Re: Jenny Kleeman/Guardian Documentary Film on Madeleine McCann out soon

by Mark Willis 27.04.15 16:17

Verdi wrote:Mark Willis Today @ 2:28 pm

"I was a journalist for 12 years."

That explains a lot! Good to have another insider on board to tell it like it is.

Let's put it this way, a prerequisite for veracity was not in the job description! big grin

by Mark Willis 27.04.15 16:30

PeterMac wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:"Her film appears to be focusing on the fact that there is, as she says herself, ‘a huge community of doubters' – and I think the film intends to be about who those people are .................."
The film will NOT be about Madeleine, nor about the case, but will focus on the people who DOUBT the OFFICIAL 'line'."

A very good reason to stay well clear of it. As shall I.
TB's trial was NOTHING to do with Madeleine. It was about an obscure legal nicety involving breach of an undertaking.
Only by chance did Madeleine's alleged abduction get mentioned, 3 times incidentally, and only by chance and quick-wittedness was TB able to ask his killer question
and to force the hapless Mrs Martorell to admit, on the record, and under oath in the High Court of England that
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ABDUCTION.
(I bet Adam Tudor had a serious word with her afterwards. They could have avoided that embarrassment by using a different word, and the moment would have passed)

The trial against Dr Amaral is nothing to do with Madeleine.
It was allegedly about hurt feelings of the parents (For God's Sake !!)

And this film will be nothing to do with Madeleine.
Although she says she wants it to be balanced, it is extremely unlikely that the vicious and unlawful threats made against, for example, the late Brenda Leyland will be included
nor the foul language routinely used by some of those who unconditionally support the McCann's line - (whichever one that is on that day of course)

The problem will be that all she had to find is one person who makes one small factual error on the record, or says something they later realise might have been better worded, and the damage will be done.
The gibbering of the Tapas group will not be mentioned.
The changes of story by the McCanns and others will not be mentioned.

And if anyone tries to do so, the comments will be ruthless edited out.
She writes for the Grauniad ! Which tells you all you news to know about balance.

Spot on. One's remit with some publishers was the usual "publish and be damned", which translated as: "even if there isn't one single thing a person says that you can twist, well, just make up something attributively invidious, anyway; job done"

by aiyoyo 27.04.15 19:18

Mark Willis wrote:Spot on. One's remit with some publishers was the usual "publish and be damned", which translated as: "even if there isn't one single thing a person says that you can twist, well, just make up something attributively invidious, anyway; job done"

If she was given this assignment then yes, get it done any old how, just to get your boss off your back. But she wasn't given this, rather she initiates this, as in asked to do it.

by **PeterMac** 27.04.15 19:41

aiyoyo wrote:
If she was given this assignment then yes, get it done any old how, just to get your boss off your back. But she wasn't given this, rather she initiates this, as in asked to do it.

In which case it will be interesting to see if she goes ahead.
I have contacted her and have expressed some reservations about the remit of what she is doing.
If she is truly going to do a balanced piece, then one might be persuaded to contribute, but 'editorial privilege' is likely to emasculate any useful message.

by aiyoyo 27.04.15 20:26

PeterMac wrote:In which case it will be interesting to see if she goes ahead.
I have contacted her and have expressed some reservations about the remit of what she is doing.
If she is truly going to do a balanced piece, then one might be persuaded to contribute, but 'editorial privilege' is likely to emasculate any useful message.

She must have seen RH's videos if that is the catalyst for her film.
Did she reveal what her remit is ?

by Mark Willis 28.04.15 8:30

aiyoyo wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:Spot on. One's remit with some publishers was the usual "publish and be damned", which translated as: "even if there isn't one single thing a person says that you can twist, well, just make up something attributively invidious, anyway; job done"

If she was given this assignment then yes, get it done any old how, just to get your boss off your back. But she wasn't given this, rather she initiates this, as in asked to do it.

As far as we know, or to think.
I still smell a McRat.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.04.15 8:41

PeterMac wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:If she was given this assignment then yes, get it done any old how, just to get your boss off your back. But she wasn't given this, rather she initiates this, as in asked to do it.
In which case it will be interesting to see if she goes ahead.

I have contacted her and have expressed some reservations about the remit of what she is doing.

If she is truly going to do a balanced piece, then one might be persuaded to contribute, but 'editorial privilege' is likely to emasculate any useful message.

Just a reminder of Jenny Kleeman's original e-mail to Richard Hall, which was about mid-March, I think, and which is in the public domain as he reproduced it on screen at his talks:

QUOTE

I'm a freelance journalist. I'm making a film for the Guardian's website about the growing number of people who believe the mainstream media isn't asking the right questions about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Time and again, I've been referred to your documentaries on the subject, which I've found intriguing.

I read with interest that you have an new documentary coming out, as well as a forthcoming speaking tour.

I'd value the opportunity to interview you and see you in action at one of your talks in late March or early April.

Is there a telephone number I could reach you on to discuss this? Or an email address? I'm [e-mail address withheld] nd my website is
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Best wishes

Jenny Kleeman

UNQUOTE

If nothing else, Kleeman pays a 'rich' tribute to the popularity and success of 'The True Story of Madeleine McCann', which by now has had over one million views, still climbing, on YouTube alone, at well over 1,000 a day.

And 'Phantoms' has had around 20,000 views already in less than 2 weeks. Kleeman cannot now make this film without giving a 'plug' for Richard's documentaries

by Liz Eagles 28.04.15 8:48

Mark Willis wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:Spot on. One's remit with some publishers was the usual "publish and be damned", which translated as: "even if there isn't one single thing a person says that you can twist, well, just make up something attributively invidious, anyway; job done"

If she was given this assignment then yes, get it done any old how, just to get your boss off your back. But she wasn't given this, rather she initiates this, as in asked to do it.
As far as we know, or to think.
I still smell a McRat.

It's patently obvious that no-one in the mainstream media will do anything to upset the official line.

The story now is about 'trolls' and it's a nice little earner. It has nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance of course. It's a good marketing ploy. The trend in UK media is to evoke dissent/outrage/immediate opinion from scanning a half-arsed report with a provocative headline that bears a tenuous relationship with the actual content of the article and in the case of Madeleine's disappearance it's never going to stray from the official line.

It's all grist to the mill.

There isn't a story so the story is about trolls. Poulton's production (if it ever sees the light of day) will be no different.

Don't trust journalists.

by plebgate 28.04.15 8:55

I don't trust journalists but Tony has made a good point in that she cannot make this docu. without mentioning/giving a plug to R. Hall's vids.

by jeanmonroe 28.04.15 10:04

JK:

"Time and again, I've been referred to your documentaries (RH's) on the subject, which I've found intriguing."
---------------------------------------------------

Hmmmm.

CMOMM, 'evolved' from other 'sites', has been 'intrigued' by the CMOMM for 8 (EIGHT) YEARS!

Me, personally, from the very 'first reactions', by McCann's AND 'family/friends' in UK...................'jemmied, SMASHED, forced, broken' shutter.

Which the OC manager, and PJ, 'dismissed' within MINUTES of 'inspection'!

Now, WHY would the McCann's have LIED about 'that'?

I'm 'intrigued' to see if JK WILL 'go out on a limb' and actually ask 'proper' questions 'on the subject'!

The 'subject', presumeably, being the 'disappearance' of a 3 years old child, without a scintilla of 'evidence' of 'abduction', as stated by the child's own parents.

And every MSM 'outlet'............since.

Jonny come lately?

Jenny come lately?
----------------------------------------------------------------
" Err in my opinion, you know, IF this was, IF there WAS any foul play bestowed on THEM" (McCanns)

RUSSELL JAMES O'BRIEN, (holiday 'friend' of McCann's) SIGNED rogatory interview STATEMENT 08/04/2008

"............you know because again this is something that we've talked about, you know, IF she (Madeleine) 'was abducted' you know, sorry...."

DAVID PAYNE, (holiday 'friend' of McCann's) SIGNED rogatory interview STATEMENT 11/04/2008

by aiyoyo 28.04.15 10:59

Mark Willis wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:Spot on. One's remit with some publishers was the usual "publish and be damned", which translated as: "even if there isn't one single thing a person says that you can twist, well, just make up something attributively invidious, anyway; job done"

If she was given this assignment then yes, get it done any old how, just to get your boss off your back. But she wasn't given this, rather she initiates this, as in asked to do it.
As far as we know, or to think.
I still smell a McRat.

The probability of a balanced piece or otherwise will depend on what the remit is.
It depends also if editorial censorship/emasculation is going to leave it devoid of any useful message.
She is a freelance journalist. so probably not subject to the same rules as full time staff of having to observe internal policies / official line.

It's predictable she will not produce a piece slanted against the odious pair having to be mindful of the litigatious pair. However, she will have to plug RH's videos if she's going to use data from there.

You'd think freelancer has more control over their work. If she does not like the piece post editorial emasculation she can always not release it.

by aiyoyo 28.04.15 11:27

Richard D. Hall wrote:

At the Nottingham lecture where Kleeman showed up outside with a cameraman, I was the last person out of the building because I take down the set and the stall and load it into the van when everyone has gone. When I drove out of the venue she was still at the entrance with the cameraman making it clear she wanted me on camera - after refusing to agree to my terms.

In that case, you can make it known to her in advance --- that in the event should you find her showing footage of you and/or using your materials in the wrong way and/or for all the wrong reasons, you won't take kindly to her action, since she has neither sought your permission nor have you granted it.

That probably won't stop her (from anything).... but she can't deny she hasn't been cautioned.

by Guest 28.04.15 12:32

If an advertising agency is contracted to up Tescos profile by publicizing their new range of bio fruit 'n veg, they aint going to be over impressed if said agency deliver a promo for tins of home brew baked beans are they?

Even freelance professionals have a contractual obligation, otherwise there would be total anarchy. The reason maybe so many people who have something to shout about use the internet as their primary source of communication.

by aiyoyo 28.04.15 14:25

Verdi wrote:If an advertising agency is contracted to up Tescos profile by publicizing their new range of bio fruit 'n veg, they aint going to be over impressed if said agency deliver a promo for tins of home brew baked beans are they?

Even freelance professionals have a contractual obligation, otherwise there would be total anarchy. The reason maybe so many people who have something to shout about use the internet as their primary source of communication.

Not saying freelancers don't have obligations to produce to standard, but not contractual, hence not subjected or obliged to toe the company line as full time staff would.
The final production has to be fit for purpose but they will have more bargaining leverage when it comes to decision making - to reject or to accept for it to be broadcast. They are not tasked to do the job, nor obliged to produce it by deadline, nor obliged to accept edited product after editorial privilege has been exercised. Rather freelancers sought the job and get paid piece meal basis I'd imagine. Say, if the post-edit product leaves it emasculated or bereft of the value that is missing the point of her work she can always withdraw it from broadcast.

The analogy you used is not comparable. Advertising agency contracted to supermarkets have contractual terms that they cannot breach or they will be fired. Contracted agency is akin to contracted worker. Free-lance, as the word implies is a free agent, not contracted, but ad hoc. Neither side is obliged to trade if they don't wish to. The company is free to buy or not buy her work, and equally free lancer is free to sell or not sell her work.

That said, I am apprehensive she will get much of a free hand in this matter, given the MSM track records where coverage of the McCanns case is concerned. Bear in mind that the probability of a balanced piece is also subjective, subject to her take on things, and what she terms as balanced.

by Guest 28.04.15 19:53

aiyoyo today @ 3:25 pm

I fully understand the meaning of freelance, as I know how it will differ from one profession/trade/job to another. I would have thought where there is reputation at stake, such as the press, a working agreement (contract) would apply. Still I've never worked in journalism so what do I know.

Thanks for putting me right although I can't really get my head around what you're saying. I'm probably juggling between expectations from a normal freelance journalist and one that is encroaching on McCann spin territory. The McCanns seem to be the exception to every rule.

by plebgate 03.05.15 7:33

Jenny should include this report from Brunty IMO

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **PeterMac** 03.05.15 7:47

It might be worth collecting all Brunt's statements in one place - unless it has already been done
100% DNA
Kate to be arrested tomorrow
Blue bag

I guess that together they form a fairly convincing prosecution case.

by plebgate 03.05.15 7:51

Yes that's a good idea PeterM.

I would like to see the 80 paces comment on the scrolling banner.

by plebgate 03.05.15 8:31

Jenny apparently wants to know why there are doubters.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Read this Jenny as well as the blue bag/80 paces Brunty's reports mentioned in the above posts.

I don't believe Jenny needs to ask for volunteers as to why they question when there is so much info. in black and white.

by aiyoyo 03.05.15 8:43

PeterMac wrote:It might be worth collecting all Brunt's statements in one place - unless it has already been done
100% DNA
Kate to be arrested tomorrow
Blue bag

I guess that together they form a fairly convincing prosecution case.

Another ones -
Broken neck - fine mist spray of blood on wall behind sofa
Tracheostomy performed

by **Richard D. Hall** 03.05.15 11:55

Just to clear up one point made about Kleeman being a freelance. I would dispute this. In my emails to her it became apparent that she does not edit the film. When I gave her my conditions of taking part she had to ask the editors at the Guardian whether they could agree to my conditions. As far as I could gather she is not making the film, she is merely collecting video interviews which will be handed to somebody else. I asked her to provide me with programme proposal documentation which she is bound to have, also I asked to see her contract for this project and treatments etc. They provided none of them. People such as Kleeman are not really freelance journalists, they are puppets.

by **Richard D. Hall** 03.05.15 12:06

I can put my hand on my heart and state that I am freelance. I make films, THEN I try to get them onto television or other platforms. Not the other way around. I do not talk with TV companies BEFORE I make them. I have tried to get the Madeleine documentaries broadcast on television several times. I tried again recently. A number of my other programmes have also been knocked back. Here is a reply I received from chief executive of a TV channel on 29th April.

Richard… you’ll have seen yesterday’s news re the MCann’s victory in the libel case they brought against the Portuguese detective.

I hadn’t yet got around to looking at the case for transmitting your revised/updated programme(s?) on this case…. But the court victory does of course put a new slant on things. ...
The McCanns are clearly so vindictive that they wouldn’t hesitate to react to a broadcast programme.. We just couldn’t take the chance, as we, as the broadcaster, would be the first in the frame if they chose to go after the broadcast.

I respect your wish to see it broadcast, and I felt that (in the first programme) you definitely raise some issues which need to be questioned. There’s something very fishy about the McCanns.

by **Richard D. Hall** 03.05.15 12:10

So the TV company is saying it has not even watched the programme that it is refusing to broadcast. It doesn't need to watch the programme, it is rejecting the film purely on the basis that the McCanns are "so vindictive". So much for freedom of speech.

by Guest 03.05.15 12:36

Richard D. Hall wrote:So the TV company is saying it has not even watched the programme that it is refusing to broadcast. It doesn't need to watch the programme, it is rejecting the film purely on the basis that the McCanns are "so vindictive". So much for freedom of speech.

Thanks that's very interesting, though not surprising. Also confirms my comment up-thread about professional reputation, which appears to be far more important to MSM than truth!

Keep up the excellent work, don't let the bleeeep grind you down.

by aiyoyo 03.05.15 23:12

Richard D. Hall wrote:So the TV company is saying it has not even watched the programme that it is refusing to broadcast. It doesn't need to watch the programme, it is rejecting the film purely on the basis that the McCanns are "so vindictive". So much for freedom of speech.

It did watch the first programme, says so in the message.

It's pretty darn appalling that their mindfulness against C-R is done at the expense of freedom of speech. At least there's a couple of nuggets of their view on the McCanns.
Maybe timing is not yet right.
When OG is closed to futile result, and the dust has settled on the libel case, maybe that's the time.

I dread to think how bad JK's film is going to be.

by snook 04.05.15 5:18

In the current climate no true version of the Mccann debacle will ever see the light of day. Richard has proved the point eloquently together with documented proof that MSM broadcasters would not touch a true version with a barge pole. Even if Kleeman were making the documentary completely independent of a backer she would nor be doing it for love of the subject. She wants paying and will not produce anything she can't sell to those who already provide her bread and butter.

by Bishop Brennan 04.05.15 5:55

I anticipate that the JK documentary will be a televised version of parts of the Summers and Swan book. Its targets and approach are easy to predict as they are laid out in the S&S book:

1. To discredit, by association with a small number of crazed tweets, all supporters of Amaral and those who question the abduction theory. This process is well underway in the national UK media.

2. To barely mention, except to pour scorn upon, the dog's evidence - ridiculing it as the key to the case against the McCanns

It is likely that the documentary forms another part of the whitewash - a TV version was needed because the S&S book - 'the authorized and official version of the Maddie case' - turned out to be such a commercial flop. We can therefore anticipate a tone and content that fits with the ongoing whitewash narrative.

by Sceptic 04.05.15 7:57

I'm sorry but I find it extremely hard to believe these are the words of a tv company chief executive unless he delegated it to the janitor to write the reply -

Here is a reply I received from chief executive of a TV channel on 29th April.

Richard… you’ll have seen yesterday’s news re the MCann’s victory in the libel case they brought against the Portuguese detective.

I hadn’t yet got around to looking at the case for transmitting your revised/updated programme(s?) on this case…. But the court victory does of course put a new slant on things. ...
The McCanns are clearly so vindictive that they wouldn’t hesitate to react to a broadcast programme.. We just couldn’t take the chance, as we, as the broadcaster, would be the first in the frame if they chose to go after the broadcast.

I respect your wish to see it broadcast, and I felt that (in the first programme) you definitely raise some issues which need to be questioned. There’s something very fishy about the McCanns.[/quote]

by notlongnow 04.05.15 11:54

Bishop Brennan wrote:I anticipate that the JK documentary will be a televised version of parts of the Summers and Swan book. Its targets and approach are easy to predict as they are laid out in the S&S book:

1. To discredit, by association with a small number of crazed tweets, all supporters of Amaral and those who question the abduction theory. This process is well underway in the national UK media.

2. To barely mention, except to pour scorn upon, the dog's evidence - ridiculing it as the key to the case against the McCanns

It is likely that the documentary forms another part of the whitewash - a TV version was needed because the S&S book - 'the authorized and official version of the Maddie case' - turned out to be such a commercial flop. We can therefore anticipate a tone and content that fits with the ongoing whitewash narrative.

Indeed,it all feels as if they are getting ready for the final act,no doubt with one last visit to PDL in the summer.
Sadly,the curtains will not quite shut at the end of the play,it will keep simmering on for years.

by Guest 04.05.15 12:05

Sceptic wrote: I'm sorry but I find it extremely hard to believe these are the words of a tv company chief executive unless he delegated it to the janitor to write the reply -

Here is a reply I received from chief executive of a TV channel on 29th April.

Richard… you’ll have seen yesterday’s news re the MCann’s victory in the libel case they brought against the Portuguese detective.

I hadn’t yet got around to looking at the case for transmitting your revised/updated programme(s?) on this case…. But the court victory does of course put a new slant on things. ...
The McCanns are clearly so vindictive that they wouldn’t hesitate to react to a broadcast programme.. We just couldn’t take the chance, as we, as the broadcaster, would be the first in the frame if they chose to go after the broadcast.

I respect your wish to see it broadcast, and I felt that (in the first programme) you definitely raise some issues which need to be questioned. There’s something very fishy about the McCanns.

Depends on what TV company? Talking of Chief Execs, have you read any Jim Gamble tweets lately?