Robert Murat’s Trial By Media
This is the very first time I have typed the name Robert Murat in Anorak, writes AGW.
Not the first time I have commented on the situation, but the first time I have actually addressed either the name or the circumstances he found himself in when caught up in the curious and terrible story of the missing child Madeleine McCann.
Twelve months ago I and others in admin. here were concerned re the repeated attempts to libel Murat and the McCanns. We introduced a strict policy and the Moderators worked at breakneck pace to keep up with and edit the flood of not-so-sensible things to write. They did an incredible and exhausting job. None of you will ever know just how hard they worked.
Trial by jury is bad enough, but at least, there, lawyers and judges have format and structure to the Rules of Evidence and proof of guilt. Trial by media has no such frills and the clamour in the Opinion section of this site was deafening.
What ever the awards announced tomorrow in the Murat U.K. libel deal, he richly deserves the compensation he will receive. Not a penny of it will help remove the deep scars and character stain thrust upon him by the British Tabloids (and broadsheets). At present he remains not quite a suspect under the arguido legislation of Portugal. Should he ever be charged and convicted in any matter concerning this case then the settlement is at risk. The same applies to others.
I have a number of friends who decided to become Lotus eaters in Portugal…it happens to be the country which has the oldest alliance of any nation with Britain…but they all now say the affection shown to the British by the people of Portugal, the average person in the marina or bar, the Mr and Mrs Costas and Mr and Mrs de Silvas, has changed dramatically for the worse.
Britons no longer hold the position of trust or tolerance as the bemused eccentrics they were once observed to be. This sad, gross, affair has poisoned the relationships built up over centuries. No amount of PR or cries of “ludicrous” will repair the damage. Each time the Portuguese police are criticised for another alleged failure, the poisoned chalice gets more bitter and is now almost impossible to scour.
Six months ago an Opinions sometimes contributor gave us this to read:
Madeleine….A Media Tragedy…an Anorakian View The headline was mine but the article was SPUDGUN’s
http://www.anorak.co.uk/forums/topic.php?id=873
It remains as lengthy as it was then but I suggest anyone who is interested in a genuine “I told you so” should read it again.
It is a sobering indictment of not just the British Press but the insularity and Johnny Foreigner attitude of the British people. It remains one of the most brilliant summaries of the position as it was six months ago and very little has changed since then. The MCanns were involved in a reputed £50O,000 tort settlement with the Express group and Robert Murat’s claims will be agreed tomorrow.
I was uncomfortable and edgy after perusing SPUDGUN’s piece a second time. Were I less hard-bitten and cynical, I may even have blushed.
I think I regret I did not.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Well I never!
July 16th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
We have been overtaken by “Breaking News” as tv stations justify their 24 hour coverage.
The never ending desire to be the first with any “news” means that not a lot of time is taken to evaluate what is being reported.
Not so much as “Hold the front page” more like why isn’t it rolling.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
And you and the rest of the Mods can be commended your attempts at balance. At times, I did not think that balance was being struck, but clearly the ‘other side’ did too. The best outcome, perhaps. But in any case, far, oh so far better than most of our respected Press. And not just ours..
IMO both parties deserve the payments given. In both cases I believe the payments should have been considerably more. As it is, such practices will be allocated as cost under ‘risks’ in their books; hardly enough to deter them in the future
M and A
To be honest, the McCanns should have expected some fallout from the Press, pedestals are never a good place for any mere mortal, and doctors must be included at that level especially when being judged as parents.
Maintaining the balance can be hard, but the blinder the poster, the more the eyes needed opening, whether ‘pro’ or ‘anti’, and sadly all too often Madeliene was overlooked, that could not be allowed to happen here, she and Justice have to come first.
Huge payouts aren’t necessary, the name cleared by the Courts must be enough, and some compensation. People who receive physical injuries are frequently awarded less, and the damage much longer lasting.
The arguido status has not been removed, but if it is, then perhaps more compensation, but until then
July 16th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
I must not say 3rd…. I must not say 3rd….. I must not say 3rd
July 16th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Thanks BOB
July 16th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
I was in danger of getting carried away. Perhaps I should be!
July 16th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
How many of us on here have written a post, pressed submit, and then seeing it on the thread gone, Oh Bugger.
I think many an editor or TV producer have experienced the same feeling, but due to pressure to be first, have been a tad hasty. Unfortunately they don’t have an (excellent) moderator to extricate them from the Doo Doo.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Monday it will be the end of the Tapas Cup.
Madeleine lost it, 0 x 7.
Poor little girl.
M and A
She is a poor little girl indeed, but lets wait until Monday
July 16th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
This from almost a year ago.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article2324200.ece
July 16th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
3
SpongeBob Says:
M and A
‘To be honest, the McCanns should have expected some fallout from the Press, pedestals are never a good place for any mere mortal, and doctors must be included at that level especially when being judged as parents’
But not have lies told made up about them, surely? Or is that just reward for the leaving of the children; ‘Justice’ by any means. Which Mod am I speaking to?
M and A
We have never allowed statements to be made with out a source.
But anyone who is esconced on a pedestal tends to get kicked off it.
If there are arrests and charges made and subsequent Court revelations prove they are less than wanting as parents, then its highly likely that damages will have to be paid back. This would cover Mr Murat too.
Madeliene and Justice have to come first, please explain Justice at any means
We no longer reveal who is the duty Mod
July 16th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
A reward for leaving children alone?
Oh dear, I hope I am reading that wrong
M and A
I think Sponge Bob was. The libel issues were about possible murder and disposing of MM ’s body
July 16th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
10
M and A
‘We have never allowed statements to be made with out a source.
But anyone who is esconced on a pedestal tends to get kicked off it.
If there are arrests and charges made and subsequent Court revelations prove they are less than wanting as parents, then its highly likely that damages will have to be paid back. This would cover Mr Murat too.’
- I think you are misunderstanding me; the ‘lies’ I mentioned were those which resulted in the damages rewards.
If charges and convictions were made, it would be quite right that damages would be returned; no argument there, and was never suggested, by me, at least.
I’m not clear why I’m being addressed by the Mods in this case; have I contravened the rules in some way? If so, please, can you advise? If you read my original post you will see that I was being respectful of Anorak.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I got in a few extra cans, courtesy of Messrs Stella and Artois and bloody Coco hasn’t turned up!
July 17th, 2008 at 12:06 am
It’s a bit unfortunate to raise the issue of the SPUDGUN article just five days before an official decision will be announced. It could be far better discussed next week, in the light of what will finally be disclosed.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Oh, and what will be disclosed?
July 17th, 2008 at 12:10 am
AGW,
Gideon Rachman, writing in the FT on Monday before news of the settlement of Robert Murat’s libel actions against 11 British newspapers broke, noted the unwillingness of British journalists to accept that they have power, and concluded his comparison of British and American journalism thus:
‘This denial of influence has both an attractive and a slightly sinister side. Self-deprecation is a noble British tradition. And journalists who do not take themselves too seriously are less likely to write pompous articles.
But the British commentators’ reluctance to accept that their scribblings matter also reflects a refusal to accept responsibility. In the end, those American journalists who insist on the civic importance of good journalism are correct. What we write does matter – even if it is sometimes easier to pretend that it doesn’t.’
I think that Robert Murat would whole-heartedly agree…
July 17th, 2008 at 12:12 am
15 Saul Says:
” Oh, and what will be disclosed? ”
That is indeed the question.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:16 am
17
Ferdinand Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 12:12 am
15 Saul Says:
” Oh, and what will be disclosed? ”
That is indeed the question.
————–
Excuse me if I am wrong, but you semed to be alluding that you knew.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:22 am
M&A would you be so kind as to prove a point and put the missing e in semed
July 17th, 2008 at 12:22 am
17
Ferdinand Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 12:12 am
15 Saul Says:
” Oh, and what will be disclosed? ”
That is indeed the question.
——————————-
I find it extraordinary, Ferdinand, that, following the deluge of abuse directed by our press at Portugal and the Portuguese, you now suggest that perhaps we shouldn’t mention it since the Attorney General will be making an announcement about the McCann case next week.
It is indisputable that our media have behaved disgracefully.
That is why 11 newspapers are settling libel actions against them tomorrow.
And you think we shouldn’t have mentioned the gross abuse of power which has characterised our Press for over 14 months?
This is on all fours with your claim earlier today that the comments in the Press about Robert Murat’s non-existent glass eye were not libellous.
It’s nonsense…
July 17th, 2008 at 12:27 am
11
Saul Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
A reward for leaving children alone?
Oh dear, I hope I am reading that wrong
M and A
I think Sponge Bob was. The libel issues were about possible murder and disposing of MM ’s body
—
Duty Mod, I’m not spoiling for a a fight, but your comment is not at all accurate, and yes Saul, you were reading that wrong.
My question was; are lies being told about you just reward for the leaving of your children? I do think it was clear enought first time, and still am not sure why I have been taken to task by the Mod
July 17th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Humour me please Bob, are you saying leaving children alone is acceptable, if not then surely the McCanns are at some stage culpable.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Saul
Not relevant to my point. They left their children. I did not say it was acceptable. I did not say they were or were not culpible; it is a different argument.
I asked whether it was acceptable to lie about the parents, in the national press, because they had left the children
July 17th, 2008 at 12:47 am
You see this is what got me into this debate in the first place. I have yet to meet anyone who goes on holiday and leaves their children alone in whatever accomodation they are staying in. The McCanns are trying to say this is normal practice for British tourists, well I can assure you it is not.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Whether lies were told about the parents remains to be seen.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:03 am
18 Saul Says:
” Excuse me if I am wrong, but you semed to be alluding that you knew. ”
How could I? I know what was leaked most recently in the Portuguese press. It will be interesting to hear whether it’s true.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:11 am
14
Ferdinand Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 12:06 am
It’s a bit unfortunate to raise the issue of the SPUDGUN article just five days before an official decision will be announced. It could be far better discussed next week, in the light of what will finally be disclosed.
——————————————————————————————————–
I see your point, but if the PJ announce that they intend to move to the next stage because they have sufficient evidence on which to base charges, or if they announce that they intend to continue the investigation (presumably to give more time for evidence-collection), it will surely disprove spuddie’s main argument.
I have always warmed to spud but I never believed he was right in supposing that the British establishment had some sort of vested interest in shielding the Mcs or that the PJ are too intimidated by the British to continue with their case!! They have so far conducted the investigation just as they wished; I believe they will continue to do so. I believe the cooperation between the UK and Portuguese police has been, for the most part, good, despite Amarals’ dismissive comments about the former.
If the case is actually shelved in some way, are we really to suppose it will be because the PJ is shivering in its collective shoes about the British reaction if they were to do anything else?! Sorry, I don’t buy that for one minute.
If the police have evidence that the Mcs are guilty, they’ll be charged. Soon.
If the police have no evidence that the Mcs are guilty, they shouldn’t be charged. Yet.
I don’t deny spud’s point about xenophobia fuelling the rags’ rubbish but I don’t believe it will stop justice being done in this case. Neither do I believe xenophobia is an exclusively British trait.
BTW, spud is not right in saying that the UK papers always added the rider to their lurid anti-McCann stories that the said stories were ludicrous. They did NOT. That’s why they found themselves paying out a substantial sum to the Find Madeleine fund.
Sorry spuddie! Your lengthy post contains interesting points but itis not balanced or objective.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Mods and Adm,
you’re right. Let us wait till Monday.
But I have the feeling I already know wthat the man will say.
But I hope I’m wrong.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:12 am
OK, maybe I am a bit naive, how can anyone defend two supposedly responsible adults who leave a 3 year old and two year old twins, in a strange apartment in a foreign environment?
Let’s be realistic this is the crux of the whole sorry episode.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:19 am
20 chenier Says:
” I find it extraordinary, Ferdinand, that, following the deluge of abuse directed by our press at Portugal and the Portuguese, you now suggest that perhaps we shouldn’t mention it since the Attorney General will be making an announcement about the McCann case next week.
It is indisputable that our media have behaved disgracefully. ”
I was referring to the SPUDGUN article, which is very lenghtly and raises several issues. For me, it seems as if he accuses the British press to defend or to protect the McCanns.
It would then make a difference whether those who defended the McCanns against the claims of “bodily fluids”, “DNA evidence”, were actually right.
For example, SPUDGUN wrote:
ITV took an even more pro-active stance in defending our Kate and Gerry, with ‘Tonight with Trevor McDonald: The McCanns, Questions of Evidence”. They interviewed Allan Jamieson, a ‘top British forensic scientist’, who proceeded to rubbish reports that suggested hair recovered from the McCanns hire car showed evidence of containing traces of sedatives, and had been derived from a corpse.
Did SPUDGUN suggest that Mr. Jamieson was wrong? And was he wrong?