(Hat-tip to Nirvana)
Showing posts with label mccann. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mccann. Show all posts
Friday, 4 May 2012
Wednesday, 25 April 2012
'A possibility'
On Wednesday, the Metropolitan Police issued a statement on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann: 'Detectives believe there is a possibility that Madeleine McCann is still alive.'
So how does the Express - whose previous coverage has been so problematic - cover this 'possibility'?
So how does the Express - whose previous coverage has been so problematic - cover this 'possibility'?
Saturday, 14 January 2012
Richard Desmond and the McCanns
At the Leveson Inquiry on Thursday, there were intriguing exchanges about the McCanns between a clearly unimpressed Robert Jay QC and Richard Desmond, owner of the Daily Express and Daily Star. Desmond coughed up £550,000 in damages for a relentless barrage of defamatory articles and all his papers published front page apologies which read:
Here's how some of the exchanges went at the Inquiry:
In other words: yes, we may have accused the McCanns of 'selling their daughter for money and hiding her body in a freezer', but hey, some of our other articles were 'good'.
Yes, you 'could argue' that, although it's hard to see why you'd want to.
Moreover, just because the stories weren't defamatory doesn't make them 'good'.
Desmond continued later:
Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for the McCanns, said in response to Desmond's evidence:
Still, at least Desmond's many apologies to the McCanns sounded genuine. Didn't they?
Somehow, ending an apology with 'et cetera, et cetera, et cetera' doesn't suggest it's entirely heartfelt.
The Daily and Sunday Express have taken the unprecedented step of making a front-page apology to Kate and Gerry McCann.We did so because we accept that a number of articles in the newspaper have suggested that the couple caused the death of their missing daughter Madeleine and then covered it up.
We acknowledge that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this theory and that Kate and Gerry are completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.
We trust that the suspicion that has clouded their lives for many months will soon be lifted.
As an expression of its regret, the Daily Express has now paid a very substantial sum into the Madeleine Fund and we promise to do all in our power to help efforts to find her.
Kate and Gerry, we are truly sorry to have added to your distress.
We assure you that we hope Madeleine will one day be found alive and well and will be restored to her loving family.
Here's how some of the exchanges went at the Inquiry:
Q. But isn't it fair to say, Mr Desmond, that if you look at the hard facts, I think the McCann litigation involved 38 defamatory articles. It is right, and Mr Ashford has drawn to our attention that there are other newspapers who also perpetrated defamations, but not to the same extent as your papers.
A. Is that -- I'm not sure that's right. I'm not sure that's right at all.
Q. If it's wrong, Mr Sherborne here, who -- the McCanns are his client -- will demonstrate that in due course, but it's certainly my understanding that we're talking about 38 defamatory articles over a four-month period and that your paper was guilty, if I can put it in those terms, of the most egregious and serious defamations, and other papers were guilty of defamations of perhaps less severity in terms of quantity. Do you accept that?
A. Once again, I don't wish to minimise it, right? But four months is -- let me see now, it's 12 weeks?
Q. It's 17 weeks, on my reckoning.
A. 17 weeks, thank you. 17 weeks times 6 -- you have to help me again.
Q. 102, is it, Mr Desmond? I don't know. You're the businessman.
A. Well, I don't know. 102, very good. Is 102.
Q. Yes.
A. And there were 37 --
Q. 38.
A. I'm not trying to win points here, because we did do wrong, but I could say there were more, if there were 102 articles on the McCanns, there were 38 bad ones, then one would say -- and I'm not trying to justify, please, I'm not trying to justify anything, but you could argue there were 65 or 70 good ones.
In other words: yes, we may have accused the McCanns of 'selling their daughter for money and hiding her body in a freezer', but hey, some of our other articles were 'good'.
Yes, you 'could argue' that, although it's hard to see why you'd want to.
Moreover, just because the stories weren't defamatory doesn't make them 'good'.
Desmond continued later:
A. At the end of the day, the McCanns, you know, as I understood it, although I've never met them, were perfectly -- if we ran it for four months, you know, it took them a long time to get involved in a legal dispute with us. They were quite happy, as I understand, in articles being run about their poor daughter, because it kept it on the front page. I think it was only when new lawyers came along, who I think were working on a contingency, that the legal --
Q. I can't --
A. Well, that's the facts. I'm sorry, that is the facts.
Q. Mr Desmond I'm going to interrupt you.
A. I'm sorry, that is the facts.
Q. That must be a grotesque characterisation.
A. I'm sorry, that is the facts.
Q. Your paper was accusing the McCanns on occasion of having killed their daughter. Are you seriously saying that they were sitting there quite happy, rather than entirely anguished by your paper's bad behaviour?
A. I'm sitting here --
Q. Just think about the question before you answer.
A. I'm going to answer your question, and I've already answered it. We ran -- on your suggestion, we've run 102 -- your figure, 102 articles. For four months you say we ran it, right? Nothing happened, to the best of my knowledge, until a new firm of lawyers were instructed, who were on a contingency, that then came in to sue us.
Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for the McCanns, said in response to Desmond's evidence:
"Mr Desmond's memory is apparently doing him a great disservice. For him to suggest that Kate and Gerry were happy with Express Newspapers' coverage, he must be living in a parallel universe." Desmond's portrayal of the McCanns' reaction to his papers' coverage of their daughters' disappearance was "grotesque in the extreme", he added. He said that the coverage, some of which was just "lies", had added to the suffering they endured.
Still, at least Desmond's many apologies to the McCanns sounded genuine. Didn't they?
But once again, please, I do apologise to the McCanns. I'm not trying to -- I am very sorry for -- you know, I am very sorry for the thing and I am very sorry that we got it wrong, but please don't, you know, try and -- every paper was doing the same thing
...
once again I do apologise to the McCanns, you know, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, but there are views on -- there are views on the McCanns of what happened. And there are still views on the McCanns of what happened.
Somehow, ending an apology with 'et cetera, et cetera, et cetera' doesn't suggest it's entirely heartfelt.
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
The Express and the McCanns (cont.)
Thursday's Express leads with - surprise, surprise - Madeleine McCann:
Yes, it's that Express favourite 'fury' again.
The McCanns are in Portugal trying to stop a police chief having an injunction against his book on the case overturned. Their 'fury' is explained by the Express:
Hmm. But wasn't that allegation also repeated on the front of a certain newspaper yesterday?
Ah yes. That's the one.
Of course the sub-head does clarify it, slightly, but if the Express really wanted to make that clear, they could have put the whole headline in quote marks and not just one word.
And, the article by Nick Fagge doesn't really begin in a way that makes the claim sound so 'amazing':
So there is the Express repeating a claim one day, then reporting on the McCanns' 'fury' about that claim the next. It's exactly what they did in 2007 when Madeleine went missing, and means they keep the story running, while pretending such are claims nothing to do with them.
And the Express has been good at changing its mind on this case from one day to the next. Take this front page from 9 October 2007:
And the very next day:
But given the front page apologies on all of Richard Desmond's newspapers (Express, Star and their Sunday editions), plus the substantial pay-outs to the McCanns, Robert Murat and the Tapas Seven you would think they might stop running such stupid, hysterical front pages on this story and be a bit more careful.
Yes, it's that Express favourite 'fury' again.The McCanns are in Portugal trying to stop a police chief having an injunction against his book on the case overturned. Their 'fury' is explained by the Express:
Gerry McCann angrily dismissed Portuguese detectives’ claims that his daughter Madeleine is dead as he arrived at court today.
Senior officers involved in the case told a hearing in Lisbon yesterday of their belief that Maddy died in her family’s holiday flat and that her parents faked her abduction.
Hmm. But wasn't that allegation also repeated on the front of a certain newspaper yesterday?
Ah yes. That's the one.
Of course the sub-head does clarify it, slightly, but if the Express really wanted to make that clear, they could have put the whole headline in quote marks and not just one word.
And, the article by Nick Fagge doesn't really begin in a way that makes the claim sound so 'amazing':
Madeleine McCann died in her family’s holiday apartment as the result of a tragic accident and her parents concealed her body, a police chief told a court in Portugal yesterday. Kate and Gerry McCann neglected their children and lied to detectives investigating Madeleine’s disappearance, a senior government lawyer also claimed.
So there is the Express repeating a claim one day, then reporting on the McCanns' 'fury' about that claim the next. It's exactly what they did in 2007 when Madeleine went missing, and means they keep the story running, while pretending such are claims nothing to do with them.
And the Express has been good at changing its mind on this case from one day to the next. Take this front page from 9 October 2007:
And the very next day:
But given the front page apologies on all of Richard Desmond's newspapers (Express, Star and their Sunday editions), plus the substantial pay-outs to the McCanns, Robert Murat and the Tapas Seven you would think they might stop running such stupid, hysterical front pages on this story and be a bit more careful.
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
Shameless back-slap...and some thoughts
This very blog was mentioned in an article by Gaby Hinsliff, the political editor of the Observer, as an example of a 'new breed of blog' attacking the tabloids. She says: 'It's rough and ready, but it's an interesting new way of holding newspapers to account'.
Hopefully people do find it interesting. But there is something more to it than that. The question is - who holds the newspapers, and particularly the tabloid press, to account?
It should be the Press Complaints Commission, but this pitiful regulator has proved time and again that it is completely unable and unwilling to do it.
The PCC is a cosy club, where Editors sit on the various committees - so how can it be properly unbiased? It's also unbelievable that a regulator could have Daily Express editor Peter Hill sat on it for five years - despite pushing out endless untrue rubbish about Diana, Madeleine McCann, Muslims and asylum seekers.
But the real problem with the PCC is that the powers it has are so feeble. Editors will come up with all manner of excuses against fines, but if Ofcom can impose them on broadcasters that break the rules (as it did to the BBC over Sachsgate), why is it inappropriate for the newspapers?
The previous PCC Chair, Sir Christopher Meyer, said in 2005: "The best argument against fines or statutory regulation is the effectiveness and prominence of the negative adjudication". But in what way is a negative adjudication a punishment? Has a national editor lost his or her job over a negative adjudication? It means absolutely nothing in the scheme of things.
This was proved in the PCC's adjudication on the Sunday Express' appalling Dunblane story. It read: 'Although the editor had taken steps to resolve the complaint, and rightly published an apology, the breach of the Code was so serious that no apology could remedy it.'
The natural question that follows from their phrase 'so serious that no apology could remedy it' is: so what is the penalty for the Sunday Express? They print an apology - although only after an outcry and a 10,000-signature strong petition - and four months later have been told off by the PCC. Does the PCC really think that that remedies it?
Then there was the Alfie Patten case, where the Sun printed an entirely untrue front page splash, boosting sales and hits to its website and so gaining in all manner of financial ways, at the same time as exploiting a 13 year old child. It admitted much later that the story was untrue, but the PCC has never even censured the paper for it.
Besides, the rules for a complaint are so restrictive, with the PCC only bothering to consider complaints from third-parties in 'exceptional circumstances'. In other words, if you are not the person who is the subject of the article, there is next to nothing you can do. And in that way, they can exclude most complaints about asylum-seekers, for example, as they are groups and not named persons.
So if the PCC refuses to do what it should, who will? There is a reluctance for the newspapers to criticise each other. There might be the occasional item - such as when the Guardian looked at some of the misleading 'political correctness destroys Christmas' articles.
But other than in extreme cases - such as the News of the World phone tapping - newspapers very rarely criticise each other (and the Guardian's new revelations have mainly been ignored by the other printed press). This is likely because it would set off the type of tit-for-tat nonsense the Mail and Express have pointlessly engaged in at occasional intervals. And if one paper takes apart a rival's story, it knows it is likely to get it back when it makes its next transgression.
The broadcasters are different. Channel Four was targeted when the Big Brother racism row broke out, and of course the right-wing papers are all to happy to pile into the BBC at any opportunity - even when it's something as thin as the number of people sent to cover Glastonbury. But the papers seem like a no-go zone.
There are a few places where such things are highlighted. Private Eye's Street of Shame is likely to be the most well known, but coming out every two weeks it doesn't have the immediacy to react to a misleading or mischievous story. And it means that the story has had time to embed in the public consciousness.
This is the other problem with the PCC - it takes so long for it do anything. Take the recent Inayat Bunglwala apology from the Mail on Sunday which appeared four months after the original story, by which time the original story had spread like wildfire on the various anti-immigrant and Islamophobic sites and forums.
This happens for almost any immigration or Islam story, and this blog has highlighted how two recent Mail articles and a Littlejohn column (on Gypsy access to NHS services, the number of non-white children in London, and on foreign workers) were used and reproduced - with slight changes to the words, but in almost the exact same structure - as BNP press releases.
Blogs such as this one generally do it on the day the story appears. It's not just about doing what a misrepresented member of the public might want to highlight. It's about how certain papers have an agenda and will twist stories to fit it. They will print, without question, press releases from Migrationwatch, and yet almost never bother getting quotes from the Refugee Council.
In explaining why the BNP now has two MEPs, Max Hastings produced an article full of anti-immigrant scares and BNP talking points, and not once mentioned the positive contribution made by immigrants. He falsely claimed that Migrationwatch figures had never been challenged, but blogs have repeatedly proved their figures to be highly questionable. But because the organisation feeds them an endless supply of refugee-bashing stories, and the Mail and Express engage in 'churnalism' more than editors Paul Dacre and Peter Hill will admit, neither paper bothers to do the journalism that is required.
Does any of this matter? Well, yes. When certain tabloids fill their pages with exaggerated, inflammatory and often just plain wrong stories attacking minorities, they seep into the public consciousness. They get repeated on far-right websites and become accepted as true.
A Red Cross survey for Refugee Week proved that '95% of the British public do not know how many people apply for asylum in the UK each year, with the vast majority hugely overestimating numbers'. The first question - why did none of the tabloids bother reporting on this survey? The second - where would 95% of the public get such a wrong idea from?
My impression - and it's certainly true of this one - is that all the blogs highlighting tabloid nonsense are written by people in their spare time, which may explain why they may appear 'rough and ready'. But in doing a job that neither the PCC or other media seem keen to do, their contributions are definitely needed.
Hopefully people do find it interesting. But there is something more to it than that. The question is - who holds the newspapers, and particularly the tabloid press, to account?
It should be the Press Complaints Commission, but this pitiful regulator has proved time and again that it is completely unable and unwilling to do it.
The PCC is a cosy club, where Editors sit on the various committees - so how can it be properly unbiased? It's also unbelievable that a regulator could have Daily Express editor Peter Hill sat on it for five years - despite pushing out endless untrue rubbish about Diana, Madeleine McCann, Muslims and asylum seekers.
But the real problem with the PCC is that the powers it has are so feeble. Editors will come up with all manner of excuses against fines, but if Ofcom can impose them on broadcasters that break the rules (as it did to the BBC over Sachsgate), why is it inappropriate for the newspapers?
The previous PCC Chair, Sir Christopher Meyer, said in 2005: "The best argument against fines or statutory regulation is the effectiveness and prominence of the negative adjudication". But in what way is a negative adjudication a punishment? Has a national editor lost his or her job over a negative adjudication? It means absolutely nothing in the scheme of things.
This was proved in the PCC's adjudication on the Sunday Express' appalling Dunblane story. It read: 'Although the editor had taken steps to resolve the complaint, and rightly published an apology, the breach of the Code was so serious that no apology could remedy it.'
The natural question that follows from their phrase 'so serious that no apology could remedy it' is: so what is the penalty for the Sunday Express? They print an apology - although only after an outcry and a 10,000-signature strong petition - and four months later have been told off by the PCC. Does the PCC really think that that remedies it?
Then there was the Alfie Patten case, where the Sun printed an entirely untrue front page splash, boosting sales and hits to its website and so gaining in all manner of financial ways, at the same time as exploiting a 13 year old child. It admitted much later that the story was untrue, but the PCC has never even censured the paper for it.
Besides, the rules for a complaint are so restrictive, with the PCC only bothering to consider complaints from third-parties in 'exceptional circumstances'. In other words, if you are not the person who is the subject of the article, there is next to nothing you can do. And in that way, they can exclude most complaints about asylum-seekers, for example, as they are groups and not named persons.
So if the PCC refuses to do what it should, who will? There is a reluctance for the newspapers to criticise each other. There might be the occasional item - such as when the Guardian looked at some of the misleading 'political correctness destroys Christmas' articles.
But other than in extreme cases - such as the News of the World phone tapping - newspapers very rarely criticise each other (and the Guardian's new revelations have mainly been ignored by the other printed press). This is likely because it would set off the type of tit-for-tat nonsense the Mail and Express have pointlessly engaged in at occasional intervals. And if one paper takes apart a rival's story, it knows it is likely to get it back when it makes its next transgression.
The broadcasters are different. Channel Four was targeted when the Big Brother racism row broke out, and of course the right-wing papers are all to happy to pile into the BBC at any opportunity - even when it's something as thin as the number of people sent to cover Glastonbury. But the papers seem like a no-go zone.
There are a few places where such things are highlighted. Private Eye's Street of Shame is likely to be the most well known, but coming out every two weeks it doesn't have the immediacy to react to a misleading or mischievous story. And it means that the story has had time to embed in the public consciousness.
This is the other problem with the PCC - it takes so long for it do anything. Take the recent Inayat Bunglwala apology from the Mail on Sunday which appeared four months after the original story, by which time the original story had spread like wildfire on the various anti-immigrant and Islamophobic sites and forums.
This happens for almost any immigration or Islam story, and this blog has highlighted how two recent Mail articles and a Littlejohn column (on Gypsy access to NHS services, the number of non-white children in London, and on foreign workers) were used and reproduced - with slight changes to the words, but in almost the exact same structure - as BNP press releases.
Blogs such as this one generally do it on the day the story appears. It's not just about doing what a misrepresented member of the public might want to highlight. It's about how certain papers have an agenda and will twist stories to fit it. They will print, without question, press releases from Migrationwatch, and yet almost never bother getting quotes from the Refugee Council.
In explaining why the BNP now has two MEPs, Max Hastings produced an article full of anti-immigrant scares and BNP talking points, and not once mentioned the positive contribution made by immigrants. He falsely claimed that Migrationwatch figures had never been challenged, but blogs have repeatedly proved their figures to be highly questionable. But because the organisation feeds them an endless supply of refugee-bashing stories, and the Mail and Express engage in 'churnalism' more than editors Paul Dacre and Peter Hill will admit, neither paper bothers to do the journalism that is required.
Does any of this matter? Well, yes. When certain tabloids fill their pages with exaggerated, inflammatory and often just plain wrong stories attacking minorities, they seep into the public consciousness. They get repeated on far-right websites and become accepted as true.
A Red Cross survey for Refugee Week proved that '95% of the British public do not know how many people apply for asylum in the UK each year, with the vast majority hugely overestimating numbers'. The first question - why did none of the tabloids bother reporting on this survey? The second - where would 95% of the public get such a wrong idea from?
My impression - and it's certainly true of this one - is that all the blogs highlighting tabloid nonsense are written by people in their spare time, which may explain why they may appear 'rough and ready'. But in doing a job that neither the PCC or other media seem keen to do, their contributions are definitely needed.
Friday, 6 March 2009
A full house
In a Robert Murat style mass-grovel, eight papers (Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mirror, the Sun, the London Paper and the Daily Express, plus Times Online and Metro Online) and Sky News have apologised and paid 'substantial' libel damages to a woman whose house wasn't trashed during a party at her house that wasn't organised via Facebook. Read the story here.
Talking of Murat, he has given a speech to the Oxford Union talking about his experiences of the media. It would be good the read the full speech but Michael White's report contains plenty of good detail.
Talking of Murat, he has given a speech to the Oxford Union talking about his experiences of the media. It would be good the read the full speech but Michael White's report contains plenty of good detail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
