Boycott Marie Claire after Leveson - Margaret Watsons Evidence

[bkgirl]

As a Marie Claire reader I was absolutely horrified to hear Margaret Watsons testimony and frankly how it's bad reporting led to the death of her 15 year old son. I will NEVER spend a penny on this rag again.
The apology was pathetic, I am so sorry that I did not appreciate what I was indirectly funding before.
I always thought that Marie Claire was above the gutter press, heck was I wrong.
Here is a link
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-15834121

I used to get Marie Claire. I dont now as i have simply grown out of it. Their sales arent what they used to be and i think this will damage them. They shouldnt have done what they did. it was sensationalist and unnecessary. Mags like Marie Claire and Cosmo are unrecognisable now from what they used to be. They have been infected by the celeb culture and are extremely sensationalist. You can tell by just looking at the covers when you walk past a news shelf. Marie Claires sales were down earlier this year according to press gazette and this possibly could cause major problems for them.

I haven't read it for years. It was always pretty pretentious, staffed by the sort of idiots depicted in Ab Fab.

I remember this case ( the original murder of the schoolgirl and subsequent suicide of her brother) very well as It happened near where I live.

Press reports at the time , shockingly, did imply the murdered girl was partly to blame.

link

Marie Claire has always been full of shit. Every month I'd think "Bugger me! They've found yet another lost tribe in a remote part of the world where the women are in charge. How do they do it?"

It was a crappy, shameful article, but it was published 20 years ago. I doubt there will be many staff members / writers / editors remaining from that time, if any.

So what if they did it twenty years ago, they have shown no remorse either as a company or the individuels involved -I wonder who employs the writers, editors now etc. Why a magazine aimed at adults thought it would be good to write an article slagging off a sixteen year old murder victim, simply because she was murdered by someone else who was young is beyond me. Why exactly is the fact a fifteen year old stabbed someone to death used to portray the victim as the real culprit? Do the journalists involved think it would not be so bad to stab them to death because of their behaviour, which was far worse than the murder victims here?And why do Marie claire think it is OK to put the blame on someone else by admitting their sources were unreliable, but they decided to go ahead and print anyway.
perhaps member sof the public need to follow the journalists around taking their photo, writing nasty articles about their private lives with no basis (so long as they put "sources claim" " it has been rumoured" they can write what they want it appears, look at how few articles actually state things as pure fact, rather than rely on the above caveats).

I knew one of the girls cousins , from school.

When this happened , she said the victim was stabbed because the other girls boyfriend "liked" her.

Imo ,it was uncalled for jealousy , and the victim did not deserve in anyway what had happened. She did not do anything that would justify what happened to her.

Marie claire should have the same fate as news of the world.

Marie Claire is part of IPC Media which also owns Woman and Womans Own. They also own the moneysavingexpert website (MSE) and you only have to read the nasty misogynistic comments appearing on the forums section of the aforementioned site (usually about disabled people) or women to know that a lot of its members (not all) read the Daily Mail and/or publications like Marie Claire. There were some very nasty comments put up there a few weeks back when that couple commit suicide after living on 57.50 a week. I got into a row on Discussion Time with the person making the comments which got the offending comments removed but if i hadnt they would have been left on there. I also did report the comment as abuse and they did remove it but unfortunately that is not always the case.

Should I be boycotting the Herald? I don't read women's magazines because they are shit imo so I can't boycott MC. I don't really want the Herald to go bust, even though it probably will quite soon, partly because I enjoy it, partly because I hate the Scotsman.

Can't find a statement from Marie Claire about it, have they ever apologised to the family? - link anyone?

At the end of enquiry and conclusion, will they hactually have the power to do anything? Or just make empty reccomendations that will be ignored?

Does the OP or anyone else here seriously think Marie Claire was a reputable magazine with a rigorous approach to news gathering?

It was always the most obviously made-up shit designed to flatter its readers that they could combine an interest in eyeshadow with international affairs.

How can anyone honestly claim not to have noticed this?

er nope but I have sent you a message limitedperiodonly

carernotasaint IPC Media is also a very large employer who are NOT responsible for the opinions of random internet warriors on their forums. Bit of a slur on the whole company, wouldn't you say? Can't see your point, regardless of one article Marie Claire published 20 years ago.
And yes, I no longer read MC because I'm not 25 anymore. It's not really aimed at grown up women imo.

Can I also ask for a link please?

I didn't know IPC owned MSE...am shocked.

Have repliec bk

I didnt know about MSE either. I had the idea it was Martin Lewis on his own.

According to the 'About' page on the MSE site:

"Created, and still 100% owned, by Martin Lewis in Feb 03 for just £100, its ethical stance and Consumer Revenge approach have made it the UK's official no. 1 money site with nearly 10 million unique users a month."

The information i had must have been wrong then. I would be very surprised if Marie Claire has ANY of the same writers/journalists there now who were also there in 1992.

Did this happen during Liz Jones's tenure as managing editor?

Amusing that you all want to boycott a magazine that you probably don't read anyway over a story that none of you know anything about or had even heard of before the Levenson enquiry.

Nancy, the Watsons son was called Alan, he was 15 and distraught at the way journalist ripped to shreds the memory of his dear sister with ill informed and inaccurate reporting. His death is NOT amusing, our concern and disgust at the way both he and his family were treated is NOT amusing. You hard, cold amusement is not surprising since you are a tabloid journalist, probably working for Murdoch, and you dislike the spotlight Leveson is shinning on your profession.

What do you think the Watsons should do, shut up? Do you think we all should let newspapers /the media report whatever they like, truthful or not and at any cost. Your arguments are neither reasonable nor logical. Sure, I agree it is important to protect free speech but with that comes a responsibility to the truth and indeed not to cause harm.

There are many fine journalists who work over a wide spread of publications/media who have retained their integrity. They have nothing to worry about in the Leveson enquiry.

Finally, I reckon you as a journo need to tighten up on your own spelling/factual accuracy....surely it's Leveson not Levenson.

But you had never heard of the Watson case before this week had you?

Nancy, I notice you do not answer many questions that are posed to you.
I cannot recall hearing about the Watson's before this week.I don't know if it made it into some of the national/international press or that I read the particular issue it may have appeared in.
Then again, that is the point - the Watson's educated us all as to what really happened since the great british media failed to do so (there may be exceptions).It just succeeded in generating an ill informed/untruthful story which directly caused a 15 year old CHILD unbearable pain and to loose his life. Sad totally unforgivable and indefensible.