Meyer and Greenslade on the McCanns and PCC

Listen at 3.30 into video....................

[youtube][/youtube]

Thanks for posting.



I'd never seen that before.



How very, very strange. It's like the three of them are supposedly there to answer harsh questions and debate - but the underlying purpose is to send out the message



THE MCCANNS ARE INNOCENT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY HARMED THEIR DAUGHTER.

Hope this isn't too off topic but I've just watched an ITV programme from 2009 which, to my mind, also conveys the impression that the McCanns are innocent with no doubts whatsoever.



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



There are various examples of people who have pleaded for the return of a missing person, only to have been the one responsible all along. The impression I get is that the McCanns are the exception to every rule and are as pure as the driven snow.



I do accept of course that other people's guilt does not mean that anyone else is automatically guilty too.

It's amazing isn't it?



One wonders if all of these effing idiots have all been nobbled? The way that Karen Mathews holds Karen's teddy bear is inspirted by Kate McCann but completely different from Kate, who holds hers for comfort [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

candyfloss

Many thanks for the video.

They wanted the publicity - Meyer says this - but how did they manage to get The Express over a barrel.


AN. Why couldn't the PCC, you, stop some British Newspapers from implying, almost claiming that the McCanns had killed their daughter when there was not an iota of evidence to show that it was true.........

M. The PCC was there all the time. 48 hours after madeleine disappeared we said to the parents through the British embassy in Washington, that we were here to help. This is what we can do to help you if you so wish. We cannot be more Catholic than the Pope, more royalist than the King.

AN. You didn't stop it ?

M. We didn't stop it because they didn't want us to stop it because at that time, and don't forget this Andrew, they were very busy..... stimulating publicity to try and find their daughter.

Right at the end Meyer (hold my nose) said .." No, you cannot trump the wishes of the parents..." I take it that the McCanns wanted all the publicity - go or bad.

M. The PCC was there all the time. 48 hours after madeleine disappeared we said to the parents through the British embassy in Washington, that we were here to help. This is what we can do to help you if you so wish. We cannot be more Catholic than the Pope, more royalist than the King.

Angelique



Thanks for typing that out. When I played this vid just now (thanks candyfloss) this bit stood out to me.



Every single thing that he says there is weird.



Why did they speak through the British embassy in Washington? Why not in Portugal?



And what on earth - what on earth could the McCanns possibly have to complain about during the first two days of the story breaking? There was blanket coverage of the poor little girl who had been taken from her bed by an abductor and not one single reporter criticised them for leaving their young children alone.



Stranger and stranger this case gets.

Angelique wrote:candyfloss

Many thanks for the video.

They wanted the publicity - Meyer says this - but how did they manage to get The Express over a barrel.


AN. Why couldn't the PCC, you, stop some British Newspapers from implying, almost claiming that the McCanns had killed their daughter when there was not an iota of evidence to show that it was true.........

M. The PCC was there all the time. 48 hours after madeleine disappeared we said to the parents through the British embassy in Washington, that we were here to help. This is what we can do to help you if you so wish. We cannot be more Catholic than the Pope, more royalist than the King.

AN. You didn't stop it ?

M. We didn't stop it because they didn't want us to stop it because at that time, and don't forget this Andrew, they were very busy..... stimulating publicity to try and find their daughter.

Right at the end Meyer (hold my nose) said .." No, you cannot trump the wishes of the parents..." I take it that the McCanns wanted all the publicity - go or bad.

Thank you Angelique, that was the point I was trying to make. It seems they didn't want the PCC to intervene, and yet they then sue the Express!

The Daily Politics Show

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

Andrew Neil and Jo Coburn are joined by Sir Christopher Meyer and Roy Greenslade to discuss press regulation.

Thursday 02 April 2009
Transcript by Nigel Moore

Transcript

Jo Coburn: Now, with recent cases, such as the furore over the coverage of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann; Do we need a tighter rein on the newspaper industry?

The way the press is regulated has come in for criticism - not least from the Media Standards Trust, which is made up of current and former journalists. It recently said that the current system of self regulation - run by the Press Complaints Commission - is unsatisfactory.

Well, our guest today is the outgoing chairman of that commission and we'll hear from Sir Christopher Meyer in just a moment. But first Ann Alexander's been looking at the issues.

(video report...)

Andrew Neil: Ann Alexander reporting. Joining us now, Roy Greenslade, professor of journalism at the City of London University and a former editor of the Daily Mirror. Christopher Meyer, obviously former chairman - just stepped down, indeed - from the PCC. Set out your stall, Roy. Why is the PCC inadequate in regulating the press?

Roy Greenslade: I think there are a number of reasons. First of all it's opaque, it does lots of behind-the-scenes deals with editors, in a sense that it tries to resolve things rather than adjudicate. So my slogan is 'adjudicate, adjudicate, adjudicate'.

AN: Yes, right or wrong?

RG: Yeah, right or wrong...

AN: Make a decision...

RG: Look, listen to this: There were 4,698 complaints last year; only 45 adjudications. A very tiny fraction. And you've got to add on to that the fact that many of those adjudications were for relatively straightforward breaches but really complex matters are not there.

The other problem is they're not proactive enough. They don't say 'Oh, look, they're mistreating the press, asylum seekers - let's get and deal with that; they're mistreating the McCann's - let's get and deal with that; they're mistreating Robert Murat - we must do something about that. It always comes late to the party. So: Opaque; not proactive enough; doesn't adjudicate enough.

AN: '15 - Love' to Greenslade, Meyer to serve.

Sir Christopher Meyer: Let me give a very diplomatic response to Roy on those points and we've debated this a great deal - a load of cobblers, what he's just said. Now where do I begin?

RG: No, I think you should be more unequivocal than that.

SCM: No, do you? You've had your say.

AN: Sounded diplomatic to me.

SCM: Freedom of speech, please Mr Greensl... Professor Greenslade, sorry.

AN: Answer one of the points.

SCM: Which one would you like? Okay, errm...

AN: That you stitch up deals to protect the press behind closed doors...

SCM: Rubbish

AN: ...and are unwilling to slap their wrists often enough.

SCM: Listen, I'm now free, I'm no longer chairman of the Press Complaints Commission.

AN: So, tell us what you think.

SCM: I can now take my corsets off and say what I think. I think it is an extremely robust system of self regulation. I think any other form of regulation in the United Kingdom would be a disaster and it has become much more robust, though I say it myself, over the last half decade.

Roy says, "opaque". We say, we are respecting the wishes of the very complainants who come to us. We have doubled the number of people who come to us for help over the last 6 years and what they want is something quick, satisfying - it sounds a bit like sex now - quick, satisfying...

AN: You speak for yourself.

SCM: ...and which is done discretely. Our primary mission is to resolve complaints between complainant and editor. Almost by definition this has to be in private.

AN: Isn't part of the problem, you see, the public don't quite... the public think it's an 'inside the Beltway' job, don't they?

RG: They do and, not only that, I don't think enough of the public even know about it, or use it.

SCM: No, no. People like Roy Greenslade think it's an 'inside the Beltway' thing. When I... I mean... I'm, I take...

AN: What Roy thinks... that's where the British people go.

RG: But this is... there is a disconnect. I think that 'inside the Beltway' we are hugely critical of it. Christopher will say - if he had the chance, and I gave him one - he'd say the public are generally in support. The truth is not enough of the public even know about it, not enough of the newspapers even publicise it and just...

SCM: Fair point.

RG: Just... just... just... that's absolutely true, we agree on that...

SCM: Yes, we do agree on that.

RG: But the Guardian deals with thousands of complaints ever year - many, many more that 4,698 and that's a single newspaper which most people would regard as fairly honest. So, it shows that the level of complaints, even though they've doubled under Christopher, is still not good enough.

AN: Why couldn't you stop... why... why couldn't the PCC stop some British newspapers from implying, almost claiming, that the McCann's had killed their missing daughter, when there wasn't an iota of evidence to show that was true and, frankly, I can't think of anything worse for parents who have lost their daughter to be accused in the tabloids of having killed her. Where was the PCC on that?

SCM: The PCC was there all the time. 48 hours after Madeleine disappeared, we said to the parents - through the British Embassy in Washington - that we were here to help; This is what we can do to help you, if you so wish. We cannot be more Catholic than the Pope, more Royalist than the King.

AN: But you didn't stop it.

SCM: We didn't stop it because they did not want us to stop it because at that time, and don't forget this, Andrew, they were very busy - and I would have done the same thing, if I'd been in their position - stimulating publicity to try and find their daughter. I personally met Gerry McCann in the summer to explain to him face to face, eyeball to eyeball, 'Gerry, this is what I can do to help, if you so wish'.

AN: Alright. My memory may be fading here but I know they wanted a lot of publicity, for obvious reasons. I don't think they wanted the kind of publicity that accused them of killing their daughter.

RG: No, they surely didn't. I mean, I think the problem was in -and you illustrate it perfectly here - is in the nature of this discretion and done behind closed doors, and so on. Really, in a sense, there should have been a public statement from the PCC...

SCM: But we couldn't...

RG: When... when...

SCM: No, Roy, we couldn't make a public statement, while...

RG: ...saying that much of this was obviously speculation. Journalists, by the way, there are... there are eight...

SCM: You miss out... you miss out one absolutely key fact here; it was the Portuguese authorities themselves...

RG: I know, I agree with you...

SCM: ...who made them arguidos and that created a massive complication.

RG: There are eight editors on the commission. All of those editors knew that what was being published in the papers was based on speculation. You could have made a statement, saying: 'Be warned newspapers, if you go into this area you are doing the wrong thing and you are actually...'

AN: Okay, we're going to have to leave it there...

SCM: You cannot trump the wishes of the parents.

AN: No, Christopher, we're going to have to leave it there. You've made that point.

SCM: Yes. Have I? I want to make it again.

candyfloss wrote:

Angelique wrote:candyfloss

Many thanks for the video.

They wanted the publicity - Meyer says this - but how did they manage to get The Express over a barrel.


AN. Why couldn't the PCC, you, stop some British Newspapers from implying, almost claiming that the McCanns had killed their daughter when there was not an iota of evidence to show that it was true.........

M. The PCC was there all the time. 48 hours after madeleine disappeared we said to the parents through the British embassy in Washington, that we were here to help. This is what we can do to help you if you so wish. We cannot be more Catholic than the Pope, more royalist than the King.

AN. You didn't stop it ?

M. We didn't stop it because they didn't want us to stop it because at that time, and don't forget this Andrew, they were very busy..... stimulating publicity to try and find their daughter.

Right at the end Meyer (hold my nose) said .." No, you cannot trump the wishes of the parents..." I take it that the McCanns wanted all the publicity - go or bad.

Thank you Angelique, that was the point I was trying to make. It seems they didn't want the PCC to intervene, and yet they then sue the Express!

That is a good point both candy floss and Angelique. The McCanns have been playing everyone, it seems - press, PCC, the public all to make money and manage their reputations.



But what I found strange is that that Meyer states that the PCC spoke to the McCanns 48 hours after Maddie had been "abducted" .... as I said, coverage was universally sychophantic and sympathetic at the start.

Meyer said disappeared not abducted.

It's clear, Britain deserves the McCanns

ShrinkingViolet

Your welcome - it was just a snip though not all of it. Yes - I agree - why through the British Embassy in Washington. Maybe there wasn't anyone in Portugal - I remember at some point no one was available.

Stella

Thank you for stepping in with the transcript.

lj wrote:It's clear, Britain deserves the McCanns

I disagree...I think your country should have them. Surely it must be your turn by now.

Marian wrote:Hope this isn't too off topic but I've just watched an ITV programme from 2009 which, to my mind, also conveys the impression that the McCanns are innocent with no doubts whatsoever.



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



There are various examples of people who have pleaded for the return of a missing person, only to have been the one responsible all along. The impression I get is that the McCanns are the exception to every rule and are as pure as the driven snow.

I do accept of course that other people's guilt does not mean that anyone else is automatically guilty too.

Marian

I am watching this and initially ~I think they mention some points pertinent to the McCanns.

I don't know - the Prof. Paul Ekeman looking at the tape on Karen's appeal - refers to the way she shrugs - I did notice that the McCanns used to do this - and also the smiles as well. Then the shaking head - Gerry did this smirk as well in early videos. There is one somewhere on this site recently where he smirks when asked about sightings. Cant find it at the moment.

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:

lj wrote:It's clear, Britain deserves the McCanns

I disagree...I think your country should have them. Surely it must be your turn by now.

Where I am a lot of people disappear mysteriously, so I'll take them for a bit, but I can't promise I'll give them back (in one piece).

Marian

I see what you mean - it's at the end - Rod Chaytor - reporter on The Mirror. He says at the end he believes they (McCanns) are innocent - but he is only a reporter.

Angelique wrote:
Marian

I am watching this and initially ~I think they mention some points pertinent to the McCanns.

I don't know - the Prof. Paul Ekeman looking at the tape on Karen's appeal - refers to the way she shrugs - I did notice that the McCanns used to do this - and also the smiles as well. Then the shaking head - Gerry did this smirk as well in early videos. There is one somewhere on this site recently where he smirks when asked about sightings. Cant find it at the moment.

It's on the topic McC body language. I also noticed the detective doing a Matthews, shaking head and saying 'yes'.

Re SCMeyer et al, not much to choose between the two of them. Wasn't SCM ambassador in Washington? Didn't his wife set up a charity and advise Gerry? And didn't she pay herself a enormous amount from that charity ( which had something to do with children)?

I think the McCann's didn't want the press to stop because it provided three very important things with negative publicity. First was information, it was the only way they could find out evidence the PJ's had. Second they could see potential libel income for the fund and third, Kate loves playing the victim card. She was "very unfairly" attacked by the press, they claim zero responsibility for their daughter's disappearance, they are victims of that big bad paedophile and the PJ's who didn't do exactly what the McCanns told them to do.

Going slightly of at a tangent but related to the Press - in her book Kate expresses her annoyance that the Ocean Club stopped the McCanns using the creche for the twins - for a while at least. The other parents were complaining about the media scrum surrounding it and how it was disturbing their children. Does Kate express any sympathy for the parents/children being disturbed - no. She expresses annoyance about the other parents stopping Sean and Amelie going and thus disturbing their routine!

This is a snip from the mccannfiles and Dr. Martin Roberts about the PCC.

With permission from Admin - please remove if not permitted.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
By Dr Martin Roberts
12 January 2011

LIES, DAMNED LIES AND STATISTICS

(We return you now to Clarence Mitchell answering Stephen Nolan)
Clarence Mitchell: "...the whole thing was a nonsense but it was driving sales of papers…obviously there were legitimate questions about child safety and, errr... parental responsibility….We would talk to journalists on the ground and we would talk to editors. It made a difference sometimes. Overall, in certain cases, it made not jot... not a jot of difference."
Well I take back what was said earlier about Mitchell's awareness of belief versus logic. Anyone capable of equating the general with the specific in such an ad hoc manner is likely not to appreciate the difference between empiricism and blind faith after all. Rather more importantly, CM makes it abundantly clear that questions pertaining to child safety and parental responsibility, i.e. questions of negligence, were both legitimate and inevitable. And in case you should have missed this devious operative's earlier remark on the subject, here it is again:
"...there's a very small vocal minority online who... who attack them for being negligent. That is completely misplaced and entirely wrong."
Not misplaced then. And when one takes into account the parents' own admissions, e.g. 'extraordinarily we went to the Tapas bar', by way of explanation for their leaving three children under five alone and unattended for more than an hour, 'entirely wrong' doesn't seem to fit the subsequent questioning either. Still, something should be done about maverick reporting shouldn't it? Let's conclude with the authoritative view of a PR professional, as adept at employing 'weasels' as any other in his line of work.
Stephen Nolan: "So, Clarence, what... what needs to happen? Does... does the PCC work, the Press Complaints Commission? Errr... Does there need to be a change of legislation? What needs to happen?"

Clarence Mitchell: "Well, we... we tried to resort to the PCC, at times, and they were very helpful in terms of logistical things, like keeping photographers away from the McCann's home. There were photographers camped outside their house, at the end of their drive, for six months. We even had paparazzi photographers, who normally do celebrity jobs in... in Los Angeles, turning up looking for them. And, you know, we had to patiently explain the McCanns were not celebrities, they didn't warrant this sort of intrusion and these photographers needed to be moved. Now the PCC were fantastic in that case, they were really helpful. But in terms of making the news desks and the editors in certain papers sit up and really listen, I'm afraid we had to, reluctantly, pick up the rather large hammer of defamation action and say, 'You will apologise, you will settle this, errr... on our terms, or we will go further'. And thankfully, after a lot of discussion - the Express group being the best example - finally agreed with us. Errm... But it was a reluctant action. You know, it shouldn't have got to that stage. But it wasn't of our making."
For those unfamiliar with the copywriter's technique, 'We tried to resort to the PCC at times' means exactly what it says. Most of the time they did not resort to the PCC at all, and on those occasions when they might have done so they only tried.

The PCC for their part have long since explained that their role is not to pre-judge the outcome of reportage but to take action in the event that they receive a complaint. The McCanns did not complain to the PCC about the Express group coverage, for example. The 'large hammer of defamation' was not an instrument of last resort, except in the chronological sense. The majority of what was written in the press during the torrid period for which the McCanns claimed damages could easily have been nipped in the bud by them early on. It wasn't. Kate's 'story,' all important for bringing Madeleine home, could have been written and published long before now, there being a sense of urgency attaching to any child's disappearance, or that of an adult. It wasn't.