Private Eye 1313

by **PeterMac** 10.05.12 22:07

Private Eye, No 1313, 4 May - 17 May 2012, Page21

"MADDY STORY NOT DEAD"
by our Criminal Staff
There was rejoicing in Fleet Street last night at the news that the Madeleine McCann story might still be alive.
There hav been sightings of the story in the Daily Express and the Daily Mail for years, but now the police have confirmed that a mock-up of the missing child could appear in all papers very prominently. Said a senior police chief,"We have discovered this thing called Photoshop which PC Laptop has asked his 12 years old sone to operate and which has yielded an important lead story. We are going to follow this up with new mock-ups at regular intervals. As last we are getting somewhere, ie. Portugal, for an agreeable fact-finding trip."

Do we suspect they have their pull out supplement ready ?

by Woofer 10.05.12 23:38

Thanks for this. Does anyone know if Private Eye have commented before? I used to look occasionally but thought they might avoid it because of Ian H`s spat with Cartermuck.

by maebee 11.05.12 1:26

PeterMac wrote:Private Eye, No 1313, 4 May - 17 May 2012, Page21

"MADDY STORY NOT DEAD"
by our Criminal Staff
There was rejoicing in Fleet Street last night at the news that the Madeleine McCann story might still be alive.
There hav been sightings of the story in the Daily Express and the Daily Mail for years, but now the police have confirmed that a mock-up of the missing child could appear in all papers very prominently. Said a senior police chief,"We have discovered this thing called Photoshop which PC Laptop has asked his 12 years old sone to operate and which has yielded an important lead story. We are going to follow this up with new mock-ups at regular intervals. As last we are getting somewhere, ie. Portugal, for an agreeable fact-finding trip."

Do we suspect they have their pull out supplement ready ?

Lots of stuff in one paragraph.

That the MMc story might be still alive
Sightings of the story
Mock- up
Photoshop
12 year old son ?
Mock- ups at regular intervals
Fact- finding

Private Eye are on the ball. They KNOW.

by jd 11.05.12 2:10

This is photoshop at its best...

Private Eye 1313 Gestalt-3AsTheKTPHorgHighRes

by bobbin 11.05.12 7:44

jd wrote:This is photoshop at its best...
..................

(editing, Bobbin writing, can't seem to get words to go below picture)
I've never noticed it before, and I've stared at this photo enough but is the white beach chair correct for angle. To me it looks like two separate pieces, joined together in the photo, and the angle of presentation is not continuous.

Is anyone here an artist who could comment on whether the perspective/ line of continuation is correct. I haven't expressed myself very well, but the base looks too much 'front on', relative to the top part, with the top part, facing a bit to our left.

by **tigger** 11.05.12 7:57

post deleted

by tiny 11.05.12 8:07

I think Amelias right arm is behind her,as you can just see a little bit of it.

by **PeterMac** 11.05.12 8:11

by **tigger** 11.05.12 8:14

PeterMac wrote:

It's early, I didn't engage brain before typing ... stupid!

Please move or delete my posts if you want to - flag

(I've just deleted mine)

by **PeterMac** 11.05.12 8:29

Woofer wrote:Thanks for this. Does anyone know if Private Eye have commented before? I used to look occasionally but thought they might avoid it because of Ian H`s spat with Cartermuck.

They have, but almost unnoticeably.

They had that cartoon where the master was reprimanding the pupil and saying "F****** T******* is an oxymoron"
Not much in itself, but the exact choice of phase is revealing.

Issue 1303 has a piece about GM at the Leveson enquiry complaining about the alleged India sighting. He says, and I quote" They haven't contacted us about it". Strange because didn't Clarrie say they had been sent a picture ? GM was under oath.

There are a few more, but all are apparently targeted at others, such as Desmond

They are keeping their powder dry IMHO.

by Me 11.05.12 8:30

I'm not so sure, there was an article in the Street of Shame section a few issues back which poured scorn on the press reporting at the time the press were looking at the parents.

I wrote a long email to the Eye highlighting the key findings and evidence and it didn't get printed.

So i'm still not sure where they stand on it.

They certainly though have no love lost for Carter Ruck.

by **tigger** 11.05.12 8:54

Can't get PE here, but remember that article. Subtle enough to get past the censors.

Ian Hislop is very intelligent, was he at the Leveson? Because I remember seeing a clip of it.

In general, apart from those who have a Certificate in Media training courtesy of whatever redbrick Polytechnic, journalists are perfectly aware that what they are obliged to write is far from the truth. We've alreay seen some actual facts slipped in here and there.

But the greater public doesn't want to know - I spoke with a friend yesterday - an 'average' tabloid reader. 'O yes' , she said after I'd had my rant, 'they've almost cleared that man they thought had abducted her. - Those poor twins having to live without their sister.'

Average person, average opinion.

by Guest 11.05.12 9:13

Tigger, here's a link to a clip and report of Ian Hislop at the Leveson Enquiry.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9020394/Private-Eye-editor-Ian-Hislop-Dont-create-new-press-regulations-just-enforce-the-law.html

As for your friend's comment - oh dear!

by Lady-Heather 11.05.12 9:45

@Tigger

Unfortunately the mainstream press will print whatever it thinks will sell its papers, or attract readers to its website. As per Rothermere yesterday at Leveson: ".. (the Mail) has to reflect the views of its readership, and not lead them, but, you know, work in, if you like, collusion with the readers".

With around 2 million people buying the paper, and over 5 million daily visits to its website, that's a lot of sheeple to 'reflect the views' of.

source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092432/MailOnline-worlds-number-Daily-Mail-biggest-newspaper-website-45-348-million-unique-users.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation

by **PeterMac** 11.05.12 10:47

Me wrote:I'm not so sure, there was an article in the Street of Shame section a few issues back which poured scorn on the press reporting at the time the press were looking at the parents..

A lot of the reporting was rubbish, and PE rightly exposed this. It is one of the things which has allowed TM to continue. Had there been proper, restrained investigative journalism from the start, examining in detail the contradictions, carrying out research by walking the streets and doing the timings and pulling at the shutters, this whole thing might have been solved a lot earlier.
The gutter press are part of the problem. for the exposure of the truth that is.
They are no a convenient shield for TM, who can always refer back, and show how they were treated, and thereby gain sympathy unrelated to any known facts.

by **tigger** 11.05.12 13:18

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation

Circulation of newspapers from 2001 to 2012:

Taking only the tabloids:

2001 - 2007 - 2010 - 2012
The Sun
3.636000 - 3.217000 - 3.00000 - 2.582000

around a 29% drop over that period.
around 10% drop between 2001 and 2007

Daily Mail
2.479000 - 2.354000 - 2.120000 - 1.945000
around a 22% drop over that period
around 9% drop between 2001 and 2007

Daily Mirror
2.149000 - 1.621000 - 1.21800011 - 1.102000
around 51% drop over the whole period
around 25% drop between 2001 and 2007.

I can’t do a graph here, but I expect the rate of decline might have continued or levelled off a bit by now.

The Sunday papers may have done a little better, but even so - by 2007 the newspapers were in decline.

With thanks to Lady Heather.

by Woofer 11.05.12 18:23

PeterMac wrote:
Woofer wrote:Thanks for this. Does anyone know if Private Eye have commented before? I used to look occasionally but thought they might avoid it because of Ian H`s spat with Cartermuck.
They have, but almost unnoticeably.

They had that cartoon where the master was reprimanding the pupil and saying "F****** T******* is an oxymoron"
Not much in itself, but the exact choice of phase is revealing.

Issue 1303 has a piece about GM at the Leveson enquiry complaining about the alleged India sighting. He says, and I quote" They haven't contacted us about it". Strange because didn't Clarrie say they had been sent a picture ? GM was under oath.

There are a few more, but all are apparently targeted at others, such as Desmond

They are keeping their powder dry IMHO.

Thanks PM. It would seem, by what they`ve written this week, that they have their suspicions.

by **PeterMac** 11.05.12 18:35

Woofer wrote:
Thanks PM. It would seem, by what they`ve written this week, that they have their suspicions.

Private Eye are very rarely wrong. They check their sources. They have lost libel actions in the past, only to find subsequently that there were right. Sonia Sutcliffe for starters.
But at the moment libel actions are being settled out of court on the basis of what the McCanns say. TB is the first to make it to the door of the court, everyone else gives in. Private Eye has to be careful, as does TB !