McCanns and the Media: the debate

McCanns and the Media: the debate

The first ever debate about the media and the McCanns at Polis brought out some heated and painful issues. McCann family spokesperson Clarence Mitchell and former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie represented competing perspectives on a story that has gripped and disturbed the world for nine months.

Here are some of the points made that I felt represent how seminal this story has been (in no particular order):

• The British public now don’t trust you if you have a public relations advisor
  
• The British public don’t trust the media so they go to Internet forums to express their views on the case
  
• 24 hour news has eradicated all the traditional caution over sourcing stories
  
• Turning subjects in to celebrities now allows the public to suspend the usual sympathy for an invididual
  

Now here are some of the factors discussed that make this case so exceptional:

• The fact that they were middle-class encouraged hostility
  
• The fact the Portugese police did no press work mean a vacuum was created
  
• This is a narrative without an end so it allows endless speculation
  
• There is now a vicious cycle with Portugese and British media recycling stories without references, sources or facts
  

Now some quotes from our speakers.

Kelvin MacKenzie:
“This is beyond Lord Lucan, beyond Diana, beyond Shergar…if this was a single black mother then it would not have been the same story…the public is obsessed so newspapers make a commercial judgement, they know that putting Madeleine on the front page increases circulation by about 3%, it did so from day one and it still does. People who criticise the papers ought to think about that and ask themselves if they get their money out when they see a billboard with the McCanns name on it…It’s a class war issue. Ordinary people don’t associate public relations with the truth, though I think hiring Clarence was a great idea and I believe what he says. What is so unusual and incredible about this story is that they are the main suspects and so when we write about it we are saying ‘they may be the killers’.”

Clarence Mitchell made a stout defence of the McCanns’ innocence and was clear about the money spent on promoting their cause. He thanked the media for the support they had given in publicising the campaign to find Madeliene but critcised the ‘sloppiness and laziness’ of much journalism driven by ‘a commercial imperitive’ which recycled stories ‘entirely founded on misinformation, mostly wrong”.

David Mills who produced a Panorama on the McCanns which he subsequently disowned felt that the British media had failed to address the real sotry which was the failure in police procedure and forensics in Portugal and the UK.

Former McCann public relations advisor Justine McGuinness felt that the way that Madeleine had been turned in to a celebrity by the media (although surely the PR had a role?) meant that the public felt she could be treated with the same callousness afforded to a Big Brother contestent – hence of the appalling vitriol and unsubstantiated rumour on some internet forums: “A missing child has been turned in ot a celebrity which gives the public the excuse to disconnect from human feelings because she has become a household name”.
Former Mirror editor, now media commentator Roy Greenslade cited his own mother as an example of how the public still want to ‘blame’ the McCanns but he reserved his ire for the media. He sketched out how the media coverage went through four phases: sympathy (Overdone), scepticism (a sensible attitude), suspicion (based on nothing) and finally commercial cynicism. So the Express can print a headline, he said, that says “McCanns Split Over Maddie” which turned out to be simply a story that Gerry was going back to work while Kate was not. Greenslade said that the media has encouraged people to believe the worst about them and so it has now got to a point where people don’t care about defamation – all reporting is at the level of gossip.

Roger Graef, who produced a film for Channel 4 about the McCanns said he found himself in demand by the international media. And yet the only thing he had to say was that there was nothing to say. There was one fact: that Madeleine was gone. And yet he found himself endlessly interviewed about how there was nothing to say. The fact that so many people now inhabit imaginary worlds of conspiracy around this story, he said, was partly because ‘we cannot bear a narrative that has no end.”

That is, of course, most true for the parents themselves. They dared to try to use the media (on advice from experts said Justine McGuinness) and that decision and the media came back to haunt them and to hunt them down. The media initially swamped them with support and then finally drowned them in bile. The media suspended its critical faculties when it first joined a campaign to find a beautiful white middle class girl and it never recovered its judgement in the rush to judgement and in the daily stampede for front page fodder. The Internet provided an outlet for huge waves of sympathy for the McCanns – it also provided a forum for legitimate debate and commentary – but it was also the dark place that some very sad souls chose to huddle together, sharing their sick fantasies and reaffirming each other’s sad obsessions. A few of those odd people turned up at our debate demanding action against the McCanns and an end to ‘spin’. But as Kelvin pointed out they represent a big part of the public who don’t seem to trust anyone anymore. I am not sure if that’s the media’s fault, but it sure ain’t doing a lot to correct it.

Our debate chairman Steve Hewlett has written a very good article on this for the Guardian which stresses the doubtful benefits of PR in cases like this. And Tim Black from Spiked has also written a report on the debate here.

Much more on this debate when my interns report back in – the podcast will be up when the LSE techies have done their thing. In due course, Polis will be publishing a paper on this issue. It’s not a nice subject but I am convinced that it speaks volumes about the state of our media and the society that consumes it.

Thanks to the Media Society for their partnership on this event.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/polis/2008/01/30/mccanns-and-the-media-the-debate/

------------

And some comments:

[list=commentlist]
[*]

[*]lynnkx January 31, 2008 at 7:02 pm - Reply
I note that the perceived hostility from the public towards the McCanns is judged to be caused by bigotry on the part of the lower classes..
That is just too discriminatory for me to comment other than to say that anybody who thinks this could even have a grain of truth in it does not understand the ‘normal’ people in the UK at all imho.
The general public are aware of the circumstances surrounding this issue and are aware of what the word ‘suspect’ means when it is applied by a policeman to an individual personally.
What a shame that the clever people in the UK do not understand as much as they think they do.
The problem with the public’s non-existant trust in the media is maybe caused by the condecending patronising superiorty pouring from the mouths of the media in tsunami style and daily all over the ‘nice-but-dim’ public??
[*]
Loz January 31, 2008 at 7:36 pm - Reply
I’m far from being a ‘sad soul’ but the reason I was driven to the various fora on the internet was the lack of honest, un-biased reporting from the British media.
Where is the discussion about child neglect? It’s not a case of ‘there for the grace of God go I’ as I’ve never left my young children to fend for themselves anytime, anywhere – let alone in an unfamiliar apartment in a holiday resort.
And why does the media find it so convenient to ‘forget’ that Kate and Gerry McCann are official arguidos (suspects) in the disappearance of their daughter?
Why does the media continually undermine the difficult work carried out by the Portuguese police?
Personally, there’s no entertainment to be had from the fact that Madeleine McCann is missing, but I, like many others, do seek justice for her.
[*]
Richard January 31, 2008 at 11:18 pm - Reply
Charlie says @ 12:05
“Possibly the most important thing to come out of the debate is confirmation of something I have suspected for some time.
The British Public no longer believe the Media.”
no, don’t be so patronising, they do not believe the McCann’s or their shifting sand stories.
If this was a UK crime the British public would be their peers in court , then what ?
This is not a theoretical debate , or film, something happened and for the collective good the truth is required .
The explicit racism in the implied comments about the Portuguese Police is disgraceful ,I never thought I would write this , but my country is becoming smaller , long memories in continental Europe will hold this against us .
[*]
Eric Smith February 1, 2008 at 3:25 am - Reply
“I simply pointed out that some people who have gone online are vicious and unhinged.”
Ironically making a wild statement like that without stating what behaviour you are referring to is little more than foaming at the mouth.
Please tell us what opinions you observed being expressed that lead you to believe the commentators were vicious and unhinged ?
There are unquestionably class differences here. The broadheet position is that the chief suspects are controlled professionals who show their emotions in private. This despite the obvious fact that both of them are from very working class backgrounds and Dr McCann’s behaviour on camera suggests that he has a very quick temper.
My position on this generally is either that broadsheet journalists are being told what to write (no I don’t believe they have independence) or the education system has been dumbed down to a very dangerous level. There is a mountains of substantiated (by the McCann team) evidence against the suspects. Whether it is valid or not will be determined later but the constant mantra that we don’t know what happened is beyond credibility. The criticism of the Portuguese poice is in my opinion simple racism.
[*]
Maggie22 February 1, 2008 at 6:42 am - Reply
This isn’t a class war Charlie this is fear!! Nice normal parents out in the real world don’t want a bogeyman to have stolen maddie! they would prefer the parents to be responsible because then they can feel safe.And for most it is a better option than maddie being in the hands of a monster.
Having said that the press reporting on this case has been abysmal. The P.R. has been chronic! Clarence mitchell says he believes what he is paid to tell us. And he tells us adnausium but doesn’t even get his own story straight! I don’t think I can remember a time when even the P.R. man has changed his story as often as clarence has. I read the web sites but don’t contribute. As far as I can see [in the main] the people who write on them never say anything derogatory about the child and most only criticise the parents because they don’t feel they tell a straight true story consistently. The only consistent thing is there inability to respond appropriately to the charge that they neglected three babies! I don’t think they should have to parade their grief but they could have come clean and warned other people not to do such a stupid thing and been a bit more abject about there responsibility. Telling us that what he did was ‘within the realms of responsible parenting’ wont help gerry get respect. This might have gone some way to keeping public sympathy! In the end only the pj know whether they have enough to charge the parents, the rest is speculation and red top canonisation wont change that. I think they have been remarkably lucky in the coverage that they have had so far! the public who don’t have computers don’t know most of the story anyway and certainly most of them stopped caring that much anyway!
I think there are far fewer saddos on web sites than you think! A lot of the sadder stuff seemed to me to be the same few under different names!
[*]
Eric Smith February 1, 2008 at 11:36 am - Reply
I listened to as much of the podcast as I could bear. It is truly incredible that a discussion is taking place about standards in the British media including people like Clarence Mitchell and Kelvin McKenzie. This case has shown beyond all reasonable doubt that there are no standards and it beggars belief that a journalist has the audacity to criticise members of the public for their behaviour. Don’t they realise the incredibly low status they have ? McKenzie is is a grubby little creature carrying a pitchfork straight from Dante’s Inferno and what he does henceforth will never redeem him.
Every single one of these media figures chooses to ignore the fact that head of the police investigation said he believed the McCanns were guilty. How many other criminal suspects get 100% support from the media ?
How many journalists have questioned the role of Clarence Mitchell. Just how big does the elephant in the room have to be before someone writes about it ? He is apparently employed by a double glazing company because he so passionately believed in the McCanns’ innocence, he left his high profile government job to reopresent them. Apart from being silly, it would also imply he had integrity which is utterly incredible.
I have no hesitation in saying I believe they are almost certainly guilty and that the whole media circus has been orchestrated by her majesty’s government and continues to be so.
[*]
Christopher Mooney February 1, 2008 at 11:58 am - Reply
If you actually try reading forums, rather than just put your own personal slant on them, you’ll find that 80% of the people on their actually think the Mcann’s are guilty – or at the bare minumum – think that they are controlling the tabloid press to portray innocence. This seems quite obvious to me.
People don’t trust the press, because it can be easily bought. It is in no way independent, poltically or commercially.
When i’m reading “Murat’s girlfriend seen with blonde child”, it seems quite obvious that this is mud-slinging and PR, from team Mcann. The source and reasons for doing it are quite obvious.
I do find it quite worrying that a reasoned debate on the story, seems to have not even discussed the Mcanns disasterous PR campaign.
[*]
Christopher Mooney February 1, 2008 at 12:03 pm - Reply
“I understand why clarence Mitchell is supporting the McCanns. Its his job and I believe him when he says that he believes them. But the others were so biased. This wasn’t exactly a balanced panel of experts was it?”
He is being paid hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to believe them. I doubt he was even there to debate. Just create a few “innocent” quotes/soundbites, to put in the next days Sun.
If you actually read it, it went on something like “POLICE THINK MCANNS ARE INNOCENT” says Clarence Mitchell, in small print.
If you don’t think this entire debate and subsequent story wasn’t just part of the whole campaign, then you should really wake up.
[*]
CharlieBeckett February 1, 2008 at 12:18 pm - Reply
This is to Christopher but applies more generally:
Thanks for your comment. You say “I do find it quite worrying that a reasoned debate on the story, seems to have not even discussed the Mcanns disastrous PR campaign.”
I don’t know if you were at the event or have actually read my post (and the linked articles) but the McCanns’ PR campaign was about 80% of the debate. In other words the opposite of what you say.
I have read a lot of the forums and I am aware that much of the commentary there is critical of the McCanns. Again, if you had been at the debate or read my article that was very much what was said.
Like many of the comments on this post people don’t seem to be either reading what was written or listening to what was said at the debate.
[*]
peccavi February 1, 2008 at 12:52 pm - Reply
1. The debate featured the paid spokesman of the chief suspects in a criminal investigation.
2. The mainstream TV and newspapers in the UK have persistently reported the views of the suspects and their paid spokesman with very little independent thought or criticism.
3. Newspaper forums and comments sections are observed to be heavily censored. There appears to be an orchestrated campaign by supporters of the suspects to disrupt these public forums.
4. Those who beg to differ with the version of events propagated by the suspects and their entourage are stereotyped as Sun-reading thickos and internet cranks.
Mr Beckett, which of the above statements do you not understand? Which are not relevant to the debate? Which do you disagree with?
Mr Beckett, do you see the elephant in the room yet?
[*]
Eric Smith February 1, 2008 at 12:59 pm - Reply
Charlie I have read you article and am aware that it has changed at least twice to my knowledge. But this phrase remains “it was also the dark place that some very sad souls chose to huddle together, sharing their sick fantasies and reaffirming each other’s sad obsessions”.
I have frequented the mirror forum since September (I am interested in Clarence Mitchell’s involvement) and I am not aware of many instances where individuals disgraced themselves to the degree that Clarence Mitchell, Roy Greenslade or Kelvin McKenzie have on a daily basis. They are human beings entirely without merit or credibility of any kind. You cannot edit the Mirror or the Sun then return to the human race as if nothing had happened. You cannot tell the world the Mccanns are innocent when you haven’t a clue whether they are or not and expect to be anything but a figure of ridicule.
I stopped reading the Guardian around fifteen years ago because it became (I exaggerate somewhat) a middle class version of the Sun or a left wing version of the Times, whichever you prefer. You can sum up the integrity of the British political and journalistic classes in two words, “Rupert Murdoch”.
[*]
marisa February 13, 2008 at 10:39 pm - Reply
The Mirror Forum on the hunt for Madeleine McCann has been the best thing since sliced bread! It was raw, real, very informative and enlightening. It was pulled because it touched too many nerves. There was(is) a collective gut reaction to Jekyl ‘n’ Hyde and their ‘gang’ for how they treated their children on a supposed family holiday, and their declaration that this is what British families do. However, their comments, their behaviour, their manipulation of the gullible public have left no doubts in the minds of the majority of people that the guilt is very close to home.
[*]
Charlie Beckett, POLIS Director » Blog Archive » Will the media drop the McCanns? August 5, 2008 at 8:54 pm - Reply
[…] POLIS, journalism and society think tank, is a joint initiative from LSE and The London College of Communication. « McCanns and the Media: the debate Bill Gates guns for Google: Microsoft bid for Yahoo! » […]
[*]
Charlie Beckett, POLIS Director » Blog Archive » McCanns victory over Express: triumph for truth? August 6, 2008 at 8:04 pm - Reply
[…] The £550,000 defamation pay-out and humiliating front-page apologies by Express Newspapers over their coverage of the McCanns could be the moment when the tide turns against recent tabloid excesses. Polis was the first organisation to stage a public debate about media treatment of the McCanns. It raised a series of difficult issues, but the overwealming impression it left was that most of the media had gone a bit mad over this story while a minority had lost all their editorial senses. I wrote that this was not about the guilt or innocence of the McCanns. It was much more about how a combination of their public relations campaign, the Internet, the Portuguese press and a loss of UK media inhibition had combined to ‘commodify’ a tragic human story. Vast amounts of innuendo and tenuous rumour was printed (and broadcast) without fact-checking or proper contextualisation. […]
[*]
Charlie Beckett, POLIS Director » Blog Archive » Can You Trust The Media? by Adrian Monck (Book review) August 10, 2008 at 12:30 pm - Reply
[…] High-minded media commentators tend to assume that there is a ‘crisis’ of trust. This is because there are frequent surveys where the public tells pollsters or academics that they don’t believe what journalists tell them. There is also plenty of evidence from the Hitler Diaries to the McCanns that mainstream journalists often tell lies. […]
[*]
kitty September 21, 2008 at 12:23 pm - Reply
I believe in ‘live and let live’ and in ‘the freedom of speech’ but this arguament is weighted towards the McCann’s. In an effor to keep their missing child in the media they place themselves in the limelight. I never buy newspapers or magazines and yet I was swamped recently by emails from the McCann camp asking for my support by sending copies of the said email to everyone in my mailbox. This breaks a position of trust and dare I say it, along with the other SPAM recieved, turning the innocent child into a comodity along side other sales – and we all know what they are…
In keeping out the debate, thus far, I have reserved judgement but I now sway against the McCanns – they neglected and did not miss the children when they were enjoying a meal out with friends. Now they cry in public and blame the police – my message is, and will not come a surprise to anyone, the Police are not paid to babysit.
[*]
Kate Hughes October 22, 2008 at 9:26 pm - Reply
Charlie? your spot on when saying “but it was also the dark place that some very sad souls chose to huddle together, sharing their sick fantasies and reaffirming each other’s sad obsessions. The other one that dosesn’t wash with me is “If this was a single mother.” God Forbid that were to have been the case, the poor woman would have less of a say than the McCann’s. Makes me think of Leonra Cipriano. Little Joana has not been found. What we have to take into account is that people suffer from certain disorders and don’t think with a clear mind, this could be contribute to it. I’m not having a go at anyone who has such an illness. I’m more of the opinion of “There for the Grace of God go I.” K.H.
[*]
Charlie Beckett, POLIS Director » Blog Archive » Digital Mob Rules OK? Baby P and the Internet August 11, 2009 at 11:27 am - Reply
[…] saw in the Madeleine McCann case how a sizable section of public opinion was ignored by the mainstream media. It then goes […]

[/list]