Becky Watts - to think the media coverage of her murder trial is disgusting and disrespectful.

[HorribleMotherCo]

Every day for the last few days there have been sickening headlines about what was done to her body.

Do the public really need to know the sickening details?

It must be extremely traumatising, not only for family members who have chosen not to sit in court, but also for school friends who knew her.

I also find it extremely disrespectful to her memory to have the gory details of what happened to her body to be plastered all over the papers.

Have they no decency?

Murder porn is right. Dressed up as concern.

Ghoulish.

I really had no idea about this case until I clicked on here,
I don't read papers or watch the news and have totally missed this and many of the other news items people talk about.
I haven't even seen it mentioned on social media.
However, come on here and I now know more than I would have liked to have known.
So it goes to prove that it's society itself that revels in the sensationalism of such murders.

I feel really sorry for the police/forensics/family/lawyers/jury who HAVE to hear every detail.

Everyone else can choose to read the reports based on their level of squeamishness.

It's not disrespectful to report on a trial though surely, however grim the details? That's what news is, reporting on stuff that is going on in the world. Isn't the whole point we have news is because people are interested in things that go on which do not directly affect them?

Why do certain outlets use a different tone to report what was said in open court?
Because people like to read it. You might not. But others do.
It sells newspapers. Gets lots more clicks online than a more sanitised version.
That's why.
Until such day as the clicks don't happen, it will continue.

I think media goes too far. Perhaps it's cos it take more and more to shock the majority of our society.
Somethings don't need to be taken out of the courts and into the media circus.

i think the coverage has been prurient. Editorial decisions have been made in the reporting of this case - and it seems that every lurid detail is being offered up for public consumption.

Sure justice needs to be seen to be done - but the specific details about how that young person died and what they did to her body are not required when reporting the case.

She was someone's daughter, loved and cared for.

I don't particularly want to know the intimate detail of what happened in this case so I don't read it. What I have read though has been on the bbc rather than in the tabloids (which i don't read anyway) and there has still been a fairly high level of graphic detail.

The reality is that this detail does need to be in the public domain in order that justice is seen to be done, and the family will have been prepared for what details will be talked about in court and thus out there in the public domain so they're not going to happen upon something they were unaware of iyswim.

I find it interesting that the majority of detail which has been talked about on this thread has been from the posters who are objecting to it being out there. If you don't want to read it, then don't. but if it offends people that much, then why are you spreading that detail further by quoting the headlines and talking about the more graphic elements on here?

I find it interesting that the majority of detail which has been talked about on this thread has been from the posters who are objecting to it being out there.

I haven't mentioned any details.

Egosumquisum I'm not interested either, so I don't click. But I know everyone else is not like me.
Lots of things others do offend me, but that's society, isn't it?

"And you can't avoid it. Just click on the DM website and it's their main article. Pictures and everything." actually, by not clicking on the dm you can absolutely avoid it. People criticise the tabloids for what they print and yet continue to read them. The dm reports in the way it does because people want to read that kind of reporting, and half of them will share that kind of reporting with the added line "sorry it's the dm..." no, you're not sorry, you're just sorry that you're confirming by sharing that article that you're a dm reader and are thus content to contribute to the number of clicks on their website by reading and then distributing the crap that they post.

You just beat me to it wannabe

Every bit of detail on this thread has been posted by those who say that they don't see why we should know any of it.

I happen to be one of those ghoulish people who reads courts reports and websleuths forum because I find it interesting, but I wouldn't come on here and post gory details for all to read because I know not everyone wants to know about it.

But regarding the reporting of detail, fact is that some of this stems from the initial reporting of a missing person etc and the desire of people who take an initial interest in that to know what happened, was someone brought to justice? what happened to that person they may have distributed pictures of or talked about or watched the police updates on, or even helped search for if they lived in the area.

When someone goes missing the police etc rely on the media to spread the word in order to hopefully find that person. The hope is always that that person will be found alive, but it's unrealistic to suggest that if they're not the media are just going to turn away and say ah well, move along, nothing more to see here." because what happened is absolutely in the public interest, not least in many cases because when someone goes missing not only does that spread a wave of sadness over a community but also fear. Fear that you too might be at risk. Fear of whether or not others will come to harm. And so when the media report on the trial and the outcome it re-enforces the reality that on the whole, we live in a safe society where we are not all at risk from random murderers and people out to do us harm.

The police chose to release the photographs of the bags and stun gun. They are not graphic. They're just pictures of bags. There is no sign of what was in them.

Yes I have a problem with the media when things like the Chris Jefferies case happen. But when it's trials the press can and should be able to report everything that is said in court and reprint anything the police choose to release.

Public scrutiny of the justice system and open trials are vital, as is the right of the press to report. If you can't understand why I recommend Kafka's 'The Trial' as reading.

The idea that papers shouldn't report evidence and the events in trials as they happen is the beginning of a road to very dangerous places.

I opened up Metro this morning on the tube to be greeted with the news that her head was found in a plastic bag.

I was a reporter., I still write content and as an editor I would question the validity of publishing these details - the fact that the BBC is not publishing the details just underlines my point.

The daily mail however seems to have no shame.

and also, people are more likely to pay initial attention to e.g. a missing person case if they see that there is an ultimate outcome. Imagine if the news ran cases of "police are looking for x person who disappeared in y location and are urging people to look for them," and then once a body had been found they just stopped reporting on it and people were left wondering what happened - if anything - people might be less inclined to spread a picture or talk about the case locally etc, and the public's involvement is often crucial, for searching, for noticing things, for giving evidence where possible/necessary.

Just look at the number of missing person pictures which do the rounds on twitter. most people have missing person picture fatigue now because there is never an outcome, and for all you know that person might never be found or they may have been found dead. But what's the point of contributing if you never know one way or the other.

There is a difference between aiding a missing person inquiry and publishing lurid details of a court case.

YANBU
I don't see why all the horrible details have to be retold in such detail. I don't read tabloids but I still stumbled onto some of the disgusting facts of this case. Unfortunately it's not just the tabloids that do this even the broadsheets seem to find a way of including all the horrible details. It doesn't add to the story or help people understand or sympathise.

It happens with news stories all the time. I used to close my eyes every time the twin towers was shown on TV being blown up and I really tried to avoid seeing the people jumping to their deaths. It feels disrespectful and voyeristc to watch them.

As for the Daily mail,showing pictures of people who are about to be murdered by ISIS I have no idea how anyone thinks that's a good idea.

I like to keep up with current affairs but these salacious shock-value reporting tactics do not add anything to my understanding.

I can't imagine how Beckys parents must feel but the thought that their DDs murder is being described in detail in the news must surely make it even worse.

If you are the kind of person who wants to read every single gruesome detail, then I think there is something wrong with you.

I'd take a thousand people who are interested in details over a single bossyboots who wants to decide on everyone else's behalf what they are allowed to know.

I don't think it is gratuitous - I think the details of the dreadful treatment of this woman need to be known.

Of course the media is going to report every detail - would you the news was censored?

If you don't like it, don't read it.