libel trial ...????

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by aiyoyo on 29.12.13 23:20

It's not beyond realm of believability that the Press and Media were warned by an unwritten code of silence imposed on them by the Police not to repeat the process files in any shape or form because the case is not closed. Anything that could jeopardy future trial might just be forbidden to be reported, who knows.

It's interesting to note that for once a source from the Fund (not Pinkie) was quoted.
Add two and two together and the answer is obvious the persons feeling most aggrieved by revelation that e-fits and report were concealed to the detriment of the search had the most to gain by demanding an apology.
The beauty of this apology is that all the data that the Mccanns did not like in the first place had to be repeated in order that people know what the inaccuracies were that need correction. It's a self goal, so to speak.

In the finished the Mccanns did themselves no favour causing more unwanted attention over something that won't alter people's already firmed up impression of them,
Despite the apology, the Public is not an inch clearer how the correction got to do with the Search for Madeleine.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Guest on 29.12.13 23:23

@Okeydokey wrote:
@Over The Hill wrote:
@Portia wrote:Nice to meet you. Your expertise will be very welcome, I'm sure
Contrary to what many posters believe, there are plenty of people in the news media who are interested in this case, but they have to treat it in the same professional manner as all other stories, ie only report facts and don't guess or speculate
I've been looking in on this forum for a few years, from both a personal and professional perspective, but it's impossible to develop the latter because there are so few facts

There is no conspiracy to cover anything up, and no conspiracy to report in a biased way
But if there are no facts, there is no story
News editors will tell you that when it comes down to it, the only fact is that a girl is missing

Newsrooms don't have the same freedom to comment like internet forums
Have a look back at the original ST story thread:
Sunday Times link
How many of you would like to re-write your posts now? Broadcast journalists can't do that

The ST story looked interesting, but nobody could make it stand up, and it turns out that it is flawed
If any duty newsroom editor had given air time to it, even just reporting that the ST was saying it at the time, they would have been in big trouble
Not because the Maddie story is being massaged by the broadcast media, but because this development couldn't be proved (just like everything else)

Nonsense. There are loads of facts in this case: the rogatory interviews for instance, which as far as I know have never been reproduced verbatim in the UK press. The press could publish for instance MO's claims about see the twins breathing and then show photos of where he said he was standing. This is all factual. That's just one example. It's also factual  that the McCanns' website hasn't taken down the Tannerman pic despute  it being discredited by Redwood. It's not illegal to ask questions about that. If the press was doing its job it would. It might be of course that they have been intimidated by legal machinations/proprietor interference etc.

Precisely.   clapping .  Loads of facts available that haven't been used. Thousands of pages of police reports and evidence all freely available online remaining undelved-into by the very people who are paid as independent journalists to do so and QUESTION  for a start. The BBC in particular are a publicly funded body expected to report independently. Why aren't they? CW? Panorama? Newsnight? All gagged? Why are the MSM scared even to question, Over the Hill?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Ashwarya on 29.12.13 23:28

@Over The Hill wrote:
Contrary to what many posters believe, there are plenty of people in the news media who are interested in this case, but they have to treat it in the same professional manner as all other stories, ie only report facts and don't guess or speculate
I've been looking in on this forum for a few years, from both a personal and professional perspective, but it's impossible to develop the latter because there are so few facts

There is no conspiracy to cover anything up, and no conspiracy to report in a biased way
But if there are no facts, there is no story
News editors will tell you that when it comes down to it, the only fact is that a girl is missing

There are plenty of facts that the British media could have published, but haven't, and those of us who were intrigued by the inconsistencies in this case right from the start and have followed it with great attention since 2007 are well aware of most of them.  To give just a few:

The fact that the McCanns changed their statements to the Portuguese police between 4 May 2007 and 10 May 2007, not just in minor details but in significant ways.

The stories of jemmied shutters and a smashed front door which all their family and friends promoted until they were proved to be lies.

The court case in which the ban on Detective Amaral's book was lifted, even though the original ban is still referred to in the British press as though it was still in place.

The recent and ongoing libel trial which would have been of enormous interest to the British public if any journo had bothered to report on it.  As it is, those of us who are interested have to rely on the heroic efforts of a Portuguese lady who sat in the court and took notes.  We know we will only hear the judge's verdict in this country if it is favourable to the McCanns.

Mr Amaral himself is regularly referred to as a "disgraced, bumbling detective".  In fact he had a pretty good idea of what had happened in this case before he was summarily removed from his post.  In addition to that he is a fine man with a devout and unostentatious Catholic faith which guides his professional and personal life. He knows that the best he can do for Maddie now is to get justice for her.


I could go on and on, but we all know that very few articles see the light of day in the British media which haven't been pre-approved by Team McCann.  So I for one don't accept that the reporting in this country is professional and unbiased.  As far as I can see it is sycophantic, craven and lazy in the way this case is presented to the British public.

Ashwarya

Posts : 141
Reputation : 17
Join date : 2011-04-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by aiyoyo on 29.12.13 23:31

Dee Coy wrote:
Precisely.   clapping .  Loads of facts available that haven't been used. Thousands of pages of police reports and evidence all freely available online remaining undelved-into by the very people who are paid as independent journalists to do so and QUESTION  for a start. The BBC in particular are a publicly funded body expected to report independently. Why aren't they? CW? Panorama? Newsnight? All gagged? Why are the MSM scared even to question, Over the Hill?

I am glad the MSM had drawn a line not to report on those facts. There is always a right time for everything.
Reporting on the mccanns spin and lie is altogether a different matter since these garbage can't have adverse impact for future trial.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Guest on 29.12.13 23:54

But, unlike in the vast majority of cases, the MSM don't even question this one any more, Aiyoyo. Since the Express got sued?

The thing is, if the media hint at something often enough it becomes a belief in this country. Similarly, if something is denied or ignored often enough by them.... And possession (even of thought) is nine tenths of the law  winkwink  If the public clamouring got to a stage where it couldn't be ignored, this matter would have been resolved years ago. Except it hasn't been allowed to get to the stage where the public cannot be ignored.

AND PEOPLE IN THE MSM NEED TO EXAMINE THEMSELVES TO SEE IF THEY PERSONALLY COULD HAVE BEEN A CATALYST TO THAT PROCESS IF THEY EVEN SUSPECT ALL IS NOT WELL HERE.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Mirage on 30.12.13 0:01

Here's a fact. As the reconstruction of bedtime played on CW, GM's voice-over said of the bedroom: "So it was nice and dark in there."

In that case, how was he able to gaze at MM on his last check and think how beautiful she looked?

____________________
Kate McCann: "It's too 'ot. Give 'im a minute."

Mirage

Posts : 1664
Reputation : 382
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Tangled Web on 30.12.13 0:08

@aiyoyo wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
Precisely.   clapping .  Loads of facts available that haven't been used. Thousands of pages of police reports and evidence all freely available online remaining undelved-into by the very people who are paid as independent journalists to do so and QUESTION  for a start. The BBC in particular are a publicly funded body expected to report independently. Why aren't they? CW? Panorama? Newsnight? All gagged? Why are the MSM scared even to question, Over the Hill?

I am glad the MSM had drawn a line not to report on those facts.  There is always a right time for everything.
Reporting on the mccanns spin and lie is altogether a different matter since these garbage can't have adverse impact for future trial.


I agree. We wouldn't want them arguing that they have no chance of a fair trial.

Tangled Web

Posts : 303
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by ultimaThule on 30.12.13 0:40

@Tangled Web wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
Precisely.   clapping .  Loads of facts available that haven't been used. Thousands of pages of police reports and evidence all freely available online remaining undelved-into by the very people who are paid as independent journalists to do so and QUESTION  for a start. The BBC in particular are a publicly funded body expected to report independently. Why aren't they? CW? Panorama? Newsnight? All gagged? Why are the MSM scared even to question, Over the Hill?

I am glad the MSM had drawn a line not to report on those facts.  There is always a right time for everything.
Reporting on the mccanns spin and lie is altogether a different matter since these garbage can't have adverse impact for future trial.


I agree. We wouldn't want them arguing that they have no chance of a fair trial.
IMO this has been a factor in the way in which the MSM has reported the case but I see no reason why coverage should have been unduly biased or reticent because, were the perpetrator(s) of a heinous crime against a British national which took place in Portugal to argue they wouldn't get a fair trial in the UK, the alternative would be for them to stand trial in the country where the crime was committed.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Guest on 30.12.13 1:46

OTH thank you for your insight, My issue with the BBC was not that they did not repeat the ST report. But that they did not mention the headline in the ST when discussing the headlines of the Sunday papers. I think usualy the Sunday Times would be one of the papers usually discussed but the headline was ignored, completely. Now, I don't know the politics or legal issues BUT if a programs remit is to discuss the headlines or breaking stories in the newspapers it should do just that.
Regardless of their individual concerns or legal issues, otherwise that is a breach of representation surely.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by PeterMac on 30.12.13 7:25

@aiyoyo wrote:
The beauty of this apology is that all the data that the Mccanns did not like  in the first place had to be repeated in order that people know what the inaccuracies were that need correction.  It's a self goal, so to speak.

Precisely.
The ST has had to say - in effect -  "When we said they had suppressed the e-fits, we want to make it clear they only suppressed the them for a year, until the enquiry was shelved.  Then they handed them to an agency which was not looking for Madeleine. We hope that clears it up.
Oh and by the way, they have now suppressed them from their official website, but have left the picture of the suspect who has been eliminated."

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Over The Hill on 30.12.13 8:46

Thanks for all your comments. Sorry some of you think I'm talking nonsense

The problem with quoting from the police interviews is that it wouldn't be relevant in the context of a TV news bulletin. News programmes on BBC, ITN and Sky don't tend to do investigations of their own - these are the domain of the Panorama/World In Action type shows. Even then there are restrictions on what can be said because of libel laws

Also, despite all their resources the PJ weren't able to solve the case and ended up shelving it, and Scotland Yard haven't cracked it yet despite 2 years on the job. Why do you think that one episode of Panorama could? Remember that it's not TV's job to solve crimes - that's for the police. TV programmes can't hint that someone might be guilty of something, potentially defamation again

Had the BBC repeated the ST story, they would have been dicing with defamation had it turned out to be untrue. All Beeb journalists are trained not to to pass on press stories that might be libellous

News programmes deal with facts

Re the tendency in the written press to describe the PJ as bumbling, incompetent etc, I don't recall a single instance of a TV or radio news bulletin doing that

However, reporting the disappearance as an abduction is poor practice and should have been corrected straight away. As I say, broadcast news deals in facts

Also remember that everyone is assumed to be innocent until they have been through a court process, so insinuations aren't acceptable in a broadcast news programme

The problem with reporting issues about Amaral's book is that the media can't mention something that might itself be libellous because it could be a defamation in itself (ie promoting something that is libellous). And because the libel laws in Portugal are different from those in the UK, it could in theory not be libellous in PT but libellous here (because in Pt it has to be disproved by the claimants, here it's the other way round)

When something concrete happens, I can assure you that the TV and radio news teams will report it

Over The Hill

Posts : 82
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Sunday Times apology

Post by RIPM on 30.12.13 10:08

@Over The Hill wrote:Thanks for all your comments. Sorry some of you think I'm talking nonsense

The problem with quoting from the police interviews is that it wouldn't be relevant in the context of a TV news bulletin. News programmes on BBC, ITN and Sky don't tend to do investigations of their own - these are the domain of the Panorama/World In Action type shows. Even then there are restrictions on what can be said because of libel laws

Also, despite all their resources the PJ weren't able to solve the case and ended up shelving it, and Scotland Yard haven't cracked it yet despite 2 years on the job. Why do you think that one episode of Panorama could? Remember that it's not TV's job to solve crimes - that's for the police. TV programmes can't hint that someone might be guilty of something, potentially defamation again

Had the BBC repeated the ST story, they would have been dicing with defamation had it turned out to be untrue. All Beeb journalists are trained not to to pass on press stories that might be libellous

News programmes deal with facts

Re the tendency in the written press to describe the PJ as bumbling, incompetent etc, I don't recall a single instance of a TV or radio news bulletin doing that

However, reporting the disappearance as an abduction is poor practice and should have been corrected straight away. As I say, broadcast news deals in facts

Also remember that everyone is assumed to be innocent until they have been through a court process, so insinuations aren't acceptable in a broadcast news programme

The problem with reporting issues about Amaral's book is that the media can't mention something that might itself be libellous because it could be a defamation in itself (ie promoting something that is libellous). And because the libel laws in Portugal are different from those in the UK, it could in theory not be libellous in PT but libellous here (because in Pt it has to be disproved by the claimants, here it's the other way round)

When something concrete happens, I can assure you that the TV and radio news teams will report it
News programmes deal with facts.

Wrong, 90% of all news bulletins are pure speculation.,The BBC are particularly bad, whatever topic, one BBC lackey asks another, what do you think will be in the report to be published later?  "do you think the royal baby will be male or female? etc, etc.
 No facts whatsoever.
 How many times have the BBC told us the Portuguese investigation was flawed?  The BBC reported as a fact Mr Amaral said "fuck the McCanns",........and on and on and on.  So, no you do not assure me the tv and radio will report anything truthfully I remember Savile.

The whole circus started  with the BBC and the cover-up will continue with the BBC.

RIPM

Posts : 106
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by plebgate on 30.12.13 10:18

Mr. Amaral believed he could solve the case, but for some reason he was removed.  Did the British Prime Minister know of his removal even before he did?  Was that reported on any TV station?

The case was shelved, but could, for the cost of a stamp on a letter, have been re-opened at any time if the parents had wished.   Has this been reported on any TV station?

The TV stations could have sent a reporter to ask that sort of question of Mr. A. at any time but for some reason they have not done so.   Is that fair, unbiased reporting of the case.   Not imo.

Is it fair and unbiased when tv presenters openly call people who question the events of the night Maddie went missing nutters?  Not imo.

plebgate

Posts : 5440
Reputation : 1155
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Guest on 30.12.13 10:19

@Daisy wrote:Glad to see you back Portia, never did have you down as a quitter.


 friends 

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by jozi on 30.12.13 10:21

@Ashwarya wrote:
@Over The Hill wrote:
Contrary to what many posters believe, there are plenty of people in the news media who are interested in this case, but they have to treat it in the same professional manner as all other stories, ie only report facts and don't guess or speculate
I've been looking in on this forum for a few years, from both a personal and professional perspective, but it's impossible to develop the latter because there are so few facts

There is no conspiracy to cover anything up, and no conspiracy to report in a biased way
But if there are no facts, there is no story
News editors will tell you that when it comes down to it, the only fact is that a girl is missing

There are plenty of facts that the British media could have published, but haven't, and those of us who were intrigued by the inconsistencies in this case right from the start and have followed it with great attention since 2007 are well aware of most of them.  To give just a few:

The fact that the McCanns changed their statements to the Portuguese police between 4 May 2007 and 10 May 2007, not just in minor details but in significant ways.

The stories of jemmied shutters and a smashed front door which all their family and friends promoted until they were proved to be lies.

The court case in which the ban on Detective Amaral's book was lifted, even though the original ban is still referred to in the British press as though it was still in place.

The recent and ongoing libel trial which would have been of enormous interest to the British public if any journo had bothered to report on it.  As it is, those of us who are interested have to rely on the heroic efforts of a Portuguese lady who sat in the court and took notes.  We know we will only hear the judge's verdict in this country if it is favourable to the McCanns.

Mr Amaral himself is regularly referred to as a "disgraced, bumbling detective".  In fact he had a pretty good idea of what had happened in this case before he was summarily removed from his post.  In addition to that he is a fine man with a devout and unostentatious Catholic faith which guides his professional and personal life. He knows that the best he can do for Maddie now is to get justice for her.


I could go on and on, but we all know that very few articles see the light of day in the British media which haven't been pre-approved by Team McCann.  So I for one don't accept that the reporting in this country is professional and unbiased.  As far as I can see it is sycophantic, craven and lazy in the way this case is presented to the British public.

 goodpost 

jozi

Posts : 710
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2012-05-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by tiny on 30.12.13 10:26

@RIPM wrote:
@Over The Hill wrote:Thanks for all your comments. Sorry some of you think I'm talking nonsense

The problem with quoting from the police interviews is that it wouldn't be relevant in the context of a TV news bulletin. News programmes on BBC, ITN and Sky don't tend to do investigations of their own - these are the domain of the Panorama/World In Action type shows. Even then there are restrictions on what can be said because of libel laws

Also, despite all their resources the PJ weren't able to solve the case and ended up shelving it, and Scotland Yard haven't cracked it yet despite 2 years on the job. Why do you think that one episode of Panorama could? Remember that it's not TV's job to solve crimes - that's for the police. TV programmes can't hint that someone might be guilty of something, potentially defamation again

Had the BBC repeated the ST story, they would have been dicing with defamation had it turned out to be untrue. All Beeb journalists are trained not to to pass on press stories that might be libellous

News programmes deal with facts

Re the tendency in the written press to describe the PJ as bumbling, incompetent etc, I don't recall a single instance of a TV or radio news bulletin doing that

However, reporting the disappearance as an abduction is poor practice and should have been corrected straight away. As I say, broadcast news deals in facts

Also remember that everyone is assumed to be innocent until they have been through a court process, so insinuations aren't acceptable in a broadcast news programme

The problem with reporting issues about Amaral's book is that the media can't mention something that might itself be libellous because it could be a defamation in itself (ie promoting something that is libellous). And because the libel laws in Portugal are different from those in the UK, it could in theory not be libellous in PT but libellous here (because in Pt it has to be disproved by the claimants, here it's the other way round)

When something concrete happens, I can assure you that the TV and radio news teams will report it
News programmes deal with facts.

Wrong, 90% of all news bulletins are pure speculation.,The BBC are particularly bad, whatever topic, one BBC lackey asks another, what do you think will be in the report to be published later?  "do you think the royal baby will be male or female? etc, etc.
 No facts whatsoever.
 How many times have the BBC told us the Portuguese investigation was flawed?  The BBC reported as a fact Mr Amaral said "fuck the McCanns",........and on and on and on.  So, no you do not assure me the tv and radio will report anything truthfully I remember Savile.

The whole circus started  with the BBC and the cover-up will continue with the BBC.

exactly,well said RIPM

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 14 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 8 ... 14  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum