When does honest/reasonable debate become prurient and mawkish rubbernecking - where's the line?

[WideWebWitch]

I know where MY line is but clearly, from recent threads, plenty of people don't.

While I have no control over what is said on this thread (obv), I think it's worth discussing the difference between the two, i.e. hard news/fact and opinion/speculation and where the lines lie.

I do realise that behind this a very serious and awful, tragic thing has occurred. And all of us, presumably, would rather not be even thinking about it, let alone disccusing it. so this is supposed to be about how we discuss these things rather than about what supposedly did or didn't happen.

Wannabe, I like you, your posts always seem to be really really good.

Sorry that was me, back to sensible name

Where's the line?

It's like 'good taste' every one has a different perception of it.

It is, for me, strange that people can feel strongly enough about the guilt/innocence of the McCanns that they become embroiled for hours bickering over why they are right. Beyond that, I really dont care what people discuss.

Having said that, it seems to me that some of those taking a strong moral line against these threads are as guilty of mawkishness and self indulgance as those they point an accusatory finger at.

The debating/rubbernecking line only exists in one's own taste. Like masses of other MNetters, I've been lurking on a couple of threads over the last two days but not wanting to post on them. Either they've been pretty distasteful dissections of of the sad MM case or else they've been self-righteous twaddle about how 'ignorant' people are to speculate. I'm sure others will have 'left well alone' rather than add to it all.

But, it is impossible to stifle discussion. So many people around the world are talking and speculating about this case, I can't believe people are surprised when the subject comes up in detail on a parenting website. I think the idea of posters policing each other rather than letting the site do it is a little arrogant and I'm glad MN stepped in. (I would have if it was my website!)

What a well-rounded post, Snolly. There are times when I could almost accuse you of wisdom.

One line for me would be when people cross from drawing conclusions from actual facts, to speculating based on rumour, reporting based on rumour and unqualified opinion, and 'facts' which are only partially understood. Also when people put so much energy into the latter that it becomes s self-feeding, self-sustaining pastime, servng no helpful or constructiive purpose except to draw continued attention, and put continued emphasis on something that was without solid foundation in the first place.

Did anyone happen to see the programme last night about the ruined lives of the two completely innocent victims of Denis neilson? A case in poin, wheere voyeuristic rubbernecking, and prejudice, shrouded them in a reputation that has left one man unable to talk about his life 20 years later without crying. The facts: one had been alsmot strangled to death but survived (no one believed him when he first reported it), the other had been a friend, but a friend who had maintained some distance, who had immediately accepted, not denied or defended Nielson's acts, and had actively assisted the police. Both had their lives turned over in the tabloids an all manner of prurient noinsense spoken of them. the one who had escaped murder was actually spat at outside court after he had appeared fo the prosecution, and told he should have been mursered. All because he had had some sort of sexual liaison with the man he knew not to be a murderer. the 'no smoke without fire' wisdom of the goddiping mob.
Actually - perhaps one of my definitions of the line would be any time anyone feels the need to say 'there's no smoke without fire' in order to justify their opion!

Well Desi, the word wise has been bandied about in my presence on many occasions.

I couldn't possibly comment but, you know what they say, no smoke without fire!

(sorry, Blu)

did anyone hear Any Answers? on Radio 4 yesterday? it absolutely beggared belief... loads of amateur Miss Marple eejits saying 'she didn't look right to me' and 'the portuguese police have screwed up'. so i guess if they can't control people on a radio programme there's no hope of controlling them on here.

i've kept off the threads this time round, but i have checked the bbc etc for actual news. it seems very thin on the ground to justify the amount of posts on here, is all i can say.

I also agree that it is not possible or necessarily the right thing to do to stifle discussion. I have chosen not to take part in it, because I think that challenges which focus on those speculating just fuel the fire or add energy by provoking reaction.

LOL @ Snollygoster

I think that the MN threads are no different from conversations in everyday life all around the world. That doesn't make them any less infuriating (and, yes, mawkish) though.
Whatever has really happened to Madeleine, it is a tragedy that a 4 year old is missing and people should remember that instead of gossiping and indulging in banal speculation ad nauseum.

snolly!
(who are you really?)

I have been called 'sensible' and 'fair' on here, but it could be a case of 'Immaculate Smoke' as far as anyone knows...tee heeee!

Well said, Blu.

But, the point is none of us know who has done what. I cant beleive they are involved but it is possible, anything is possible.

Blu - thank you for your thoughtful and intelligent post of 11.16. I think you some it up when you mention the attitude of those who believe "there's no smoke without fire". As has been proved countless times in the past, people CAN be completely innocent of the accusations/rumours made about them, and sadly the damage is already done because people hold this belief, fuelled by the media, that there CAN'T be smoke without fire. I just hope that those who've been voicing strong opinions based on rumour and speculation never find yourselves on the other side of the fence.

sorry - "sum it up" of course, not "some"! Duh!

new thread sign up if you want to

Honest reasonable debate never becomes mawkish rubbernecking. They are two quite different ways of talking.