Re: Sunday Times apology

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwx3zDb7u3U

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.
http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t19896-mccanns-have-to-sue-the-bbc-for-repeating-ga-s-theory-thesis

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:

http://freepdfhosting.com/2b20302620.pdf

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?

by Over The Hill 30.12.13 13:10

jeanmonroe wrote: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?

It's an interesting point, but once you make public an alleged libel against you, you are inviting the media to report it, ie you have outed the libel yourself, which makes it a grey area
If a libel case had been prepared in private until coming to court (at which point it can be reported anyway) it would have been different
But I would still play safe and not report the detail until the court hearing
So, yes, they could have sued the BBC if they wanted

by Mirage 30.12.13 13:32

An interesting thread. Sadly I will not be contributing anything else for the forseeable as I have become unwell again. Keep up the good work folks and I will be reading as much as possible. Mirage roses

by jeanmonroe 30.12.13 13:39

OTH:
So, yes, they could have sued the BBC if they wanted
_________________________________________________

That, of course, then invites the inevitable $64,000 question, dosen't it?

WHY didn't the McCanns WANT to sue the BBC?

by Guest 30.12.13 13:41

Mirage wrote:An interesting thread. Sadly I will not be contributing anything else for the forseeable as I have become unwell again. Keep up the good work folks and I will be reading as much as possible. Mirage

So sorry to hear that Mirage, hope you feel much better very soon roses

by jeanmonroe 30.12.13 14:11

ST: "We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review."
______________________________________________________________

Which begs the inevitable questions.

WHY DIDN'T THE 37 STRONG, SOLELY DEDICATED, ELITE TEAM AT THE MET RELEASE THE E-FITS TO THE PUBLIC IN AUGUST 2011 BUT WAIT FULLY ANOTHER TWO YEARS TO RELEASE THEM IN OCTOBER 2013?

WHO KNOWS WHAT DASTARDLY 'CRIMES' THIS MAN MAY HAVE COMMITTED IN THOSE TWO YEARS THAT THE MET, DCI REDWOOD INCLUDED, HAD, AND WITHELD, HIS E-FIT FROM THE PUBLIC UNTIL OCTOBER 2013?

by Jauna Loca 30.12.13 14:18

Is this ST Correction a bit of an own goal? Doesn't it make liars The Mcs performance on CW? Paints SY in a less that honest light either in that rather than they being the first police
force to see these efits, it turns out they have been in the hands of the law for 4 years. Didn't the McCanns agree with Kirsty Young that the revelation
of these e-fits was so new, so unprecedented that "History is being made this night?" I thought that was hyperbole of the highest order then but now doubly so in that
we are expected to erase that performance and accept that two, possible three police forces had these from the parents in 2009. Makes all the CW wide eyed wonder a bit staged, IMO.
Can't imagine SY are too impressed with how duplicitious the correction makes them liook either.

by mysterion 30.12.13 14:25

37 strong team - who are they? where do they work? what is the reporting structure? which cases have they been taken off for this one? will it be kept on after this one is solved?

by Miraflores 30.12.13 14:27

"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"

But I don't see how it alters the fact that the McCanns took/ are still taking action against Amiral in a Portuguese court but that our press choose not to publicise it. It is not quoting something defamatory - it's simply a matter of public record. It's a UK child who went missing and the parents are insistent that they want her name kept in the public. Why shouldn't we be told about how the McCanns choose to search, if that is what they are doing?

by **PeterMac** 30.12.13 14:34

jeanmonroe wrote:
WHO KNOWS WHAT DASTARDLY 'CRIMES' THIS MAN MAY HAVE COMMITTED IN THOSE TWO YEARS THAT THE MET, DCI REDWOOD INCLUDED, HAD, AND WITHELD, HIS E-FIT FROM THE PUBLIC UNTIL OCTOBER 2013?

We do know only too well. The McCanns have said, publicly and often, that he is a predatory Paedo* * * * who is holding Madeleine in a Hellish Lair within 10 miles of PdL.
So the one year, two year, three year, delay, in fact any delay at all is incomprehensible - assuming you believe what they say, of course.

From the above it follows logically that Leicester, Scotland Yard and the PJ do NOT believe the McCanns protestations.
No one does.

by Rasputin 30.12.13 14:37

mysterion wrote:37 strong team - who are they? where do they work? what is the reporting structure? which cases have they been taken off for this one? will it be kept on after this one is solved?

I just hope Mr Redwood is allowing them regular breaks away from their desks....I so worry about deep vein thrombosis with these guys !