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?

This isn't to do with censorship - of course the details shouldn't be censored but that doesn't mean that it's appropriate to publish all the horrific details.

So do you think the press should spare us the evil doings of Daesh then? Evil in another context but evil no less.

It is VERY appropriate to report the details - all the details are appalling. It's not gratuitous - that is an emotive term and the media is simply reporting the facts.

I have chosen to read very little about this case, it is very traumatic. We have freedom of press and freedom to read. Do we need to know that this was a premeditated evil cruel murder - yes I think we do.

The details are gratuitous though. They don't add anything to the understanding of her murder. Some details are necessary but a blow by blow account is not.
It isn't episode of CSI, it's someone's daughter.

It is someone's daughter but the dad is there every day hearing more than we do.

The details are gratuitous though. They don't add anything to the understanding of her murder.

Right, so your argument is that the evidence being presented in court is "gratuitous" and "doesn't add anything to the understanding of her murder"?

Seriously?

These are reports about a trial.

The court needs to know. We don't. Particularly when some papers are using the gratuitous detail to make more money than they would if they reported it discreetly and sensitively.

It's exploitation of a young woman's death for pure profit.

Oh FFS disappointing self censorship is still censorship.

And it is dangerous. If details were sanitised I suspect there are more than a few judges who would cut the sentences they handed out substantially because they would know a public ignorant of the full facts would tolerate it.

Several lenient sentences have been referred and increased because of public pressure. Pressure which may not have happened if the details hadn't been public knowledge.

And anyway, if you don't want to read it, go and read the Guardian, they always play down the seriousness of crime because it suits their own agenda.

The court needs to know. We don't.

Wrong.

Our trials are conducted in public, because it is important that we know what happens in our courts in our name.

What a load of nonsense Anastasie. 'The courts need to know but you don't' is the argument totalitarian regimes use to cover up serious abuses of justice.

Conversely, as well as unfairly shortening sentences it can unfairly lengthen them. There was a thread on here the other day where a mother whose child had drowned was sentenced to what seemed to a lot of people a disproportionately long sentence.

A lot of people where insisting that every single outlet which reported on it must have left out some vital piece of evidence which justified it and it had to be 'bad reporting' (by the entire press who all missed the exact same vitally important thing) rather than a bit of a miscarriage of justice.

Can you imagine how much more that sort of logic would be used if papers were censored? Judges could hand down sentences far heavier than were justified and people would just say 'Oh well it must be because they've not reported something'.

and an 'outraged mammy' too apparently.

Do you know how much court copy is generated every day? I do because I used to sift through it binning most of it.
This is what editors do. There will always be details heard in court which are left out of the court reports published in newspapers - for space or for respect to those involved.

All a court report has to be is fair, accurate and contemporaneous. The rest is editing.

The people who are gobbling up all the lurid details are the same sort that buy Famous Grisly Murders or whatever those magazines that lines the shelves of WH Smith are called.

The journalist who was behind some of the more graphic articles on the Graham Dwyer trial I referenced earlier was hawking her book on Twitter the day after the verdict was reached. All in the public interest I'm sure.

BathtimeFunkster

Err, I think your making stuff up now. I didn't suggest the details were gratuitous in court as you well know.

and Booyoka you may FFS yourself! . So what do you suggest? That newspapers have no constraints at all? Perhaps you would welcome photos?

There will always be details heard in court which are left out of the court reports published in newspapers

Yes.

But that doesn't mean that details should be deliberately left out of reports on high profile trials to spare the feelings of people who claim they aren't interested.

Some people prefer to choose publications that don't make editorial decisions about court reporting based on the evidence possibly offending people.

Even if you are correct on that score (about the public needing to be aware of every detail on a par with that known to the court) then court papers are published I believe eventually?

Whatever the argument in that regard, no one needs a screaming red top headline detailing the process in terrible grammar.

My point about discretion and sensitivity stands as does my point about exploitation.

I didn't suggest the details were gratuitous in court as you well know.

If they're not gratuitous in court, how can they be gratuitous in a report of what happened in the court?

These "gratuitous details" that offend you so much are the evidence in a real trial of an actual murder that happened to a real person.

It's the people who think they can have a nice "understanding of the murder" without being troubled by the details of what happened that are treating this like an episode of CSI.

These details are evidence, they have an importance beyond entertaining (or offending, although it seems to amount to the same thing) people.

The trial is being reported for good and important reasons.

If you are offended by knowing details, then avoid them.

I know more about this trial from reading this thread than I did before.

BF
are you suggesting that newspapers cannot influence public opinion by choosing the details they highlight?

Most people who read the tabloids will probably only see the headline and make up their own story behind it, accuracy doesn't play a part in tabloid reporting even if the people who are thick enough to buy these papers actually read them.

Factual and correct and detailed reporting and tabloid journalism don't belong in the same category.

All facts should be reported. It's important that justice takes place in the open.

However, the language some papers use is unnecessary. I read one article that repeatedly talked about her being 'cut up' along with phrases like 'shocking details', 'gruesome collection of tools' and 'blood stained knife'. I do find that all in poor taste.

So yes to the reporting but no to the style.

my god you really believe that media outlets are headlining the gory details of that case because they have a public service motivation to tell the truth! You believe that don't you.
God I'm a cynical old bag but I'll tell you now that these editors know that images and video go viral on social media - words do not. The victim was an attractive young woman - that helps push it up the news agenda - and the images and horrific detail also help guarantee maximum coverage.
The story will be top loaded with the most lurid detail at the top to catch the eye and make you want to read on.
Everything you read in the media is selected, edited, re edited, illustrated and placed in a particular way.

It ain't the noble sword of truth.