About me
Archive
About me

BBC’s Madeleine McCann coverage indefensible

close

Hold up! Before you read on, please read this...

This post was published more than 11 years ago

I keep old posts on the site because I often enjoy reading old content on other people's sites. It can be interesting to see how views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have, to put it mildly, mellowed.

I'm not a believer in brushing the past under the carpet. I've written some offensive rubbish on here in the past: deleting it and pretending it never happened doesn't change that. I hope that stumbling across something that's 11 years old won't offend anyone anew, because I hope that people can understand that what I thought and felt and wrote about then is probably very different to what I think and feel and wrote about now. It's a relic of an (albeit recent) bygone era.

So, given the age of this post, please bear in mind:

  • My views may well have changed in the last 11 years. I have written some very silly things over the years, many of which I find utterly cringeworthy today.
  • This post might use words or language in ways which I would now consider highly inappropriate, offensive, embarrassing, or all three.
  • Factual information might be outdated.
  • Links might be broken, and embedded material might not appear properly.

Okay. Consider yourself duly warned. Read on...

Peter Horrocks has written an interesting piece on his BBC blog defending the way the organisation has told the story of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance. Unfortunately, his defence makes little sense. Some selected extracts…

Often we’re not able to give viewers any new information and that’s one of the things I spend a lot of time talking to my journalists about, to focus on facts … I know that many other TV and radio networks have been absolutely extraordinary, always talking about it in terms of sympathy and their feelings

I am incomplete agreement with Mr Horrocks here: Reportage of the facts, not of feelings, is exactly where BBC News should be focussed in this instance.

Questions have been raised over why we used a helicopter to cover the McCanns’ journey home from East Midlands airport.

An understandable question: Coverage of a car driving from one place to another has apparently little news value, and adds few new ‘facts’. So why did the BBC cover it?

The McCanns’ return was an important emotional moment in this story, and something which we felt we needed to cover for continuous news.

Eh? The BBC, which Mr Horrocks says focuses entirely on facts, and indeed is better than its rivals because of its emotional detachment from the story, felt the need to give continuous coverage to a car journey because it was an “emotional moment in this story”.

I sense a gap in the logic.

This 1,210th post was filed under: Media, News and Comment.

Some recently published posts

The next calling point for this service will be… / April 2019, 4 minutes long

Knowledge and understanding / April 2019, 7 minutes long

‘Inappropriate’ A&E attendances / April 2019, 3 minutes long

Cruise ships and me / April 2019, 6 minutes long

Some thoughts on print newspapers / April 2019, 5 minutes long

Some random old posts

alldaybrekkie.com / February 2005, Less than a minute long

Bird flu leaps from human to human / January 2005, 1 minute long

A bit more on the election / May 2005, Less than a minute long

What I’ve been reading this month / August 2016, 5 minutes long

‘Third’ of DVLA car records wrong / January 2005, 2 minutes long

Some thoughts on GMC social media guidance / April 2013, 7 minutes long


Comments and responses

Comment from hampshire terrier


by hampshire terrier

Comment posted at 13:41 on 11th September 2007.

I absolutely agree with your sentiment. I have found the vast majority of the case coverage disgusting and blinkered.

We have seen people who know none of the parties involved claiming the police are framing the McCanns, we have seen forensic experts denouncing evidence that has not even been seen by them and we have seen a wave of sympathy for suspected killers in what would be one of the most sinister tales of our time should any guilt be proven.

For ‘impartial’ BBC reports to be constructed in this way is upsetting, let’s have some objectivity!! You would think they could learn from their mistakes in coverage of the Iraq war yet it is still tabloid-style journalism on a state-funded platform.


Trackback from another website



Trackback received at 16:26 on 11th September 2007.

This post has been referenced by another website:
BBC’s Madeleine McCann coverage indefensible


Comment from Mike P


by Mike P

Comment posted at 08:51 on 12th September 2007.

I personally believe that they are as guilty as a man found with his finger in his dog’s ass who then denies owning a dog


Comment from garth


by garth

Comment posted at 12:11 on 12th September 2007.

here here, I agree that this slack coverage is pretty symptomatic of the low quality of journalism about today (aside from bloggers of course)


Comment from Matthew


by Matthew

Comment posted at 14:21 on 12th September 2007.

Comment from sjhoward (author of the post)


by sjhoward

Comment posted at 17:59 on 26th September 2007.

Thanks for your comments, everyone.

I’m glad that I’m not the only one who feels this way about coverage of the story – there does seem to be some consensus. Perhaps at some point the BBC will learn that in their quest to become ‘accessible’ they’ve gone too far, and reign the journalists back in a bit.


Compose a new comment



Comment

You may use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> .

If you would like to display a profile picture beside your comment, sign up for Gravatar, and enter your email address above.

By submitting your comment, you confirm that it conforms to the site's comment policy. Comments are subject to both automatic and human moderation, and may take some time to appear.



The content of this site is copyright protected by a Creative Commons License, with some rights reserved. All trademarks, images and logos remain the property of their respective owners. The accuracy of information on this site is in no way guaranteed. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author. No responsibility can be accepted for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information provided by this site. This site uses cookies - click here for more information.