Madeleine McCann: A Source Says, Shannon Matthews And Down Under
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
THE SUN: “Maddie picture was ‘a mistake’”
MISSING Madeleine McCann’s parents yesterday blasted claims that releasing a photo of her had led to her death. Publishing the image may have “panicked” a kidnapper into killing her, said a legal source in Portugal. It was also claimed that Portuguese prosecutors now believed her body would NEVER be found.
A legal source?
The source said: “An abductor felt trapped and got rid of her. The parents may have contributed to this story having an unfortunate ending.”
A source says and the Sun reacts. Contact the usual sources.
Says the McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell: “They don’t believe Maddie is dead.”
THE HERALD: “Why Shannon’s welfare is the only priority”
Is it? And what has it to do with Madeleine McCann?
Nothing brings out the best in us faster than a missing child. One of ours is in danger. The tribe unites. Its champion, the media, sets up camp to keep us all informed. The child is an angel; the parents are heroic; the community displays the Blitz spirit and the police leave no stone unturned in their hunt for the demon abductor. The headlines write themselves - until real life intervenes - as in the case of Shannon Matthews.
The reporting of a missing child reduced to cliche…
Karen is 32 but, in her distress, could have passed for 42, maybe 52. She lives with four of the seven children she has borne to five fathers. Her live-in partner, Craig Meehan, with whom she has a two-year-old daughter, is 10 years younger than she. It’s another world, and society’s reaction is a mix of snobbery, disapproval and bewilderment. Why else were there 465 stories written about Madeleine McCann in the nine days following her abduction and only 242 about Shannon? The professional McCanns attracted £2.5m in reward money. The reward for Shannon reached £25,000.
Maybe it’s because the McCanns matter is a freak event, a single story spun out by a vociferous media engaged in a feeding frenzy over a single fact enlarged by innuendo, speculation and sensation.
Because for journalists, going to Portugal in early summer is more attractive than going to a estate in Yorkshire in later winter…
NEWS.COM (Aus): “This is the Sydney girl mistaken for Madeleine McCann”
But it’s not Madeleine McCann.
WITH her blonde hair, large eyes and pale cheeks, this little girl’s resemblance to missing British girl Madeleine McCann had police rushing to the Sydney CBD yesterday. The false Maddie sighting began when a woman notified police after she spotted a little girl getting off a train from Wollongong at Central station holding the hand of a “French-speaking man dressed in black” about 11am.
The swathy foreigner and the blonde child. We’ve see this before…
Madeleine McCann: The story that fills space
Posted: 18th, March 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (556) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
March 20th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
This settlement certainly doesn’t kill the case, as was suggested. The case will continue, or not, regardless.
But it’s a fair judgement. I’m no fan of the McCanns but newspapers can’t be allowed to report speculation and gossip as facts. Heavens, it might be us next!
It would certainly be interesting to know whether their boosted circulation compensated for the compensation! The media isn’t stupid and would surely have consulted it’s lawyers along the way.
Frankly I think they should be hung out to dry on this and other cases.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Im very pleased to see the newspapers have apologised to the Mccanns, and even more pleased to see they have donated to the Find Madeleine Fund. Good on them!!
March 19th, 2008 at 12:18 am
“Just wanted to know if you have
read Increasingly Incredulous post implying that Anorak posters could be charged
with defamation. This forum is not exactly like the Press is it and I”m sure we can
call on Freedom of Speech if necessary.”
first, it’s not “charged” - it’s sued. Defamation, except in the fantastically rare context of criminal libel, is a civil matter.
And two, it’s not “implying”. It’s stating. The “Demon internet” case demonstrated that both forum operators and an ISP can be sued for defamation if they act as a channel for the publication of defamatory statements.
And that decision came after the Human Rights Act - which is the only appeal to “freedom of speech” that exists in English Law - came into effect. And it was upheld by the House of Lords, plus similar decisions have stood up at the European Court of Human Rights.
“
March 19th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Others are in the new thread.
As I said, I’m sure M+A are considering the position of this thread in Anorak.
As for individuals, they’d come way down the line. Me, I ain’t got nothing to be sued for!
March 19th, 2008 at 12:07 am
549 Denzylle
I”m not staying either, looks like everyone has gone. Just wanted to know if you have
read Increasingly Incredulous post implying that Anorak posters could be charged
with defamation. This forum is not exactly like the Press is it and I”m sure we can
call on Freedom of Speech if necessary.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Val
Yes, I’m still here but keep thinking of going.
I’m sure they chose that photograph specially.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
540 Denzylle
Are you still there, I really fell quite sick that the McCanns have got away with this, they were always threatening to sue somebody and could have sued the Express
months ago. the photo on the front page of tomorrow”s Express, shows the McCanns
at their most affectionate…….who chose that one!
March 18th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
544 Bishop Brennan
I think it will be very difficult for the PJ to prove anything other than negligence
given that there is no body, the longer this goes on the less likely the interviews will
take place. I did paste this morning a post from Sky suggesting the PJ arrived in the
U.K. unannounced on 10th March, if true, all is not lost.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
545 Val. I wouldn’t get too downhearted. There have been many ‘false endings’ to this story over the last year. And each time the PJ have soldiered on, collecting evidence, and moving through the UK beaurocracy. They have the McCanns in their sights - and whilst it may take a long time - I just don’t see them giving up. They have had plenty of opportunities to do so, and yet still they come. This won’t change things for them.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
538 Gandalf
So, after all this speculation and months of posting , in my case not so long, there
is no closure and we will never know what happened to Madeleine…..sad.
So do we all pack up and go home, or find another topic to discuss, can”t think of any
one thing that would interest for so long, what am I going to do now if I lose my DJ?
March 18th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
I think the front-page apologies will grate with them - that probably was not in the plan! Cash yes. Bending over and bearing your backside for all to see… probably not.
It’s all down to the PJ and Portuguese authorities now. I hope they are strong enough to resist the high-priced McCann laywers and reluctant UK judiciary…
March 18th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
533
Good night Totje and everyone.
Plenty to look at tomorrow, no doubt.
For the first time ever, I will buy a copy of the Express tomorrow….well…perhaps not….don’t want to raise their sales by even one!
Night!
March 18th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
530 Bishop Brennan
That”s a pretty cynical view, probably true though. Sympathy will now turn back
to the McCanns now and this might have been the reason for threatening to sue the
Press, knowing the re-interviews were/ are going to take place.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
530
Bishop Brennan Says:
March 18th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Express and Star both new from the very start that this payout was coming. It was in their budget when they decided to run the dramatic version of the stories (rather than attributing them). They knew the dramatic version would sell millions more copies (they did) and that even with the payout they would be miles better off.
Pure commerical decision. Paid off handsomely for both papers.
——————————————————
I tend to agree with that. I have wondered about that for months. It makes it even more disgraceful, doesn’t it? BUT what do we expect from these rags? Only sales count.
So you see it as a win-win situation?
I’m not so sure. It MIGHT just affect how they treat some people in future. After all, you can’t afford, in reputation terms, to be publishing front-page apologies too often.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
I’m sure M+A are busy writing up this astonishing piece of news, and also discussing the future handling of discussion in this forum.
They made a ruling very quickly after a person was arrested in the SM case.
The situation with the Express Newspapers decision is different, but the implications for our free speech here might be similar.
I await word from M+A which I expect will come fairly soon.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
“I think so. But I was asking IncInc if they not only could charge [foreign] papers but also forums like 3A with a non UK server or bloggers/journalists like Paolo Reis for instance. Not now but may be later?”
first, foreign papers…the case that’s significant is “Berezovsky vs. Forbes Magazine”; Boris Berezovsky succesfully sued the AMERICAN pulishers of Forbes magazine for defamation in an English court - this is despite him having only what was described as a “tenuous” connection to the UK. The House of Lords held that the case could be brought in a British court on the grounds that the magazine was distributed over here, and was hence accesible to readers in the UK. Now, since the likes of “24 Horas” and CdM publish via the web, and can be accessed here in the UK (indeed, copies are imported…). So far as I’m aware, it’s not been tested in an English court, but it has in other jurisdictions that follow similar forms (Hong Kong, for example - cases called “Investasia Ltd vs Another”, and Australia - “Dow Jones vs. Gutnick).
Presumably the same would apply to individual bloggers, but that’d need to be tested. There’s no obvious reason why it would be one iota different.
As to forums, the Berezovxky case makes it clear that the point of publication of the libel isn’t especially relevant - if it’s accesible to readers in the UK, and one or other of the parties has at least some connection with the UK, then a case can be brought (provided no case is brought in another relevant jurisdiction - given the feeble scale of damages in Portuguese defamation law, there would be very much second choice ). Add that to the “Demon” case, that makes it clear that operators of forums have the same duties and exposures as any other publisher, then whoever runs the forum is potentially in deep shit.
If I were the owner of either 3 “A”s, or (given some things that’ve been allowed to remain up on this site”, Anorak, I’d be making sure my archives were taken down very quickly (and hoping the McCanns lawyers hadn’t got copies), and talking to my solicitor about the best form of apology. Oh, and also from the “Demon” case - carefully listing the IP and e-mail addresses of all those that’d posted efamatory staements. Apparently, handing those over is held to be mitigation……
March 18th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Time to move on, this settlement kills this case, and corrie da manha is saying the letters aint been ratified.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
New thread x
March 18th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
532
on the previous interview with somebody else the news reporter at the end after the journors where being slated got one in at the end he said ” with lawyers like they have it was only to be expected” not an exact quote but words to that effect
March 18th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
530
Bishop Brennan
Thats the spirit!!
March 18th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
skinny bitch, nasal scot, comical clarrie, RM,R OB, JT, etc…..
just describe them or give initials! We all know now!
March 18th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Anorak will NOT go down because of this.
And I go upstairs… off to get some sleep.
Nite nite all.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
#
524
clouseau Says:
March 18th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
couple of intereting comments just on BBC news 24 when talking about the damages …the reporter said ” lets not forget the search for Maddie goes on and the parents are still prime suspects”
Yes, I noticed that. Interesting that this was not referred to by Sky, at least not in the bit I saw.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Can’t you just hear GM and the T7 asking that Q about the blog!!?
March 18th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Express and Star both new from the very start that this payout was coming. It was in their budget when they decided to run the dramatic version of the stories (rather than attributing them). They knew the dramatic version would sell millions more copies (they did) and that even with the payout they would be miles better off.
Pure commerical decision. Paid off handsomely for both papers.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
#
522
Denzylle Says:
March 18th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Every other high profile person who wins such cases gives the money to charity. Why should this money be paid into a Fund that is NOT a charity?
——————————————–
I would guess that, although it must be unimaginably hurtful to see yourself accused of killing your child, the McCanns, as they have said themselves, care nothing about this in comparison with the pain of losing that child. I suspect they will have brought this action mainly to help them continue to pay agencies to follow up leads.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
How do we share the ‘code’?
March 18th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
We log on to anorak forums and talk in code
March 18th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Everything online will be 404 file not found, by tomorrow morning. Possibly even Anorak.
——————————————————————————————————–
And if that SHOULD happen?
March 18th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
516 val
I agree that the time must come when the money is not used exclusively to look for Madeleine. People did give it originally for that purpose but the time must come when the change should be made. Agonising decision but it’s for the Fund Directors alone to make it if and when they see fit.
When would I say,
“OK, I’m giving up now. I don’t know if my little girl is alive or dead but I’ll assume she’s dead and give up.”
I don’t know when I would do it. I would never want to give up hope.
Not easy. The Directors will presumably make this decision for them eventually.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
couple of intereting comments just on BBC news 24 when talking about the damages …the reporter said ” lets not forget the search for Maddie goes on and the parents are still prime suspects”