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?

Exactly Ubik

Indeed - nor a young child.

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!

IME most journalists are at least partly motivated by the public service aspect of what they do, and telling the truth matters to them.

The fact that newspapers have to sell papers, and that they will sell those papers by choosing stories that are likely to be of interest to their readership is hardly some massive revelation.

As a society we have decided (rightly) to have public trials.

We have also decided that papers can publish what is in the public domain with relatively few restrictions.

That means that trials the public is interested in are going to get more attention, more reporting, than others.

Papers that rely on sensationalism to sell their papers will use the same approach to their court reporting. obviously.

But other than moaning on about the dreadful tabloids and their awful oik readers who really would be better off not knowing the things broadsheet readers are allowed to know about, what is the point of moaning?

Do you want to censor the papers to make them more tasteful and non-salacious?

Because if not, then you are left with information that is rightfully in the public domain being printed by newspapers that have every right to do that.

So if you don't object to their right to do so, then you just don't read stuff that offends you.

Evening folks. We know it's already been pointed out several times on the thread and everyone has been pretty careful about it thus far, but we just thought it was worth popping by with a reminder that discussion of the trial and the press coverage is fine, but we must be careful not to assume guilt until and unless it is proven. Thank you!

BathtimeFunkster I'm curious to know what paper you read? I'm guessing it's the Daily Mail.

They absolutely have the 'right' to publish.

But just because something is legal, it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.
And of course editing or 'censorship' as you choose to ca it takes place - there is plenty of material available to news media that they chose not to show. Why? Isn't that censorship? Values of taste, responsibility and general decency are applied Al the time when selecting content for publication - why not for that young girl?

I'm curious to know what paper you read? I'm guessing it's the Daily Mail.

LOL

That's like the worst insult, isn't it?

I do often read the Daily Mail and the tabloids for my work.

For fun I'm a namby pamby Guardian-reading pinko lefty.

But maybe even knowing what is in the terrible tabloids has poisoned my mind?

And of course editing or 'censorship' as you choose to ca it takes place

I'm not calling editing censorship (although it can be).

I'm saying that imposing external editorial standards of "taste" and "decency" is censorship. Because it is.

Her death is being used to sell papers. Her gruesome horrible awful death is being used to sell papers.

It's sick and a revolting practise.

Fair enough.

I don't see what kind of news media we'd be left with if everyone stopped trying to sell papers with stories about terrible things that have happened.

But of course taste and decency applies ... Graphic content is edited out all the time - even at the tabloids.

There's a balance - and I think done news outlets have got it wrong.

Lol, I did think the Daily mail suggestion might be a step to far

IME most journalists are partly motivated by the public service aspect of what they do, and telling the truth matters to them

haha, now you are just being silly. I take it back, you clearly havent read the Daily Mail. . Next you will be telling us that Jeremy Kyle believes he is helping the people who come on his show.

There seems to be a certain amount of polarizing of the debate going on here (if that's the right term for it).

I'd like to ask those on the "censorship is a slippery slope" "open courts are important" side of the discussion (I'll note that I believe both those points are valid and important arguments:

• At what point do you believe something becomes censorship? Where does that slippery slope start for you? A) When it is legally forbidden to publish it? B) When it is not illegal, but part of an industry code of conduct? C) When it is neither illegal, nor is it part of any code of conduct (binding or otherwise), but is prone to attracting significant social disapproval? D) When social disapproval is not widespread, but expressed by some?

(You might well be able to come up with a better scale!)

For me, A would definitely be something I'd consider wrong. B - depends. Not sure, would need to consider that carefully. C - bah, everybody's entitled to an opinion. I might disagree with the opinion but I wouldn't think of it as censorship. D - I'd consider anyone calling this censorship somewhat whacky, but I have heard it!

FWIW, I have avoided all court coverage (I read the original articles while she was missing). I still know what feels like quite a lot of detail, just from seeing headlines (I don't make a conscious choice to read them, I see text and I understand it, that's commonplace) when shopping, left on the table at work (turned it over), in coffee shops, etc. So I have made some effort to avoid knowing, for my own reasons, and this has not been successful.

You do understand there is a difference between reporting the facts and reporting sensationally to sell papers.

I understand that reporting the facts and reporting sensationally both constitute using her death to sell papers.

The only way to avoid making money out of her death is to refuse to carry any reports on it.

There's a balance - and I think done news outlets have got it wrong.

Agreed.

But that doesn't mean I think people "don't need the details" when those details are evidence from a trial.

Court reports are mostly made up of details. That is their nature.

But then I am more familiar with the reporting of low-profile crimes.

I'm grateful for detailed reports about court cases I'm following.

I would say A, B, and C can all lead to undesirable censorship.

A is open and shut. B would depend on the nature of the industry and the motivations of the people drafting and applying it.

Industry codes of conduct in Hollywood films in the 30s certainly operated as effective censorship.

Public opinion can certainly lead to self-censorship that is undesirable, but it functions differently from an externally imposed regime.

There is a difference between (and I am using a general example here):

'The victim had been stabbed multiple times and the murder weapon was left at the scene'
And
'The police were faced with the grusome scene of X's body, which had been stabbed over and over again, and the blood soaked knife which had been tossed next to her body'.

Sorry, am obviously not a journalist, but you get the picture.

I just don't think the media are showing the memory of that young girl enough respect.

They show more respect to other people who have died. The balance feels wrong in this case.

I hadn't thought of the Hollywood example, Bathtime. Also, yes I suppose there may be circumstances where I'd consider C to be having a negative effect.

Where do you stand on the headlines vs inside paper? Personally I wouldn't consider it a negative thing if papers kept the more gruesome details off the cover, as this would still allow full and free access to anyone who wanted to know, but for those who might want to avoid it (or avoid at that time), that would also be easier. I am not sure whether you would consider this an unreasonable request.