Madeleine McCann: Prayers, Bones And Media
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
Remember, everyone, to play Anorak Bingo you must mention Madeleine McCann, Shannon Matthews and – here’s the tie-breaker – Scarlett Keeling. Eyes down…
DAILY MAIL: Amanda Platell
There cannot be a person in the country who didn’t feel a surge of delight on learning that little Shannon Matthews has been found alive and well.
We can think of one.
All the more so in these days when good news has become such a rare commodity. Yet even as we celebrate, we should spare a thought for Gerry and Kate McCann, for whom Shannon’s discovery, wonderful as it is, will be a fresh reminder of their own terrible loss. The return of one lost girl is a marvel. The return of two . . . now that’s a miracle worth praying for.
Was it the power of prayer that got Shannon Matthews found? If so, who gets the reward?
Tick. Tick.
THE INDEPENDENT: “Deborah Orr: Wonderful news that carries a message for the media”
It isn’t often that the papers have some really wonderful news to report. But it really is wonderful that Shannon Matthews has been found alive.
Amanda Platell agrees.
This amazing news also carries a lesson for the media, about the way it turns horrible crimes into great stories, and what an unpleasant, self-regarding business this can be.
There were suggestions that Shannon’s disappearance was not getting the coverage afforded to another lost child, Madeleine McCann, because the latter was a middle-class child and the former a child from a more modest and chaotic background. There is some truth in this argument, of course.
You can read about it all over the media.
But the underlying assumption is that all the publicity around the McCann case is something desirable and useful, while the more meagre reporting about the Matthew case is undesirable and useless. If children really could be reunited with their parents because of the magical power of speculative column inches, though, then Madeleine, not Shannon, would have been returned to her family by now. The very idea that the hypocritical furore around Madeleine is something to be aspired to, a benchmark of any positive kind, is quite wrong and ought to be challenged.
The McCanns should not be the media’s benchmark for missing children. We’ve heard that before…
True, the “debate” helped to keep Shannon’s abduction in the public domain, just as the “debate” around Made-leine continues to keep her case in the public domain.
A debate. On what? What was being debated?
It might be argued that there would have been no great endeavour to find Shannon had the press not made the supposedly modest fuss it did.
MEdia.
I believe this isn’t the case. The local media has a vast part to play, but the national and international press, apart from reporting facts about the investigation, can offer little but intrusive “colour”. The reality is that the vast majority of the “stories” written about the McCann case have been prurient and sensational pieces of cynical propaganda, serving no practical purpose at all except for the selling of newspapers.
Indeed. Read all about selling papers in the Independent.
Tick. Tick.
IRISH INDEPENDENT: “Divers recover bag of small bones in search for Maddy”
DIVERS searching an Algarve reservoir for Madeleine McCann yesterday found a plastic bag containing small bones. Police experts were last night examining the gruesome find made by a frogman working for a Portuguese lawyer.
Gerry and Kate McCann were informed immediately by a private detective who was observing the search. Madeira-based lawyer Marcos Aragao Correia says he was tipped off by underworld contacts that Madeleine was murdered and her body thrown into the reservoir last May.The search turned up the bones in the murky waters of the Barragem do Arabe reservoir yesterday at 3.30pm.
Mr Correia said last night: “We found two bags one of which contains some small bones. We don’t know if they are human bones or not at this stage. If they are human bones, they look like they come from a child’s fingers.”
Tick. And a half tick for speculation.
THIS IS LONDON: “Bag of small bones found in reservoir where lawyer claims Madeleine McCann’s body was dumped”
Says Clarence Mitchell: “We have not been informed of anything by the police to indicate that this find is significant. There is nothing to indicate at this stage that they are human bones and they could easily be from an animal. There is nothing at the moment to indicate that this find has anything to do with Madeleine. We continue to believe she is alive.”
THE SUN: “Shannon: 24 days of tears”
IN the end, the prayers were answered – as yesterday the tears of anguish over missing Shannon Matthews turned to sobs of relief.
Prayers. What of the tip off? The police work?
TIMELINE:
Sunday, February 24: CHURCHGOERS pray for Shannon’s safe return. Madeleine McCann’s parents send a message of support.
Tick. Tick.
THE GUARDIAN: “What women want”
Following last year’s Booker win, Anne Enright is finally enjoying wider recognition - despite her work’s reputation for being gloomy and obsessed with sex and death
She became the target of ire in the tabloids when they picked up an article she wrote in the London Review of Books dissecting her reaction to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The piece was full of ambivalence, describing her suspicions of Gerry and Kate McCann but in the end condemning her own voyeurism. She refuses to say whether the fracas upset her, but seems sensibly resigned, agreeing that events proved how she was naive to think her nuances would be understood in the grotesque guessing game that the story had become: “I was misread and I hoped that would become apparent, but there’s no point in me stomping around and fighting with shadows.”
Posted: 15th, March 2008 | In: Broadsheets, Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (621) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- ptet on Dietmar The German Stork Has A Wooden Leg
- yampster on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- Nansubuga on Michelle Obama Is A Monkey And Other Offensive Google Images
- yampster on Strictly Come Dancing’s Alesha Dixon Sparks I’m A Celebrity Race Row
- Lonnirose on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
March 15th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
143 brandon flours
My little one not due back from her dads til 6, hubby at football, will hobble back in around an hour, so am enjoying peace for a while!
March 15th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
WTF
Yes and ‘They’ve taken her’
My God the material they have to go on !!!!
He wont care hes my 8 year old
We have just finished gardening and are going to watch Tom and Jerry on the sofa.
All the other gits are out at qpr.
March 15th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
141 brandon flours
Very interesting. Wonder what they make of “we werent there when she was taken”?
Hope your date goes well, and that youve washed behind your ears!
March 15th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_n10_v65/ai_18920162/print
This ones easier to read
March 15th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
MODS AND ADMIN
Neither threatened nor warned, I promise you! We are just observing the law and being responsible towards a young girl’s reputation and a possible future trial - would you want us to do anything else?
************
This is a relief and YES I agree to comment as little as possible about Shannon as you rightly say nobody wants to put her at stake in regard of her reputation and/0r possible trial.
NO problem
In regards of the mccanns it seems the same “rule” applies suddenly…..this is what I do not understand.I am at a loss here.Honestly
Anyhow I am really off now
March 15th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Hi everyone!!!
…….ppsssstttt dont mention da war!!!
Just swooping in as I have got a date
Marie Nichols and Ferdinand drew my attention to this yesterday
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_n10_v65/ai_18920162/pg_1
Very enlightening!!
March 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
136
Scarlett
The church is powerful unfortunately
I have always wondered why the mccanns went to the vatican
Why on earth did they visit the pope?
Any clue?
Must go now
March 15th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
afternoon everyone
Am i to understand we can no longer speculate on mccs case?
March 15th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Jolie, but a priest is only human, with a conscience, like the rest of us…
March 15th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
From yesterday thread “Express Newspapers And The McCanns”
437
LOOK Says:
March 14th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Anorak had better play close attention to what happened to the Daily Express site and the Mirror forums.
********
M & Adm
Is this why?
Has Anorak been threatened/warned?
MODS AND ADMIN
Neither threatened nor warned, I promise you! We are just observing the law and being responsible towards a young girl’s reputation and a possible future trial - would you want us to do anything else?
March 15th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Apart from what MCs & friends say, is there any other evidence that Maddie was ever in Portugal?
If this has already been discussed, can someone point me in the right direction?
*********************
Try using Google, I’m sure that will help.
March 15th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Bye Julie
Have a wonderful time at the zoo.
I am off as well
I dont understand whats going on suddenly here.I understand I am not the only one. It is not all down to my poor english then?
We have been posting for months on end and suddenly we are asked to shut up or at least to be very careful what we are saying
March 15th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Well, I’m off to an outing to the zoo with my 7-year-old. Have a great day, everyone!
March 15th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
My understanding of the Catholic Church is that the priest is never allowed to divulge what is said in confession. The sacrament would be useless if the penitent knew that the priest might tell others what is said in the confessional. Many people would not take the risk of confessing all their sins, if they thought the authorities would be brought into it as a result. Allegedly, the Catholic Church is more concerned with saving the eternal souls of its parishioners and not the earthly sphere in which they currently inhabit.
March 15th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Marie Nicholas
I don’t think I will be able to give Anorak up any time soon. My obsessions take a long time to burn themselves out. I suspect I’ll be checking in often until charges are brought on the McCann case. Once we can no longer comment on the case, then I’ll probably call it a day. Until then… (or until Anorak gets sick of my questions!)
March 15th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
SteveT
And if Mick Donovan had been a priest what would we be saying?
Book him, Danno!
March 15th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Bye, SteveT
March 15th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
And here is the answer I posted on today’s Shannon thread, with a further question and comments:
Jolie Says:
March 15th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
“Carmen,
Thank you for your comment and taking the time to address my curiosity. For further clarification, could you answer another question or two?
Would Anorak refrain from publishing comments in its threads on this case from other publications if those comments were considered libelous and speculative then?
For example, if an article speculated what the man in the cupboard with the three children had been up to while in there with them, would Anorak then reprint excerpts from said article with those speculations? Or scrupulously avoid doing so?
The US media and judicial systems are different from the British. Our jurors are advised they are not allowed to read the press or discuss the case they are serving on while they are jurors. They are expected to abide by those rules. We do not muffle the entire country while a trial is going on and hide information from the general population.
After months and sometimes years of reporting on a notorious case before any judicial action is taken, to me, it seems like shutting the barn after the horse has escaped, to say NOW you cannot talk or speculate about the case. People have been reading and making judgements right along. Some people have better memories than others and no matter what is written from the point of arrest, etc., or if articles are removed from the internet, they will remember what they have read. Our country (US) expects jurors to set aside this information and concentrate solely on what is presented in the court room and act impartially upon that information alone (tough job, though it is) when coming to a verdict.”
March 15th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Bye all!
March 15th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Carmen posted an answer to my questions in post 106 (to a duplicate post on the Shannon thread). Here is a copy of her response, for everyone’s information:
47
Carmen Says:
March 15th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
MODS AND ADMIN
“OK Jolie,
One last try - and I’m not being sarcastic, I do appreciate that it is difficult to understand.
Feel free to comment on the way in which the media cover these stories, do not feel free to use what is in the media to make further speculation in a way that may either damage a young child’s reputation or prevent a fair trial if that is where enquiries are heading.
Believe me, the media have had their top brains up all night working out precisely what they can say and what they can’t say.
As an example:
Were there to be a headline that said: Man found in cupboard with three children.
It would be OK to say that you don’t think the media should have commented on the story at all.
It would be OK to say that you are glad the children are OK.
It would be OK to say that some newspapers seem to have been braver than others in revealing what they know.
It would not be OK to say (or name) the man and say that he has previous convictions for this ‘type of thing’ because you would both be impugning the children’s reputation - and you don’t know what occurred in the cupboard, might have been entirely innocent nor would it be OK to mention previous convictions or anything else about the man that might jeopardise any subsequent trial if there was an arrest. Nor would it be OK if you had just made up the information about the previous convictions for that would be libel.
Anorak is here to allow you to comment on the way in which the media handle these stories, with this particular story, that is a highly technical business - more so because it is, as agw said, it is uncharted territory where the internet is concerned, and many people are fascinated to see just how the media does conduct itself.
That is not in any way, the same thing as us allowing people to come on here and speculate as to what may have happenend to the girl or who may have done it.
Can you see the difference now?
We are trying to walk a difficult tightrope in moderating the comments and your help - all of your help - would be appreciated.”
March 15th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
SteveT
No Steve no breaking news.
It is just a post from joana morais blog an update easily found.
My english can get really atrocious
I do not deny it .Thanks anyhow
March 15th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
115
SteveT
I agree with this. Obviously if the guy knows something he should come forward and say what he knows
May be he knows nothing?
May be he has been told by the pope to shut up?
Who has ever come forward and said what they could in all good faith and knowledge that would reveal the truth and make justice to Madeleine? Nobody
Not even her progenitors
No wonder speculations and a high level of irritation are running so high.
Like Marie Nicholas says: the mystery is keeping us at bait and we are all well and truly caught.
March 15th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Jo,
Nothing wrong with your English.
March 15th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Jo,
Leaving in a few minutes, is the post breaking news?
March 15th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
101
Marie Nicholas
Excellent Marie
I wont comment your post any further as I believe my very poor english will put me definitely in the bin…
March 15th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
116
Carmen
101
Marie Nicholas Says:
March 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm e
“What an excellent posting Marie Nicholas, I read it twice to take it all in.”
I will second that.
March 15th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Mary Nicholls / Scarlett,
I find it hard to understand how a priest can not divulge information that could move things forward. If it ever comes out that the priest had important information that he didn’t divulge, the damage to the church will be far worse.
March 15th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Marie Nicholas
I for one would be thankful, and I wouldn’t allow the actions of one man to sully my view of a whole church. But hey it’s only a little girl’s life we’re talking about…
March 15th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
MJ & Adm
Can we still post links?
Thank you
March 15th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Ade,
Care in the community never did me any harm.