To be shocked at Sky News' coverage of the excavations in Praia Da Luiz?

[ziggiestardust]

I didn't see a lot of the initial coverage, as I was working abroad in 2007. But the Police are potentially excavating a little girl's body, regardless of the circumstances, and they've got live cameras at the scene, waiting. It's macabre, and it seems like regardless of the fact MM was a tiny little defenceless girl, she's fair game for the media.

I just think it's shitty. Do a quick piece on it, but is there any need for the close ups of the excavation site and a blow by blow account of what's happening?

Her poor family

Right, see I have no problem with thwarting the morbid curiosities of people treating this like a crime thriller they can solve with their mates in the pub. And I think this coverage cultivates that attitude, rather than contain it.

And by that logic outs, there should have been no live coverage of the unearthing of mass graves in Bosnia

Thanks madamedefarge, that's what I'm getting on about.

I don't think the endgame is a body. I think the endgame here is the conclusion to the search. Which could easily be reported at the end of it. (The search of the scrubland)

Thing is though there has to be a level of reporting because with the prevalence of social media, if there isn’t then the public will speculate on their own, and what appears on social media would be far more distasteful than what appears on sky.

I've nowhere disagreed with the presence of news crews, nowhere. To persistently argue against me on that basis feels now like wilfully missing my point.

The denial of access to the press is not what I've argued the Bosnia grave argument is not logical from what I've said, it's a STRAW MAN

Yes but no one reads social media as a fact based, objective representation of the world.

Indeed you haven't, but some posters have.

but the police obviously aren't going to be searching there if they believe the conclusion will be that there's nothing to see iyswim. They are searching for a reason - because they believe that there is some evidence, otherwise they wouldn't be.

So once a search begins, and in such a high profile case, something has to be said or social media will say it instead.

Imagine how the police erecting tents would be viewed on twitter for instance... or the bringing in of ground-breaking radar - to joe Public it's just a piece of machinery, the purpose of which is open to speculation... especially after a couple of days... too much scope for self interpretation if no information at all is forthcoming.

Okay, Mdme, but you have said, "by that logic, Outs... Bosnia etc." So it does look like you've said that I've said it

Yes but no one reads social media as a fact based, objective representation of the world." that's just not true - unfortunately. And there are plenty of media outlets who would take the word of twitter as their source and run with a story before confirming the actual facts.

I've certainly read on news sources that "it's been reported on twitter that...."

My objection to your statement was nothing to do with coverage, it was to do with the conflation of exhuming a mass grave with the more emotive notion of live coverage of digging for a grave, ie, seeing every little bit of earth being scraped away.

would it be fair to say that we all agree that this should be covered by the media, but disagree as to the frequency of updates and the validity of their content?

Understood. I was being particularly emotive there and it didn't help.

Re Twitter, there would not be any access to the site for the general public, so the Twitter effect doesn't count here. And "reported on Twitter" relates to thousands of corroborating reports. It's not a relevant example in this case.

Discussion on FB etc does not hav the same truth/ reality claims as Sky News reporting whatsoever the beliefs of individuals on those sites.

X post Mdme

Agreed mdme. I think there is also some disagreement about the importance or implications of news-as-entertainment

the dig started at the beginning of the week and it ends on Friday - therefore it's a news story.

If they don't find anything it's news

If they do find something it's even bigger news

either way it's news

Sounds like it's moving on a bit now

I agree with WonderingAllowed: I don't find the coverage ghoulish but people do want to know what happened to Madeleine, which is perfectly legitimate.

I have only been watching the BBC and the Guardian neither of which are even showing pictures of the parents at present.

The whole story is gradually slipping down the pages because there isn't much hard news to report.

Evening to you all. Just a reminder as this story moves on: we are welcoming discussion on this thread about the media coverage of this story only. I think we can all agree that speculating on unknown facts and apportioning blame of any sort is unhelpful at best and not in the spirit of Mumsnet, which exists to support parents. We understand how upsetting this story is to all parents, but would ask you to think carefully about how your posts may read to those closest to Madeleine at this time. Thanks for your consideration.

I'm sure people do want to know, they show an interest in many things though. I'm not saying this isn't a legitimate story, but it's legitimacy does not arise because of people's desire to know. Neither does their interest require or legitimate the way that this particular development is presented.

I agree with everything limited has said.

The implication by some posters that journalists should politely wait a few miles away from the scene for sanitised updates from the police is laughable, especially in this case. The McCanns have been absolutely reliant on people being invested in the disappearance of their daughter in order to drive ongoing coverage of the case. Those people who are invested deserve honest, regular updates on the case. That obviously cannot take place if the reporters are not reporting from the scene. And given the amount of police misinformation, poor investigation and mistakes that have historically surrounded this case, I'd say it's even more important the media are there to see for themselves what's going on.

The media should absolutely be on the ground, reporting what they see, whether that is something, or nothing.

And as for the letter from the Met, of course police officers don't want the media reporting on what they're doing, unless they've pre-edited and packaged it up themselves. This happens every day in local journalism. Our police force now has more 'reporters' working in its press office than reporters working at the local newspapers. The media is already being gagged from reporting what is happening in communities up and down the country. The freedom of the press has already been massively eroded. I think this is hugely relevant to the MM case. If our press can't report this case freely, then where exactly should we draw the line?

Anyway, I sincerely hope that MM's family get the outcome they want from these searches.

See, I don't think people have been implying journalists should be waiting politely a few miles away. They have been saying that the public shouldn't expect constant live updates, and that that way of presenting this news is invested with an aesthetics of entertainment, and that aesthetic is potentially problematic and driven by commercial interests rather than a need for transparency. Journalists should be there. They are a vital part of accountability. But they must also be accountable in that process.