I don't think you actually understand what the issue some people have with this is
I do understand the issue some people here have with it, I just don't agree with it.
From your posts it is clear you don't understand how news is gathered
The idea that anyone would wait for a phone call inviting them to a press conference so the police can announce they've found a child at the centre of one of the biggest news stories in recent years, rather than being on the spot and just saying it, makes that plain.
That's fine. I wouldn't understand the ins and outs of your job, either.
You and others are trying to dictate the way reporters gather information for what appears to be your personal taste. I find that as distasteful as the worst media excesses.
I said last night that you should gather news but you should be mindful of what you release - as much to prevent damage to yourself, as to others. Or did you not notice the bit where I supported Christopher Jefferies in going after the papers that had libelled him?
This is as much a publicity stunt by the police - both Met and Portuguese - as a serious exercise in gathering evidence. As such, it appears the press are very welcome. I imagine the McCanns probably welcome the renewed focus on the search for their daughter as well.
You mentioned the tents. That seems a relevant and harmless point to make. The police were searching in the open, they erected tents which might suggest they have found something they want to examine in privacy, or they might want to make it look like they've found something to justify the expense and attention that other cases of missing children aren't getting.
I'm not exercised about that last point, but it's a possibility and one that wasn't reported.
What I would ask you is how you think this reporting from the scene hurts anyone apart from people involved in local tourism? If Gerry and Kate McCann were being doorstepped, you'd have a point. But as far as I know, they're not.
You talk about me having a bee in my bonnet about the way the media are treated. I don't really, we can stand up for ourselves. But I could say the same about you and the way you perceive the media are behaving in this instance.
You said I hadn't answered your questions. I thought I had, and I wasn't trying to be patronising. I was trying to explain how it works to a person I wouldn't expect to know.
But simply put; I take on board your POV, but I do not agree with it.
The media have done many things - which is why I persist in saying that Leveson, the phone-hacking trial and the feeble interrogations of the Culture, Media and Sport sub-committee are very relevant to this thread.
This is not one of those occasions.
If you don't approve, turn off the TV, do not read tabloids. BTW, the broadsheets will also have people there because if Madeleine is found, they won't want to miss it either. They just don't report it every day because they have a different news agenda.
longtalljosie It is simply unbelievable that the police from both countries are not giving detailed off-the-record briefs to selected reporters.
In this case I find that routine and helpful - 'please don't reveal this; as a reward we'll give you that; you're barking up the wrong tree' - it's a good working relationship.
That's despite what I said about Leveson, hacking and the CMS committee, which revealed to the general public the unhealthy relations between police, the press and politicians and convicted and alleged criminals.
That's the general public who want to listen rather than people who want to dismiss it as all so tawdry.