Re: Sunday Times apology

by Guest 29.12.13 23:23

Okeydokey wrote:
Over The Hill wrote:
Portia wrote:Nice to meet you. Your expertise will be very welcome, I'm sure
Contrary to what many posters believe, there are plenty of people in the news media who are interested in this case, but they have to treat it in the same professional manner as all other stories, ie only report facts and don't guess or speculate
I've been looking in on this forum for a few years, from both a personal and professional perspective, but it's impossible to develop the latter because there are so few facts

There is no conspiracy to cover anything up, and no conspiracy to report in a biased way
But if there are no facts, there is no story
News editors will tell you that when it comes down to it, the only fact is that a girl is missing

Newsrooms don't have the same freedom to comment like internet forums
Have a look back at the original ST story thread:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
How many of you would like to re-write your posts now? Broadcast journalists can't do that

The ST story looked interesting, but nobody could make it stand up, and it turns out that it is flawed
If any duty newsroom editor had given air time to it, even just reporting that the ST was saying it at the time, they would have been in big trouble
Not because the Maddie story is being massaged by the broadcast media, but because this development couldn't be proved (just like everything else)

Nonsense. There are loads of facts in this case: the rogatory interviews for instance, which as far as I know have never been reproduced verbatim in the UK press. The press could publish for instance MO's claims about see the twins breathing and then show photos of where he said he was standing. This is all factual. That's just one example. It's also factual that the McCanns' website hasn't taken down the Tannerman pic despute it being discredited by Redwood. It's not illegal to ask questions about that. If the press was doing its job it would. It might be of course that they have been intimidated by legal machinations/proprietor interference etc.

Precisely. clapping

. Loads of facts available that haven't been used. Thousands of pages of police reports and evidence all freely available online remaining undelved-into by the very people who are paid as independent journalists to do so and QUESTION for a start. The BBC in particular are a publicly funded body expected to report independently. Why aren't they? CW? Panorama? Newsnight? All gagged? Why are the MSM scared even to question, Over the Hill?

by Ashwarya 29.12.13 23:28

Over The Hill wrote:
Contrary to what many posters believe, there are plenty of people in the news media who are interested in this case, but they have to treat it in the same professional manner as all other stories, ie only report facts and don't guess or speculate
I've been looking in on this forum for a few years, from both a personal and professional perspective, but it's impossible to develop the latter because there are so few facts

There is no conspiracy to cover anything up, and no conspiracy to report in a biased way
But if there are no facts, there is no story
News editors will tell you that when it comes down to it, the only fact is that a girl is missing

There are plenty of facts that the British media could have published, but haven't, and those of us who were intrigued by the inconsistencies in this case right from the start and have followed it with great attention since 2007 are well aware of most of them. To give just a few:

The fact that the McCanns changed their statements to the Portuguese police between 4 May 2007 and 10 May 2007, not just in minor details but in significant ways.

The stories of jemmied shutters and a smashed front door which all their family and friends promoted until they were proved to be lies.

The court case in which the ban on Detective Amaral's book was lifted, even though the original ban is still referred to in the British press as though it was still in place.

The recent and ongoing libel trial which would have been of enormous interest to the British public if any journo had bothered to report on it. As it is, those of us who are interested have to rely on the heroic efforts of a Portuguese lady who sat in the court and took notes. We know we will only hear the judge's verdict in this country if it is favourable to the McCanns.

Mr Amaral himself is regularly referred to as a "disgraced, bumbling detective". In fact he had a pretty good idea of what had happened in this case before he was summarily removed from his post. In addition to that he is a fine man with a devout and unostentatious Catholic faith which guides his professional and personal life. He knows that the best he can do for Maddie now is to get justice for her.

I could go on and on, but we all know that very few articles see the light of day in the British media which haven't been pre-approved by Team McCann. So I for one don't accept that the reporting in this country is professional and unbiased. As far as I can see it is sycophantic, craven and lazy in the way this case is presented to the British public.

by aiyoyo 29.12.13 23:31

Dee Coy wrote:
Precisely. . Loads of facts available that haven't been used. Thousands of pages of police reports and evidence all freely available online remaining undelved-into by the very people who are paid as independent journalists to do so and QUESTION for a start. The BBC in particular are a publicly funded body expected to report independently. Why aren't they? CW? Panorama? Newsnight? All gagged? Why are the MSM scared even to question, Over the Hill?

I am glad the MSM had drawn a line not to report on those facts. There is always a right time for everything.
Reporting on the mccanns spin and lie is altogether a different matter since these garbage can't have adverse impact for future trial.

by Guest 29.12.13 23:54

But, unlike in the vast majority of cases, the MSM don't even question this one any more, Aiyoyo. Since the Express got sued?

The thing is, if the media hint at something often enough it becomes a belief in this country. Similarly, if something is denied or ignored often enough by them.... And possession (even of thought) is nine tenths of the law winkwink

If the public clamouring got to a stage where it couldn't be ignored, this matter would have been resolved years ago. Except it hasn't been allowed to get to the stage where the public cannot be ignored.

AND PEOPLE IN THE MSM NEED TO EXAMINE THEMSELVES TO SEE IF THEY PERSONALLY COULD HAVE BEEN A CATALYST TO THAT PROCESS IF THEY EVEN SUSPECT ALL IS NOT WELL HERE.

by Mirage 30.12.13 0:01

Here's a fact. As the reconstruction of bedtime played on CW, GM's voice-over said of the bedroom: "So it was nice and dark in there."

In that case, how was he able to gaze at MM on his last check and think how beautiful she looked?

by Tangled Web 30.12.13 0:08

aiyoyo wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
Precisely. . Loads of facts available that haven't been used. Thousands of pages of police reports and evidence all freely available online remaining undelved-into by the very people who are paid as independent journalists to do so and QUESTION for a start. The BBC in particular are a publicly funded body expected to report independently. Why aren't they? CW? Panorama? Newsnight? All gagged? Why are the MSM scared even to question, Over the Hill?

I am glad the MSM had drawn a line not to report on those facts. There is always a right time for everything.
Reporting on the mccanns spin and lie is altogether a different matter since these garbage can't have adverse impact for future trial.

I agree. We wouldn't want them arguing that they have no chance of a fair trial.

by ultimaThule 30.12.13 0:40

Tangled Web wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
Precisely. . Loads of facts available that haven't been used. Thousands of pages of police reports and evidence all freely available online remaining undelved-into by the very people who are paid as independent journalists to do so and QUESTION for a start. The BBC in particular are a publicly funded body expected to report independently. Why aren't they? CW? Panorama? Newsnight? All gagged? Why are the MSM scared even to question, Over the Hill?

I am glad the MSM had drawn a line not to report on those facts. There is always a right time for everything.
Reporting on the mccanns spin and lie is altogether a different matter since these garbage can't have adverse impact for future trial.

I agree. We wouldn't want them arguing that they have no chance of a fair trial.

IMO this has been a factor in the way in which the MSM has reported the case but I see no reason why coverage should have been unduly biased or reticent because, were the perpetrator(s) of a heinous crime against a British national which took place in Portugal to argue they wouldn't get a fair trial in the UK, the alternative would be for them to stand trial in the country where the crime was committed.

by Guest 30.12.13 1:46

OTH thank you for your insight, My issue with the BBC was not that they did not repeat the ST report. But that they did not mention the headline in the ST when discussing the headlines of the Sunday papers. I think usualy the Sunday Times would be one of the papers usually discussed but the headline was ignored, completely. Now, I don't know the politics or legal issues BUT if a programs remit is to discuss the headlines or breaking stories in the newspapers it should do just that.
Regardless of their individual concerns or legal issues, otherwise that is a breach of representation surely.

by **PeterMac** 30.12.13 7:25

aiyoyo wrote:
The beauty of this apology is that all the data that the Mccanns did not like in the first place had to be repeated in order that people know what the inaccuracies were that need correction. It's a self goal, so to speak.

Precisely.
The ST has had to say - in effect - "When we said they had suppressed the e-fits, we want to make it clear they only suppressed the them for a year, until the enquiry was shelved. Then they handed them to an agency which was not looking for Madeleine. We hope that clears it up.
Oh and by the way, they have now suppressed them from their official website, but have left the picture of the suspect who has been eliminated."

by Over The Hill 30.12.13 8:46

Thanks for all your comments. Sorry some of you think I'm talking nonsense

The problem with quoting from the police interviews is that it wouldn't be relevant in the context of a TV news bulletin. News programmes on BBC, ITN and Sky don't tend to do investigations of their own - these are the domain of the Panorama/World In Action type shows. Even then there are restrictions on what can be said because of libel laws

Also, despite all their resources the PJ weren't able to solve the case and ended up shelving it, and Scotland Yard haven't cracked it yet despite 2 years on the job. Why do you think that one episode of Panorama could? Remember that it's not TV's job to solve crimes - that's for the police. TV programmes can't hint that someone might be guilty of something, potentially defamation again

Had the BBC repeated the ST story, they would have been dicing with defamation had it turned out to be untrue. All Beeb journalists are trained not to to pass on press stories that might be libellous

News programmes deal with facts

Re the tendency in the written press to describe the PJ as bumbling, incompetent etc, I don't recall a single instance of a TV or radio news bulletin doing that

However, reporting the disappearance as an abduction is poor practice and should have been corrected straight away. As I say, broadcast news deals in facts

Also remember that everyone is assumed to be innocent until they have been through a court process, so insinuations aren't acceptable in a broadcast news programme

The problem with reporting issues about Amaral's book is that the media can't mention something that might itself be libellous because it could be a defamation in itself (ie promoting something that is libellous). And because the libel laws in Portugal are different from those in the UK, it could in theory not be libellous in PT but libellous here (because in Pt it has to be disproved by the claimants, here it's the other way round)

When something concrete happens, I can assure you that the TV and radio news teams will report it

by RIPM 30.12.13 10:08

Over The Hill wrote:Thanks for all your comments. Sorry some of you think I'm talking nonsense

The problem with quoting from the police interviews is that it wouldn't be relevant in the context of a TV news bulletin. News programmes on BBC, ITN and Sky don't tend to do investigations of their own - these are the domain of the Panorama/World In Action type shows. Even then there are restrictions on what can be said because of libel laws

Also, despite all their resources the PJ weren't able to solve the case and ended up shelving it, and Scotland Yard haven't cracked it yet despite 2 years on the job. Why do you think that one episode of Panorama could? Remember that it's not TV's job to solve crimes - that's for the police. TV programmes can't hint that someone might be guilty of something, potentially defamation again

Had the BBC repeated the ST story, they would have been dicing with defamation had it turned out to be untrue. All Beeb journalists are trained not to to pass on press stories that might be libellous

News programmes deal with facts

Re the tendency in the written press to describe the PJ as bumbling, incompetent etc, I don't recall a single instance of a TV or radio news bulletin doing that

However, reporting the disappearance as an abduction is poor practice and should have been corrected straight away. As I say, broadcast news deals in facts

Also remember that everyone is assumed to be innocent until they have been through a court process, so insinuations aren't acceptable in a broadcast news programme

The problem with reporting issues about Amaral's book is that the media can't mention something that might itself be libellous because it could be a defamation in itself (ie promoting something that is libellous). And because the libel laws in Portugal are different from those in the UK, it could in theory not be libellous in PT but libellous here (because in Pt it has to be disproved by the claimants, here it's the other way round)

When something concrete happens, I can assure you that the TV and radio news teams will report it

News programmes deal with facts.

Wrong, 90% of all news bulletins are pure speculation.,The BBC are particularly bad, whatever topic, one BBC lackey asks another, what do you think will be in the report to be published later? "do you think the royal baby will be male or female? etc, etc.
No facts whatsoever.
How many times have the BBC told us the Portuguese investigation was flawed? The BBC reported as a fact Mr Amaral said "fuck the McCanns",........and on and on and on. So, no you do not assure me the tv and radio will report anything truthfully I remember Savile.

The whole circus started with the BBC and the cover-up will continue with the BBC.

by plebgate 30.12.13 10:18

Mr. Amaral believed he could solve the case, but for some reason he was removed. Did the British Prime Minister know of his removal even before he did? Was that reported on any TV station?

The case was shelved, but could, for the cost of a stamp on a letter, have been re-opened at any time if the parents had wished. Has this been reported on any TV station?

The TV stations could have sent a reporter to ask that sort of question of Mr. A. at any time but for some reason they have not done so. Is that fair, unbiased reporting of the case. Not imo.

Is it fair and unbiased when tv presenters openly call people who question the events of the night Maddie went missing nutters? Not imo.

by Guest 30.12.13 10:19

Daisy wrote:Glad to see you back Portia, never did have you down as a quitter.

by jozi 30.12.13 10:21

Ashwarya wrote:
Over The Hill wrote:
Contrary to what many posters believe, there are plenty of people in the news media who are interested in this case, but they have to treat it in the same professional manner as all other stories, ie only report facts and don't guess or speculate
I've been looking in on this forum for a few years, from both a personal and professional perspective, but it's impossible to develop the latter because there are so few facts

There is no conspiracy to cover anything up, and no conspiracy to report in a biased way
But if there are no facts, there is no story
News editors will tell you that when it comes down to it, the only fact is that a girl is missing

There are plenty of facts that the British media could have published, but haven't, and those of us who were intrigued by the inconsistencies in this case right from the start and have followed it with great attention since 2007 are well aware of most of them. To give just a few:

The fact that the McCanns changed their statements to the Portuguese police between 4 May 2007 and 10 May 2007, not just in minor details but in significant ways.

The stories of jemmied shutters and a smashed front door which all their family and friends promoted until they were proved to be lies.

The court case in which the ban on Detective Amaral's book was lifted, even though the original ban is still referred to in the British press as though it was still in place.

The recent and ongoing libel trial which would have been of enormous interest to the British public if any journo had bothered to report on it. As it is, those of us who are interested have to rely on the heroic efforts of a Portuguese lady who sat in the court and took notes. We know we will only hear the judge's verdict in this country if it is favourable to the McCanns.

Mr Amaral himself is regularly referred to as a "disgraced, bumbling detective". In fact he had a pretty good idea of what had happened in this case before he was summarily removed from his post. In addition to that he is a fine man with a devout and unostentatious Catholic faith which guides his professional and personal life. He knows that the best he can do for Maddie now is to get justice for her.

I could go on and on, but we all know that very few articles see the light of day in the British media which haven't been pre-approved by Team McCann. So I for one don't accept that the reporting in this country is professional and unbiased. As far as I can see it is sycophantic, craven and lazy in the way this case is presented to the British public.

by tiny 30.12.13 10:26

RIPM wrote:
Over The Hill wrote:Thanks for all your comments. Sorry some of you think I'm talking nonsense

The problem with quoting from the police interviews is that it wouldn't be relevant in the context of a TV news bulletin. News programmes on BBC, ITN and Sky don't tend to do investigations of their own - these are the domain of the Panorama/World In Action type shows. Even then there are restrictions on what can be said because of libel laws

Also, despite all their resources the PJ weren't able to solve the case and ended up shelving it, and Scotland Yard haven't cracked it yet despite 2 years on the job. Why do you think that one episode of Panorama could? Remember that it's not TV's job to solve crimes - that's for the police. TV programmes can't hint that someone might be guilty of something, potentially defamation again

Had the BBC repeated the ST story, they would have been dicing with defamation had it turned out to be untrue. All Beeb journalists are trained not to to pass on press stories that might be libellous

News programmes deal with facts

Re the tendency in the written press to describe the PJ as bumbling, incompetent etc, I don't recall a single instance of a TV or radio news bulletin doing that

However, reporting the disappearance as an abduction is poor practice and should have been corrected straight away. As I say, broadcast news deals in facts

Also remember that everyone is assumed to be innocent until they have been through a court process, so insinuations aren't acceptable in a broadcast news programme

The problem with reporting issues about Amaral's book is that the media can't mention something that might itself be libellous because it could be a defamation in itself (ie promoting something that is libellous). And because the libel laws in Portugal are different from those in the UK, it could in theory not be libellous in PT but libellous here (because in Pt it has to be disproved by the claimants, here it's the other way round)

When something concrete happens, I can assure you that the TV and radio news teams will report it
News programmes deal with facts.

Wrong, 90% of all news bulletins are pure speculation.,The BBC are particularly bad, whatever topic, one BBC lackey asks another, what do you think will be in the report to be published later? "do you think the royal baby will be male or female? etc, etc.
No facts whatsoever.
How many times have the BBC told us the Portuguese investigation was flawed? The BBC reported as a fact Mr Amaral said "fuck the McCanns",........and on and on and on. So, no you do not assure me the tv and radio will report anything truthfully I remember Savile.

The whole circus started with the BBC and the cover-up will continue with the BBC.

exactly,well said RIPM

by Mirage 30.12.13 10:48

Over The Hill wrote:Thanks for all your comments. Sorry some of you think I'm talking nonsense

The problem with quoting from the police interviews is that it wouldn't be relevant in the context of a TV news bulletin. News programmes on BBC, ITN and Sky don't tend to do investigations of their own - these are the domain of the Panorama/World In Action type shows. Even then there are restrictions on what can be said because of libel laws

Also, despite all their resources the PJ weren't able to solve the case and ended up shelving it, and Scotland Yard haven't cracked it yet despite 2 years on the job. Why do you think that one episode of Panorama could? Remember that it's not TV's job to solve crimes - that's for the police. TV programmes can't hint that someone might be guilty of something, potentially defamation again

Had the BBC repeated the ST story, they would have been dicing with defamation had it turned out to be untrue. All Beeb journalists are trained not to to pass on press stories that might be libellous

News programmes deal with facts

Re the tendency in the written press to describe the PJ as bumbling, incompetent etc, I don't recall a single instance of a TV or radio news bulletin doing that

However, reporting the disappearance as an abduction is poor practice and should have been corrected straight away. As I say, broadcast news deals in facts

Also remember that everyone is assumed to be innocent until they have been through a court process, so insinuations aren't acceptable in a broadcast news programme

The problem with reporting issues about Amaral's book is that the media can't mention something that might itself be libellous because it could be a defamation in itself (ie promoting something that is libellous). And because the libel laws in Portugal are different from those in the UK, it could in theory not be libellous in PT but libellous here (because in Pt it has to be disproved by the claimants, here it's the other way round)

When something concrete happens, I can assure you that the TV and radio news teams will report it

Over the Hill. I don't think you are talking nonsense: I think you are defining best practice.

Unfortunately it flies in the face of a great deal of bias many here have witnessed over the years by broadcasters and newspaper journalists. IMO Jeremy Paxman et al should not have been interviewing the Mcs in the first place based on what you have said. The interrupted investigation in Portugal; the shelving of the case without the pair being cleared by that process, were factors that should have made the news editors prick up their ears according to the code you outline. Interviewing them under such circumstances, or reporting on their activities was only ever going to lead them down a one way - or one version - street That of the McCanns, and backed to the hilt by a heavyweight ex-government media spokesman. The alarm bells should have been deafening.

In light of all you have said, I would be most interested for your comments on the tone and balance of the following article written by Mary Nightingale, renowned ITN newsreader and journalist. She, like many a news and media personalities, bear a responsibility not to shape public opinion, merely to report the facts and/or elicit the facts in interview situations. She wrote in 2012 of the McCanns thus:

'What are the McCanns really like?'

It's the togetherness that strikes you first.

Sitting side by side - hands clasped - Gerry and Kate McCann are constantly looking at one another, nodding in agreement, chipping in with comments - utterly supportive of each other throughout their ordeal.

Statistics tell you that bereaved parents are more likely than not to separate. The corrosive nature of grief rips apart rather than unites. But they refuse to be bowed by statistics.

As Gerry says:

We're still very much a family; it's just a very important member is not with us at the minute.

I've been interviewing the McCanns about Madeleine for five years now. Every May 3rd a grim anniversary.

One, two, three years missing...What would've been her 5th birthday...And, this time last year, marking the day Madeleine had spent more time away from her parents than with them.How on earth do Gerry and Kate remain forward looking and positive after five years of not knowing what's happened to their little girl?

In those first panic-stricken days after she vanished, they would have been forgiven for thinking life couldn't get any worse.

And yet it did: accused, suspected, arrested in Portugal.

Even at home you don't have to trawl far to uncover a highly vocal anti-McCann feeling out there: "They shouldn't have left her", "they deserved to lose her", even "they did it".

Why the vitriol about a couple who made a simple - but devastating - mistake? They thought Madeleine was safe - but she wasn't. They failed to spot the risk in a sunny care-free holiday environment.
Their daughter vanished and the acid blame has flowed ever since.

How do they keep so apparently calm and constructive? It's a question that perplexes the public: why don't they weep and beg, and blame? It's a question I get asked almost more than any other about my work: "What are the McCanns really like?"

In Kate's words:

You can't know what it's like to be us, to walk in our shoes. You can't know how you would behave if it was you.

God forbid that any of us should find out.

----------------- I am unable to bring the accompanying photos for this article across at the moment, but they comprise the poolside photo underneath which it says "The last photo of Madeleine McCann before she disappeared." (Have they verified this as fact or happy with the McC' say-so?)

Also, a photograph of K and G during interview with K looking at G as he speaks - underneath which: "Gerry and Kate McCann said they were 'hopeful' of finding Madeleine"

There is also a video at the top showing the age-progressed picture of MM. The video is of the interview itself is another area of concern, but time does not allow!

You can easily google this under Mary Nightingale and the title of the article given above.

by **PeterMac** 30.12.13 10:52

2002 ? ?

by Mirage 30.12.13 10:55

PeterMac wrote:2002 ? ?

Sorted!!

by marconi 30.12.13 10:56

I made a mistake. I have to correct it.

by Mirage 30.12.13 11:00

marconi wrote:this happening did not hinder a Judge to shoot down the fund.

what happening, Marconi?

by Miraflores 30.12.13 11:03

Over The Hill wrote:Thanks for all your comments. Sorry some of you think I'm talking nonsense

Also, despite all their resources the PJ weren't able to solve the case and ended up shelving it, and Scotland Yard haven't cracked it yet despite 2 years on the job.

Yet our press are quite happy to report that the McCanns have been cleared.

Had the BBC repeated the ST story, they would have been dicing with defamation had it turned out to be untrue.

No, but all they needed to say was 'The Sunday Times leads on a Madeleine McCann story' and then turn to another paper, rather than completely ignore the ST.

However, reporting the disappearance as an abduction is poor practice and should have been corrected straight away.

But until recently, almost never was - it was always, always, 'abduction', even though the words disappeared or missing would have served as well.

The problem with reporting issues about Amaral's book is that the media can't mention something that might itself be libellous because it could be a defamation in itself (ie promoting something that is libellous).

I am sorry, I am not with you here. Why would it be libellous to state on [ x date] the McCanns took Sr Amiral to court to have his book banned but on [y date] Amiral had the ban overturned? That is a matter of fact. They need not offer a comment as to whether they have a personal opinion as to the validity of the ban.

When something concrete happens, I can assure you that the TV and radio news teams will report it

I am afraid, that I won't be holding my breath.

by **PeterMac** 30.12.13 11:33

Despite the official C-R inspired apology / explanation it remains a fact that
The E-fits have been whooshed from the findmadeleine site, and remain "whooshed" in favour of a Disney version of a tree - ( a PAGAN image Kate, not a Catholic one )
AND
Tannerman remains on the short list of people to be traced.
This is their official site, so they are clearly implicitly now accusing Redwood of LYING when he says that this man came forward and has been eliminated.
Perhaps someone should tell Grange !

by watendlath 30.12.13 12:10

Mirage wrote (from Mary Nightingale's article:

Even at home you don't have to trawl far to uncover a highly vocal anti-McCann feeling out there: "They shouldn't have left her", "they deserved to lose her", even "they did it".

Why the vitriol about a couple who made a simple - but devastating - mistake? They thought Madeleine was safe - but she wasn't. They failed to spot the risk in a sunny care-free holiday environment.
Their daughter vanished and the acid blame has flowed ever since.

This is so typical of media manipulation.

The first two phrases, "They shouldn't have left her", "they deserved to lose her", reflect sentiments that are purely based on personal opinion, but have no relevance to finding Madeleine.

The third phrase, "even, they did it" is also a personal opinion, but at the same time it is based on the vast amount of evidence concerning the case that is most likely very relevant to the search for Madeleine (and it is not entirely accurate, since most people don't claim the McCanns murdered Madeleine but that they at least know what happened to her, accident or whatever.)

By placing the three phrases next to each other, Ms Nightingale gives the reader the impression that those who think the McCanns 'did it' are just being hypercritical of them, basing their claim on their emotions.

In the following paragraph she asks: Why the vitriol about a couple who made a simple - but devastating - mistake?

She does not however ask: What evidence do those who claim the parents 'did it' have to support their claim?...that would be asking for trouble!

by Woofer 30.12.13 12:16

The Sunday Times `correction` should have been more transparent IMO and been honest about the source complaining. They didn`t actually say it was the McCanns or their lawyers, they merely said "we now understand". How does the reading public know the source of this `corrected information` and whether its any more reliable than Henri Exton who was threatened to keep schtum.

by jeanmonroe 30.12.13 12:35

This is for OTH:

You state that the BBC would not report things that were possibly considered to be libellous or defamatory.

Could you please explain then why the BBC broadcasted, publicly, on BBC1 the following:

1 The minor Madeleine died in apartment 5A.

2 A simulation of an abduction took place.

3 Kate and Gerry McCann are involved in the concealment of the corpse of their daughter.

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

And WHY haven't the McCanns ever sued the BBC for broadcasting these 'libellous and defamatory' claims?

Please also see my original post about this.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If you'd like to offer me an explanation as to why the McCanns sued GA for his thesis but did not sue the BBC for publicly repeating/broadcastiing the thesis, in official Portuguese police files, i'm all ears.

by DonNewbery 30.12.13 12:36

Here's a useful clarification re. the Sunday Times apology. Not sure of its provenance. Urge everyone to read:

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

by Mirage 30.12.13 12:46

watendlath wrote:
Mirage wrote (from Mary Nightingale's article:

Even at home you don't have to trawl far to uncover a highly vocal anti-McCann feeling out there: "They shouldn't have left her", "they deserved to lose her", even "they did it".

Why the vitriol about a couple who made a simple - but devastating - mistake? They thought Madeleine was safe - but she wasn't. They failed to spot the risk in a sunny care-free holiday environment.
Their daughter vanished and the acid blame has flowed ever since.

This is so typical of media manipulation.

The first two phrases, "They shouldn't have left her", "they deserved to lose her", reflect sentiments that are purely based on personal opinion, but have no relevance to finding Madeleine.

The third phrase, "even, they did it" is also a personal opinion, but at the same time it is based on the vast amount of evidence concerning the case that is most likely very relevant to the search for Madeleine (and it is not entirely accurate, since most people don't claim the McCanns murdered Madeleine but that they at least know what happened to her, accident or whatever.)

By placing the three phrases next to each other, Ms Nightingale gives the reader the impression that those who think the McCanns 'did it' are just being hypercritical of them, basing their claim on their emotions.

In the following paragraph she asks: Why the vitriol about a couple who made a simple - but devastating - mistake?

She does not however ask: What evidence do those who claim the parents 'did it' have to support their claim?...that would be asking for trouble!

watendlath, IMO the article by Mary Nightingale (on page 8 of this thread) is shot through with blatant bias. It is also my opinion that the tone and tenor of her interview with the McCs is similarly biased. I intend to ask her several questions about it one day.

There are simply no journalists in this country who have done their job professionally with regard to this case - none that I have come across anyway. The interviews by Sandra Felgeiras, by contrast, are probing and professional. She is not afraid to address their inconsistent stories, and neither was that interviewer on Spanish TV who famously asked them about the dogs. And we all know what reaction that elicited from GM, while Justine McGuinness tried to soother his frayed nerves from the sidelines by telling him to stick to the official line. What was going on there exactly? Two negligent parents furnished with an official line in connection with their daughter's disappearance? I have never heard the like.

by Over The Hill 30.12.13 12:51

Miraflores wrote:
Over The Hill wrote:The problem with reporting issues about Amaral's book is that the media can't mention something that might itself be libellous because it could be a defamation in itself (ie promoting something that is libellous).
I am sorry, I am not with you here. Why would it be libellous to state on [ x date] the McCanns took Sr Amiral to court to have his book banned but on [y date] Amiral had the ban overturned? That is a matter of fact. They need not offer a comment as to whether they have a personal opinion as to the validity of the ban.

There is often a fundamental misunderstanding of defamation laws on internet forums
According to the letter of the law, you can't quote someone else who may have said something defamatory, or refer to something defamatory even though you don't specifically say what it is

The issue with the latter is that you are drawing attention to it, thus making people take notice of it or to seek it out
Lord McAlpine successfully won his libel cases last year on that basis alone
Just ask Sally Bercow
She didn't libel him in the conventional sense, but pointed Twitter users to where he was being libelled

It would be the same with Amaral's book
In the UK he would be required to demonstrate that what he said is true, or fair comment. In Portugal the onus is on the McCanns to show that it isn't true. Hence the book could be libellous in the UK but not Portugal, making it difficult for the UK media to refer to it

Newpapers get around that by calling it a vile pack of lies etc, but that's not the style of BBC, ITN and Sky news. To be safe, they just avoid reporting it altogether

by Over The Hill 30.12.13 12:59

jeanmonroe wrote:This is for OTH:

You state that the BBC would not report things that were possibly considered to be libellous or defamatory.

WHY haven't the McCanns ever sued the BBC for broadcasting these 'libellous and defamatory' claims?

If you'd like to offer me an explanation as to why the McCanns sued GA for his thesis but did not sue the BBC for publicly repeating/broadcastiing the thesis, in official Portuguese police files, i'm all ears.

Jean, the way that defamatory issues are handled is specific to each individual case so the law is open to some interpretation. You are right that in most circumstances, it would have been wrong for the BBC to have mentioned the detail of the book. However, the fact that the family quoted Amaral's theory would have brought it within the law. After all, they made it public themselves

Regarding other posters and their observations about the general reporting of this case, I agree that some of the presentation and phrasing has been very sloppy, but I am sure that is down to bad practice rather than a conspiracy. If there is one of those, I've never been told of it

by jeanmonroe 30.12.13 13:02

OTH:
"There is often a fundamental misunderstanding of defamation laws on internet forums
According to the letter of the law, you can't quote someone else who may have said something defamatory, or refer to something defamatory even though you don't specifically say what it is"
_________________________________________________________________________________

The BBC quoted, and broadcasted, a thesis that the McCanns obviously think is defamatory and libellous, because they are in the process of suing a particular person, who the BBC quoted.

Really simple question for you.

Should the McCanns sue the BBC for publicly repeating a thesis that they are suing against?