This morning's reports, even on the usually cautious BBC, of the death in New York of l'Wren Scott explicitly mention suicide. Yet in a similar case in the UK, there would be code phrases such as 'no suspicious circumstances' and 'police are not looking for anyone else'.
I understand (dimly) the contempt rules concerning inquests in this country, but I'm surprised that UK-based media don't apply a similar standard to cases in other countries. Can any of our more knowledgeable members enlighten me?
|
Its being reported int he UK, on a case that will be held in the states.
No Jurisdiction. They don't have an inquest anyway, its all up the ME (quincy) who works for the coroners office, to decide why
|
Or in reporting deaths in North Korea it seems OK to speculate as wildly as we like.
No jurisdiction :)
|
>> Or in reporting deaths in North Korea it seems OK to speculate as wildly as
>> we like.
>> No jurisdiction :)
The more lurid the better.
"Torn to death by dogs" seems to be the latest.
|
When reporting foreign cases media seem, at best, to apply rules of the subject country.
Reporting restrictions are a British concept albeit exported to other jurisdictions such as Australia etc. AIUI there is little if any control on reporting in US. First amendment; free speech and all that.
Court cases are reported in the most lurid and prejudicial terms and same will apply to death such as this one.
Note also how Pistorious case is reported here in terms of a contest or debate exploring credibility of witnesses etc.
Prefer our system on whole.
|
OP Ed piece in Guardian today suggests this case shows Press behaving as though Leveson had never existed. Even the old discredited editors code is being blatantly flouted by Mail/Mirror/Sun.
tinyurl.com/o88rdko
|
Pre-empting an inquest - Zero
