c mitchell

found this on another board

An interview with Clarence Mitchel. He knows what a pitchforker is. And he doesn't listen any more.

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

He says online should not be ignored but it is only when mainstream media engage that something becomes an issue.

"Even in this world of social media, the bulk of people still take their news and information flow from traditional mainstream media. A piece that appears in a broadsheet or on TV will have far more impact than a Twitter rumour. When traditional media traction takes place and starts to eat into an online narrative that's when alarm bells really start ringing for me.

"It's a cohesive ecosystem but you don't need to over-react to social media. You need to be aware of it."

There is a certain irony when we talk about social media - Clarence has made a conscious decision not to be on Twitter or Facebook because of what he calls his "online fan club", keyboard terrorists who denounce his every move.

"The hostility online at the height of my work with the McCanns was intense and it still is - there are forums out there dedicated to being anti anything I do and my reputation is traduced and I am libelled every single day.

"What surprised me was the viciousness and the bile and the downright inhumanity which was being spread by people who are very brave on a keyboard and under a pseudonym."

The 'nicest' thing his detractors have to say about him is that he's a media manipulator.

"I've had certain individuals picket meetings where I've been speaking, handing out leaflets in the street.

"When I was at Freud the offices were picketed by this so-called Madeleine Foundation which frankly is a disgrace and they were handing out a four-page leaflet saying 'Mitchell is a master media manipulator'. I showed that to Matthew Freud and said that's a pay rise if nothing else.

"I feel sorry for some of those individuals who feel so exorcised about what I'm doing. I'm not manipulating anything, I'm doing the best I can for my clients, be they individuals facing a family crisis or corporates who need a hand with something. It's simply making sure their voice is heard and heard as clearly and as effectively as possible in the modern media mix.

"And sure if getting their voices into places where they might not necessarily be heard - if that is manipulating the agenda then fine I'm guilty of manipulating. But I'm not. I'm just performing the basic role of being an advocate."

But he has this final word for his critics: "I've reached a plateau now. I monitor what's being said but I've gotten to a point now where I don't care."
:wtf2:

If he didn't care, it wouldn't be bothering him, which it obviously does. The MF is definitely bothering him. Good.

The little boy from Frien Barnet wants to follow in his idols footsteps...former Finchley conservative MP Lady Margaret Thatcher

I would distance yourself from a pair of child neglecters & fraudsters clarence, not make a career from it

This

Even in this world of social media, the bulk of people still take their news and information flow from traditional mainstream media. A piece that appears in a broadsheet or on TV will have far more impact than a Twitter rumour.

Contradicts this

"The hostility online at the height of my work with the McCanns was intense and it still is - there are forums out there dedicated to being anti anything I do and my reputation is traduced and I am libelled every single day.

Clarrie is grasping at straws here. He's trying to say that people take their news from McMurdoch TV. News for you Clarrie. It's 2012 and people get their news from the Internet, a medium over which you have no control.

We shouldn't be too hard on Clarrie.
Right at the start he did some sterling work - and he was needed very badly because without him the McCanns would have sunk without trace.

Examples: (although I can't find the ref. for this right now - I couldn't make it up!)

Gerry thought Kate should pose on the beach in her swimsuit. Clarrie must have thought that was one photoshoot too far.

The Cuddlecat.co.uk was not taken any further - although there were 40 of these little beasties available to give to Metodo3. (to motivate them according to Kate) - which sounds like a good selling point - lots of children with their own cuddlecat. Public proof you had donated to Maddie and one of the believers in the new religion.
So that little episode tells me that CC co.uk was ready to run - why else have stock?
Mitchell must have put a stop to that.

I do feel he should have found a way to spare us these jogging photoshoots. Which were early in the programme as well.

There's no knowing what other McCann calamities he prevented. The above two speak volumes in view of the fact this was in the early days.

Quote Clarence "just put money in an envelope and mark it Kate and Gerry in Rothley, it'll get there" Mitchell:

"I feel sorry for some of those individuals who feel so exorcised about what I'm doing. I'm not manipulating anything, I'm doing the best I can for my clients, be they individuals facing a family crisis or corporates who need a hand with something. It's simply making sure their voice is heard and heard as clearly and as effectively as possible in the modern media mix.

"And sure if getting their voices into places where they might not necessarily be heard - if that is manipulating the agenda then fine I'm guilty of manipulating. But I'm not. I'm just performing the basic role of being an advocate."
------------------------

But for those who aren't allowed to have a voice, Clarence, one of the ways for their 'voice to be heard' is with leaflets that contain facts based on the official police files because, as you know, you do manipulate the media so that the people of this country aren't allowed to know the facts and those who seek the truth end up being threatened with prison while the real perpetrators get rich and famous from their begging bowls. So, yes, you are guilty of manipulating the agenda and it's really not fine. You are performing the basic role of perverting the course of justice and, again, it's really not fine.

There is a three year old girl at the heart of this agenda who is believed to be DEAD. What you and your clients are doing is really not fine.

Have you advised your clients to buy a stamp yet so they can write to the Portuguese prosecutor to reopen the process?

The `nicest` thing his detractors have to say about him is that he`s a media manipulator.

Mitchell goes on to say:

"When I was at Freud the offices were picketed by this so-called Madeleine Foundation which frankly is a disgrace and they were handing out a four-page leaflet saying Mitchell is a master media manipulator".


And that was the nicest thing they had to say about him? Can`t wait to see all four pages!

Admin wrote:
But for those who aren't allowed to have a voice, Clarence, one of the ways for their 'voice to be heard' is with leaflets that contain facts based on the official police files because, as you know, you do manipulate the media so that the people of this country aren't allowed to know the facts and those who seek the truth end up being threatened with prison while the real perpetrators get rich and famous from their begging bowls. So, yes, you are guilty of manipulating the agenda and it's really not fine. You are performing the basic role of perverting the course of justice and, again, it's really not fine
unquote

He should be grateful for us - for all those who won't shut up. Because the press is doing his bidding - there is no role for him there. They're well and truly gagged. Stopping the leaks is his job, without us, there wouldn't be any leaks and he'd be out of a job.

So the situation is ideal for him, the patient never gets worse and it never gets better. A (spin) doctors' dream.

"When I was at Freud the offices were picketed by this so-called Madeleine Foundation which frankly is a disgrace and they were handing out a four-page leaflet saying 'Mitchell is a master media manipulator'. I showed that to Matthew Freud and said that's a pay rise if nothing else.

If he's past caring what people said about him on the internet why react? By reacting and commenting he proves that he's paid attention to it and it bugs him crazy.

I bet he knows his credibility was abducted out by the "window" by his association with mccanns; and that there is no going back to No. 10 no matter which party is in office. His career prospect is ruined by the mccanns.

If according to him, being called master manipulator is "pay rise" for him, then highlighting MF to Matthew Freud is " free publicity promotion" for MF.
In fact every time TM mentions MF it is free publicity for MF, which helps attract people to the MF website. So it's a good thing.

Just look at this:

Evening Standard (Paper Edition)
May 10, 2012
How much influence did Brooks have over Cameron?

THE updated biography of David Cameron, by Francis Elliott and James Hanning, says that in May 2011, as a favour to Rebekah Brooks, the Prime Minister controversially asked Scotland Yard to open a review into the Madeleine McCann case.

This extraordinary claim calls to mind a fascinating exchange in the Commons a few days later, when Tory MP Sir Peter Tapsell asked Cameron: “Now that there is to be a full investigation into the abduction or murder of Madeleine McCann, is there not a much stronger case for a full investigation into the suicide or murder of Dr David Kelly?” Cameron replied: “On the issue of Dr David Kelly, I thought the results of the inquest that was carried out and the report into it were fairly clear, and I do not think it is necessary to take that case forward.”

The trouble is there has never been an inquest into Dr Kelly’s suspicious death. Had Mrs Brooks shown an interest in that case, would Cameron have been willing (or able) to re-investigate it?

Note the bolded bits "abduction or murder"; so people are not convinced by Mccanns tale of abduction.
With this sort of headlines, I wonder whether the mccanns are still feeling good and "positive" about the review they colluded with RB to pressure the govt to yield to them?

tigger wrote:Admin wrote:
But for those who aren't allowed to have a voice, Clarence, one of the ways for their 'voice to be heard' is with leaflets that contain facts based on the official police files because, as you know, you do manipulate the media so that the people of this country aren't allowed to know the facts and those who seek the truth end up being threatened with prison while the real perpetrators get rich and famous from their begging bowls. So, yes, you are guilty of manipulating the agenda and it's really not fine. You are performing the basic role of perverting the course of justice and, again, it's really not fine
unquote

He should be grateful for us - for all those who won't shut up. Because the press is doing his bidding - there is no role for him there. They're well and truly gagged. Stopping the leaks is his job, without us, there wouldn't be any leaks and he'd be out of a job.

So the situation is ideal for him, the patient never gets worse and it never gets better. A (spin) doctors' dream.

You will have to wonder why he keeps changing his job post Mccanns dont you?
By his own admission he's a "master manipulator", after all it was him who said that his role is to "control what comes out of the media".
Isn't that precisely manipulating the Media?

Anybody who is a proven liar and manipulates the media to cover up the death of a child and to feed the public with fake sightings is not only being disrespectful to the child, but it is taking the piss out of her and those who do it are utterly repugnant and morally bankrupt.

Do you know anyone like that Clarence?

aiyoyo wrote:

tigger wrote:Admin wrote:
But for those who aren't allowed to have a voice, Clarence, one of the ways for their 'voice to be heard' is with leaflets that contain facts based on the official police files because, as you know, you do manipulate the media so that the people of this country aren't allowed to know the facts and those who seek the truth end up being threatened with prison while the real perpetrators get rich and famous from their begging bowls. So, yes, you are guilty of manipulating the agenda and it's really not fine. You are performing the basic role of perverting the course of justice and, again, it's really not fine
unquote

He should be grateful for us - for all those who won't shut up. Because the press is doing his bidding - there is no role for him there. They're well and truly gagged. Stopping the leaks is his job, without us, there wouldn't be any leaks and he'd be out of a job.

So the situation is ideal for him, the patient never gets worse and it never gets better. A (spin) doctors' dream.

You will have to wonder why he keeps changing his job post Mccanns dont you?
By his own admission he's a "master manipulator", after all it was him who said that his role is to "control what comes out of the media".
Isn't that precisely manipulating the Media?

Yes of course. But he had his main challenge in 2007 when the damage was already done. He did a fairly good job spinning the McCann case but he wasn't home and dry until late 2008. After the papers had settled the 1.3/4 million on the T9 and Murat - they were eating out of his hand.
I'm just looking at 2009 and 2010 - whether there were any significant developments. 2009 seems to have been very quiet.

The comparison to the Dr. Kelly inquiry which never happened is a bit of a slip up. But RB wouldn't have gone for that sort of thing. The Madeleine Affair can run for many more years. Selling papers. Kelly would simply never made NI that much money.

[snipped from article]



His new role leading the public affairs team at Burson sets him up nicely for his future political ambitions. Fiercely Conservative, Clarence has hopes of becoming a Tory MP, inspired by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who was MP in the local area covered by the Hendon & Finchley Times, the paper he joined as a cub reporter.

"Central Office have told me that they see me as a potential south-east/metropolitan candidate. It's up to the individual associations of course to choose – some of them won't have Central Office foist someone on them just because they're on the list, others will welcome London input."

jmac wrote:The `nicest` thing his detractors have to say about him is that he`s a media manipulator.

Mitchell goes on to say:

"When I was at Freud the offices were picketed by this so-called Madeleine Foundation which frankly is a disgrace and they were handing out a four-page leaflet saying Mitchell is a master media manipulator".


And that was the nicest thing they had to say about him? Can`t wait to see all four pages!

Clarrie is obviously not concerned about that leaflet, so here it is. A Master Media Manipulator: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Clarence

"If there's a big story on the go I can watch TV and I can predict almost to the person who will be on which bulletin at which time...you know the rhythms of who will do what and how a story will develop.

Well Clarence, you did say that you controlled what came out in the press.

As for your comment on the media being more effective than social networking, was that before or after Rupert Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks and NI lost all credability and were exposed for all their wrongdoing?

jmac wrote:The 'nicest' thing his detractors have to say about him is that he's a media manipulator.

Mitchell goes on to say:

"When I was at Freud the offices were picketed by this so-called Madeleine Foundation which frankly is a disgrace and they were handing out a four-page leaflet saying Mitchell is a master media manipulator".

And that was the nicest thing they had to say about him? Can`t wait to see all four pages!

The leaflet was upgraded to a six-page leaflet for its first re-print.

It was also handed out for two days in March 2009, when Clarence Mitchell addressed a paltry audience at the Oxford Union.

The full article can be read on the Articles page of The Madeleine Foundation website, here:

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

Scroll down to Article 3.0.

That page now lists the articles which were removed by MF at the time Carter-Ruck wrote to them in August 2011, but out of the 65 or so articles published there at the time, over 40 still remain.

Reminder:

I am no longer the Secretary of The Madeleine Foundation.

I am no longer on the Committee of The Madeleine Foundation.

I no longer own the domain name [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I am no longer responsible for the content of The Madeleine Foundation website.

P.S.

The 'picketing' of Freud Communications took place on the same day that MF members also visited the the HQ of Channel 4 and the offices of Mentorn Media in what was a vain attempt to ensure that they produced a balanced programme on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann (May 2009). The Channel 4 programme, inter alia, floated for the first time the idea that the man/woman Jane Tanner says she saw at 9.15pm on 3 May 2007 was the very same person as the man seen later by the Smith family near Kelly's Bar at around 9.55pm, a matter now considered so integral to the McCann narrative that three whole pages of Dr Kate McCann's book 'madeleine' ['Key Sightings'. pages 370-372] are devoted to a sustained effort to persaude readers that these two 'sightings' are one and the same person.

This proved to be quite a difficult exercise as Tannerman/woman had 'long, thick, black hair' whilst Smithman had, quote, 'short brown hair'. Mind you, the lighting was not that good

Tony Bennett wrote:

jmac wrote:The 'nicest' thing his detractors have to say about him is that he's a media manipulator.

Mitchell goes on to say:

"When I was at Freud the offices were picketed by this so-called Madeleine Foundation which frankly is a disgrace and they were handing out a four-page leaflet saying Mitchell is a master media manipulator".

And that was the nicest thing they had to say about him? Can`t wait to see all four pages!

The leaflet was upgraded to a six-page leaflet for its first re-print.

Tony,

"When I was at Freud"

Which Freud?

Yes, it's odd, isn't it? CM states that online forums, and Madeleine Forum in particular, mean nothing to him, yet he goes overboard to mention it, constantly. CM knows that somewhere, alone the line, from Daily Mirror forum, 3 arguidos, and now the Madeleine Foudation SOME PEOPLE have hit the nail right on the head about what REALLY happened to Maddie (sorry, Gerry, but it comes naturally), and of course, CM is going to do all he can to rubbish social media, because social media, with all its faults, is bring home to people the TRUTH, and control freaks in high places don't like it.

Portia wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

jmac wrote:The 'nicest' thing his detractors have to say about him is that he's a media manipulator.

Mitchell goes on to say:

"When I was at Freud the offices were picketed by this so-called Madeleine Foundation which frankly is a disgrace and they were handing out a four-page leaflet saying Mitchell is a master media manipulator".

And that was the nicest thing they had to say about him? Can`t wait to see all four pages!

The leaflet was upgraded to a six-page leaflet for its first re-print.

Tony,

"When I was at Freud"

Which Freud?

Portia, in September 2008, two months after the Portuguese Attorney-General had shut down the investigation into the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Clarence Mitchell ceased to work full-time for the McCanns, and was immediately employed as a top PR consultant with Freud Communications a.k.a. Freud International. Freud Communications is owned by MATTHEW FREUD, who is married to Elisabeth Murdoch, daughter of News International mogul, Rupert Murdoch.

Matthew Freud is of course the son of the well known SIR CLEMENT FREUD, TV cook, TV entertainer and panellist on many radio games such as the wonderful and internationally known game 'Just A Minute'.

Sir Clement is mentioned four times in Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine', including a 3-page description of her extended lunch with Sir Clement at his villa, which happened to be conveniently situated in Praia da Luz itself.

At the beginning of July, says Dr Kate on page 193 [Hardback version], she received this letter from Sir Clement, probably by hand rather than posted.

It said:

"Dear McCanns,

I have a house in P da L, been ashamed of the intrusion to your lives by our media...and if you would care to come to lunch/dinner at any time before Wednesday next, do ring and let me know.

I cook decent meal.

Sincerely..."

The McCanns duly attended for lunch, for what turned out to be a vodka-fortified occasion, for as Dr Kate writes (page 194):

"...Clement was incredibly warm, funny and instantly likeable. His opening words were: 'Can I interest you in a strawberry vodka?' It was midday.

"I hesitated for a split second, rapidly trying to work out if he was joking. His expression, as always, was deadpan. Not wanting to be unsociable, I responded: 'Er, OK then. That would be nice"...the lunch he prepared for us that day was bloody marvellous: watercress and egg sald followed by a chicken and mushroom risotto - the best risotto we've ever tasted before or since. Clement cheered us up with his lugubrious wit..."

Later, as Dr Kate recorded on page 229 of her book, Clement Freud 'phoned the McCanns up on 31 August, just as the Daily Express was running with daily headlines about issues such as cadaver dogs and DNA etc.

He was again in cracking form, telling jokes:

"I have a lot if empathy with the Express though, you know", said Clement. For a split second, Gerry thought he was serious. "Why's that?", asked Gerry.

"Well, you see, we both suffer from poor circulation".

Thank God for people like Clement who kept us smiling".

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I believe Sir Clement Freud is the grandson of the infamous pop psychologist, Sigmund Freud, who is widely now known as Sigmund Fraud for reasons which will be obvious to anyone who has read a little of his biography.