I post this here, because there has been a lot of discussion on the case (on a thread in the motoring section), and I know that there were a few strong viewpoints on the role of the media - so I thought it might interest some.
tinyurl.com/246bmuh
This line stuck out for me
" We present the killer as larger than life, rather than the truth: that these people are smaller than life, leading pitiful, hate-filled existences."
It summed up what I often thought when I saw profiles of the guy in the media, and it also reminded me of a documentary that I saw years ago, where a murder detective drew a comparison about the glamourous killers and dramatic murders portrayed in films/TV dramas and the pathetic individuals and squalid, mundane crime scenes he actually encountered.
|
That's right SS. Murder is nearly always nasty, cruel and unjust, and very often stupid and pointless too. Cases of poetic-justice, richly deserved murder are as rare as hens' teeth. There are always plenty of reasons though even in the absence of a single decent excuse.
Everyone should avoid the conception of 'honour' as a motive until they have thought deeply and at length about what it really means to a moral being.
Berserkers are another matter of course. It is said that body-building drugs taken in large doses have baleful effects on personality.
|
|
I thought the TV coverage before and after was a bit over the top. Personal opinion. Would it have made a difference to the actual outcome? No I doubt it.
|
|
BBC coverage on News24 was like amateur night. They have some heavyweight correspondents, in particular their radio staff, but John Sopel was poor in the extreme.
|
The police did themselves no favours. That Chief Constable with the weird hair do saying "It appears". What do you mean "it appears"!? Your men were there. Say what happened. It just opens the door to the sort of disputes that are now arising.
JH
|
>> The police did themselves no favours. That Chief Constable with the weird hair do saying
>> "It appears". What do you mean "it appears"!? Your men were there. Say what happened. It just opens the door to the sort of disputes that are now arising.
>>
>> JH
Tooslow..you hit the nail smack, bang on the head. Unfortunately, typical of todays senior officers (the comment, not the hair!)
|
typical of todays senior officers
As described by a friend in the Job - "Typical Bramshill trained monotone delivery when speaking"
|
...As described by a friend in the Job - "Typical Bramshill trained monotone delivery when speaking"...
She's not well-liked by the troops I have spoken to, although that can happen to any chief.
I thought she did quite well in the public meeting in Rothbury.
Senior management at Northumbria Police is in limbo at present.
The previous chief is being sued by subordinates over his management style, and amalgamation with neighbouring forces - particularly Durham - is back on the agenda,
|
>> John Sopel was poor in the extreme.
I felt a bit sorry for him really, there must be immense pressure to fill the dead air and try to get new information, even if it means pressuring somebody to call their elderly mother live on air.
He probably wanted to say, "that's all we know for now, why don't you pop back in a couple of hours and we'll tell you if anything has happened" - no chance in these days of 24 news channels.
Sky News seemed to have pictures and video that the BBC didn't so I switched over to then instead.
Mind you, I do try not to watch live news anymore. There is so much speculation masquerading as information, that I would rather just read about it a few days later when the dust has somewhat settled.
|
>> I thought the TV coverage before and after was a bit over the top. Personal
>> opinion. Would it have made a difference to the actual outcome? No I doubt it.
I think the argument in the article is more that it makes the next one more likely, in this case, perhaps that the coverage of the Cumbria shootings made the Northumbria ones more likely. Speculation of course, but I still found it an interesting read.
|
What amazed me about this case was the shear amount of weaponry available,
whereas in 'real life' Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson or John Wayne would have managed alone.
|
Yes, the Beeb went to town on the story in a rather unBritish and over-the-top way. The correspondents to give the devils their due seemed to think so too, looking bored and irritated.
On the face of it there's plenty to criticise in the police response too.
I was London correpondent of a French daily in the early eighties, not for very long. The problem was the paper got a new Foreign Editor, a screaming carphound, with a lugubrious German-sounding woman assistant. They made my life a misery by turning down proper Le Monde-style stories about British social and political issues, with the odd joke, and demanding rubbish like interviews with Lady Diana Spencer. Which I refused to do in my turn.
The fellow passed for a 'former militant' too.
|
No, the media did not help pull the trigger - unless Mr. Moat heard some of the commentary - in which case it's entirely likely that they did.
That is not to say that the "media" acquitted themselves well, in any way at all.
There are large and looming question marks over the behaviour of the police, whose behaviour did, it seems, help pull the trigger, thus denying the possibility of State retribution, the possibility of a person's eventual rehabilitation, and removing a very important witness from proceedings.
|
Northumbria police did a good job for their customers. The communication with the locals in the immediate area* was first rate.
They did a poor job of containing the media. The fact the media were allowed to get so close to the final times and take grainy film and pictures was a mistake.
And to Pat, Drama queen? no dear. This wasnt made up drama like your pretend affronts on here, this was real and actually affected my vacation and plans because it happend, out of the blue on my doorstep.
As for wild and inhospitaible, yes I am wel traveled and have seen wild and remote, really wild and remote. For *ENGLAND* this is the remotest I have seen, and I have seen it all in england.
All in all, said it once and said it again, for the most part Northumbria police did a half decent job given the resources and the situation.
* and this is the key. They did a really good job on the ground locally with the locals. YOu need to be there, in the pub talking to the locals, seeing the visibility, talking with the police, to realise how they managed to keep this tight knit.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 11 Jul 10 at 21:12
|
"There are large and looming question marks over the behaviour of the police, whose behaviour did, it seems, help pull the trigger, thus denying the possibility of State retribution, the possibility of a person's eventual rehabilitation, and removing a very important witness from proceedings."
So how exactly is a situation of this nature to be resolved??
A man fresh out of prison goes on the rampage, kills two and seriously wounds another. Do you just wait until he hands himself in or do you try and find him and try and minimise any more bloodshed?
Once found, and bare in mind his exact whereabouts are unknown coupled with no doubt numerous sightings all over England which have to be dealt with, he has to be contained.
From what I have seen there was a strong suspicion that he was in the Rothbury area. The media even speculate that the troops appear to pull out as a dummy to entice him to drop his guard (seem a feasible tactic).
At some time, then or in the future, there was going to be confrontation. He was not going to be allowed to breach the containment. Once confronted a dialogue has to be entered into if possible. The choices open to him I alluded to in the other thread. There were only three. He decided to take his own life. Whether that was a rational decision we do not know. But whether it was rational or irrational is irrelevant, but he was not going to be allowed to go anywhere. There are no other tactical options.
Reports suggest a Taser was used. I presume this was an attempt to stun/distract him so that he would lose the ability even to shoot himself so that he could be arrested. If it had worked then all well and good. But it was a less lethal option. It is only effective I believe up to about 15 feet which is a little too close for comfort to a hostile with a shotgun. Now his brother is saying he shouldn't have been Tasered because he was wet and he was 'Executed'. Media sensationalism once again.
The family have a right to ask questions and air their concerns but I'm afraid the way this is always portrayed stinks and I really feel for those who were there at the end.
However the Police always come over as very guarded which does them no favours BUT remember they are being grilled for answers within seconds of shots being fired and it would not be right to give any answers which may be wrong because the media would make a meal out of that as well.
The media is a very powerful medium of information and can be a lucrative cut throat business. That is why they were like a pack of hungry wolves in Rothbury. They can be a friend but very quickly can change into a destructive enemy.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sun 11 Jul 10 at 22:31
|
"The media is a very powerful medium of information"
...and misinformation.
"They can be a friend but very quickly can change into a destructive enemy"
As the naive genius that was Richard Brunstrom found out.
|
|
thanks for that Fullchat i trust your answers
|
At the end of the day, here we have a murderer, who also attempted 2 other murders and he will no longer be able to kill or inflict any other misery on families. That is a good result, possibly better than any custodial sentence could do - remember he was just out of prison the day before!
Feel so sorry for his family members who watched the same 24 hour TV News that the rest of us did, knowing that he was their brother or whatever. Words cannot describe how horrendous that must have been.
But at the end of the day, a risk to life has been removed and that is good.
|
I agree BobbyG. I don't think he should have been let out if the prison then tell the police he might do harm to his ex!
>> John Sopel was poor in the extreme.
This was a bit news item originally but it soon was not deserving of the coverage. I think the huge media cover (vans and staff etc) may have had some impact on him. Though the outcome was probably inevitable.
Were they responding to this differently in the aftermath of the lake district shooting I wonder?
I can remember the BBC coverage (When it was not 24x7) of the first Gulf war evolving... that was well covered and news worthy. With the media as it is today and backed up by the Internet then I think all channels went a bit OTT.
|
I can remember the BBC coverage (When it was not 24x7) of the first Gulf war evolving... that was well covered and news worthy
>
>>>>you surprise me,i thought the bbc coverage was so poor it was disgusting i basically refused to watch it
i dont think the bbc ever recovered from such poor reporting
|
One has to take your point Fullchat about the unreliability, the treachery sometimes, of the mass media. But they aren't all trying to make trouble for everyone all the time. They respond well to a straightforward rational discourse.
It isn't just the stilted language and frightful 'caring' tone that police spokesfolk adopt when talking to the public. It's more that their communication wonks seem incapable of writing a release that doesn't sound shifty and evasive.
I wonder if I should apply for a megaphone's job with the Met? I bet people like that are paid four times as much as I ever have been. Reckon I'd be good at it too.
|
The trouble with the media at any situations like this or any disaster is that through lack of information being supplied from the services they will speculate, make things up and use ex him and her who have a little knowledge of current operational procedures. Some who have left a particular job years ago, to advise on the spot in the studio.
Sky is particularly speculative trying to get the story first. Though watching the BBC in this case proved they can fall below standard and let themselves down.
Usually these reporters or their helicopters descend so early into an incident it is neigh impossible for the press officers from different departments to get hold of what is actually going on. Case in point 7/7. Then the rumours begin.
Sometimes too early a report can compromise tactics at an incident. And it appears from this that it is steadily getting worse. Their hunger to fill the screen with anything will drag the TV media news into the gutter. Soon there will be so many helicopters flying overhead that it will surely lead to a mid air collision.
As the initial "panic" subsides, then information can be passed to the media in an ordered fashion.
Why can't they just wait.
|
>> Soon there will be so many helicopters flying overhead that it will surely lead to a mid air collision.
Like this you mean:
tinyurl.com/37xk4t3
|
The media are NEVER going to be allowed at the point of action and no one is ever going to give them a blow by blow account of what is happening. There are more important things to consider in a dynamic situation than keeping the media happy. They will get their turn. They don't like that so they are going to sit on the perimeter rumouring and speculating hour after hour to feed their open channel.
Problem is situations like this one run relatively slowly so we are fed drivel.
Whilst it may be feasible to stand up at the end and say something like -"The situation has come to a close and it appears that he has taken his own life", remember their are interested relatives and in the proper order of things they should be informed first and not hear it on SKY TV. I say should but that is not always possible. Fortunately these situations don't happen often.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sun 11 Jul 10 at 23:47
|
>It isn't just the stilted language and frightful 'caring' tone that police spokesfolk adopt when talking to the public. It's more that their communication wonks seem incapable of writing a release that doesn't sound shifty and evasive.<
I was one of those, once. I managed to escape after a short time when I became frustrated that my attempts to tell the truth were transformed by my seniors (and senior officers) into the above.
|
>> I was one of those, once. I managed to escape after a short time when I became frustrated that my attempts to tell the truth were transformed by my seniors (and senior officers) into the above.
Thanks for the warning MH... of course I suspected very strongly that it would be like that in practice. Not that anyone would have the intelligence to employ someone of my age.
In Northern Ireland in the early eighties, though, I was surprised by the excellence of the RUC's front men and general approach which contrasted very sharply with the army's. The squaddies were all right but the army PR operation was very dispiriting. It was hard to stay awake for five minutes while under its spell.
|
I don't know what happened,I wasn't there - but once he was contained and in sight, why was there any pressure on the police to do anything but wait, and talk? There were no hostages.
I can see why his family, or anyone else for that matter, would be asking questions.
It is difficult not to speculate that the police were too eager to bring matters to a close and took risks they didn't need to take.
I hope the right questions are asked, and answered, but I suspect they will be obscured at great expense as usual.
|
>> I don't know what happened,I wasn't there - but once he was contained and in
>> sight, why was there any pressure on the police to do anything but wait, and
>> talk? There were no hostages.
>>
>> It is difficult not to speculate that the police were too eager to bring matters
>> to a close and took risks they didn't need to take.
I'm only speculating of course, but it seems likely that the police didn't push matters themselves, and did try to just wait and talk.
But, of course, once he knew that he wasn't getting away, he became under immense pressure and would be working through it in his mind, building himself up to either accept arrest and imprisonment or summoning up the nerve to pull the trigger.
I read a report that seemed to suggest that he had told the police to pass a message onto his family, which they interpreted as being an obvious sign that he was going to take his own life, and that is when they acted with the Tasers.
Again, all speculation at this point, but it seems to stack up, time will tell what really happened.
EDIT: One last bit of speculation, if it is true that the autopsy didn't show up marks from the Tasers, that would be consistent with reports that the Tasers had failed to make proper contact.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Sun 11 Jul 10 at 23:29
|
|
I never wanted the coverage we had! And once it was over why did the news crews remain?
|
Any pressure would have been escalated by Moat. He would have had certain requests met and some denied. Deny a man like he was portrayed to be and he has lost control of the situation which would make him angry and frustrated and that does not lead to good dialogue.
The Police would have sat there for as long as it would have taken. Believe you me having been involved in a two week containment I can vouch for that.
Remember all radio communications will have been recorded so any suggestion that the incident should be brought to any sort of swift conclusion would be tantamount to manslaughter.
Those Officers at the actual scene would have had sole responsibility for decision making and immediate tactics. Overall tactics would have been decided somewhere much drier.
|
Given what this guy did, I think it's a bit rich for the family to complain about the police or the media.
I would like to complain to them for letting their son/brother/nephew go so far off the rails in the first place.
He shot a woman, murdered a man, and blasted a copper in the face.
And now his family want sympathy.
What about the three other, innocent, families?
|
>>He shot a woman, murdered a man, and blasted a copper in the face.
>>
The police officer who is believed to have been shot in the face by Raoul Moat says he bears no malice towards the gunman.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/10597960.stm
In a statement released by Northumbria Police, it was revealed the officer could lose the sight in both eyes.
"Although I face long-term treatment, I am determined to return to duty as a police officer."
|
"The Police would have sat there for as long as it would have taken. Believe you me having been involved in a two week containment I can vouch for that."
This wasn't the case in Chelsea with the Lawyer shot by the Met after a few hours.
|
The lawyer was taking pot shots out of the window - he drove that situation.
The police can only be expected to 'sit there for as long as it takes' while the person remains reasonably passive.
|
The reaction to this incident is one of the reasons I gave up being a firearms officer. People with no idea what they're talking about, sitting on their nice comfortable sofas, pointing at their fingers and saying 'you shouldn't have done it like that!!!' And that's before the 'impartial' joke that is the IPCC get involved.
Capt Flack..if you're going to have yet another pop, at least try and get some of your facts right.
|
|
My personal opinion on this is the police will have done all they could. The media coverage on the other hand.... not good.
|
|
Listening to Radio 4 on Sunday morning I was shocked by the accusing terms in which they stated that there would be an inquiry following the death - as though it was some surprise to them, and clear evidence of wrongdoing by the police.
|
Hold on MLC,
Fullchat says they hold out for as long as it takes. I just dispelled that opinion sighting the case in Chelsea. Am I right or not in regards time. I'm not picking over facts as you seem to assume and pointing fingers. Moat shot 3 people, yet the police were holding out for him to give up, taking a week. The Chelsea Lawyer shot no-one. The area was evacuated to prevent anyone getting hurt so why not a stand off in that case or the use of Taser.
|
|
If you read the links I posted, you'll see that the ACPO guidelines were changed after the Chelsea shooting.....been unable to find the full IPCC result on their website.
|
"If you read the links I posted, you'll see that the ACPO guidelines were changed"
I've read the links PU. Where is the ACPO stuff?
|
As far as I'm concerned as soon as a person takes up arms against public and/or police they cross the line and should expect anything less than being shot dead a benefit.
It seems that Chelsea guy shot in the direction of a neighbour, into a child's bedroom that backed onto him, at police investigating that incident and then twice more at or in the direction of police trying to contain him.
As the Moat thing unfolded at the river bank I said to the family there could be a big risk he could get away in the river once it got dark... and if he made any movements indicating that possibility he'd have to be shot to prevent the danger of him going on the run again.
Similarly with Derick Bird had an armed officer got to him in the early stages... remembering by that time he'd killed at least three people... then if there was a brief opportunity perhaps as he drove past a shot to kill would have been a fair choice.
Sadly immediately the criminal is shot the momentum of public/media excitement swings straight round into the perceived police *mistakes*. It's a wonder all armed police don't take up a career with a lesser burden.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Mon 12 Jul 10 at 12:45
|
>> Sadly immediately the criminal is shot the momentum of public/media excitement
>> swings straight round into the perceived police *mistakes*.
That is why there are inquiries. It is right that such shootings are always investigated, isn't it.
|
>>>That is why there are inquiries. It is right that such shootings are always investigated, isn't it.
Of course it is FT but in a calm and non-accusatory way.
I was trying to put across that a momentum of interest/excitement builds as events climax.... with more than a little concern from those who could be treatened (ie all the public really) that they want this resolved.
Then the moment... and I mean the very moment... that it is resolved this momentum swaps sides and the finger unfairly swings to point at the police.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Mon 12 Jul 10 at 13:08
|
At the end of the day, Raul Moat was, in human terms, a complete waste of fresh air and a danger to anyone that came into his influence. As soon as he shot three people his passing should not be regretted nor mourned.
We really should care not how he died, nor should the police be castigated in anyway for anything they did or didnt do to hasten his death. Thier first and only duty was to protect the general public in any way required.
As for the outraged wailing of his family, as in his brother - well my old son, its your fault he turned out this way and died, where was your moral guidance and support before he started shooting people.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 12 Jul 10 at 13:22
|
Agree with Zero.
Bad, nasty guy. Won't be able to do bad again. Police should be complimented on bringing his run of crimilal activity to an end - is that not what they are here for?
|
As I said before, I think that the media's position on this incident stinks. I was disgusted to see a fat, red-faced, bearded "media expert" this morning making excuses. The barrage of hysterical reporting we were subjected to was beyond the pale.
What is the best way to complain about the BBC, for a start?
|
>> As I said before, I think that the media's position on this incident stinks. I
>> was disgusted to see a fat, red-faced, bearded "media expert" this morning making excuses. The
>> barrage of hysterical reporting we were subjected to was beyond the pale.
>>
>> What is the best way to complain about the BBC, for a start?
>>
There is a 'complaints' link at the bottom of the BBC home page
|
..., I think that the media's position on this incident stinks...
What 'position' is that then?
Seems to me the reports were of events as they happened, unless you're going to tell me what we were shown didn't happen.
I didn't see any hysterical reporting, although I watched Sky most of the time - sober suited correspondents, all very measured.
The local BBC did a decent job.
One of their reports was from a wedding at a hotel in Rothbury which took place on Wednesday or Thursday.
It worked well as part of an 'effect on local businesses' story.
|
|
Iffy - I agree with 90% of what you said but on the night John Sopel was as useless as a choccie fire guard, clearly out of his depth in a live and dynamic situation he clearly depended on prompts from an ear piece for questions. His treatment of an articulate and obviously intelligent eye-witness to the siege was laughable and in turn the witness' patience with a flustered and disorientated interviewer was admirable, I'd have cut him off and phoned Sky. John stick to reading the news mate.
|
|
I realise this was a big news event but did they have to ship 'senior' news readers there. Could they have not used local BBC reporters? It was similar with the shooting spree in the lake district. They started with local reporters but later on they'd got their more senior staff there.
|
A good result, which has saved the British taxpayer millions in trial costs and in keeping the miserable murdering S.O.B. alive in prison.
*****
|
A friend's son is a foreign reporter with the BBC, their man in x country.
He gets mightily cheesed off when a story happens that is big enough they ship one of their newsreaders over to present the news live from that location to add weight to the story.
In cases like this, my friend's son has to fully brief the newsreader and basically take his hand.
The other scenarios is when even in GB, if there is a story that gets too big. I remember the recent tragic school bus crash in Lanarkshire, the local BBC reporter did his bit for the whole of GB initially, but then you had him carrying on doing the Scottish reports whilst someone else was brought in to do the national news?
|
>> A good result, which has saved the British taxpayer millions in trial costs and in
>> keeping the miserable murdering S.O.B. alive in prison.
>> *****
The great thing about the UK justice system is that you have to have a trial before you end up convicted and then in prison. Whilst I agree with your sentiments that:
1. It is good in general for the country not to pay for trials; and
2. It is good in general for the country not to pay for long-term imprisonment
I do not think that we can sit here in the comfort of our chairs and
1. Confirm that Moat was guilty, on the basis of having seen all the evidence and taking the soundings of twelve good and true men; and
2. Come up with the appropriate sentencing - of death.
Like it or not, we live in a modern society where mob rule does not apply. Moreover, we live in a society where Parliament that we have elected has agreed that there is no capital punishment.
If you don't like it, then move to the Wild West and hand out justice yourself.
|
|
Its not a matter of Justice, or trials, or judge, jury and sentence, its a matter of public safety. Once identified as dangerous to life he should be taken out of circulation as quickly as possible, even if this means lethal force.
|
Indeed and apparently so Zero. But that is a far cry from saying that the result is a good result.
An effective solution, certainly. And I have no time for Moat's family who seem to accept that he did murder and continued to be a danger yet blame the police for using their Tasers on him. As the police had spent many hours negotiating with an armed man, at his mercy, they are very brave men and demand our adulation, not barbed criticism.
|
We may have elected the Parliament, who have agreed without asking the electorate, to abolish capital punishment, but we all may be pretty sure that a country-wide referendum would vote for the reintroduction of the ultimate penalty.
|
>> We may have elected the Parliament, who have agreed without asking the electorate, to abolish
>> capital punishment, but we all may be pretty sure that a country-wide referendum would vote
>> for the reintroduction of the ultimate penalty.
The last Gallup poll I saw showed 49% support in England, and 51% in the UK for the death penalty for murder.
It is higher for other crimes (especially crimes involving children), but certainly not cut and dried for murder (which if it were ever reintroduced, would be the most likely target).
I'm not anti-capital punishment (although I it is not as clear cut for me as it used to be), but I do have doubts about deciding such things via referendum.
I think that a lot of us might be unhappy if we had to live our lives on the basis of rules decided by the unaccountable masses.
|
"I do have doubts about deciding such things via referendum."
There is a short story, by Jerome K Jerome iirc, in which he describes dining "magnificently" with friends at the National Socialist Club. This was written in the 1910s or 20s and is clearly a dig at such politics and predates Mr Hitler. (Have I just fallen foul of that internet posting theory?) Our narrator leaves the club, more than a bit tipsy after brandy & cigars. He makes his way home, falls asleep and wakes 400 years later. The reasoned and reasonable arguments made by his friends in the NSP have come to pass and he wakes up in a world where all decisions are made by "the majority".
He goes on to describe a form of hell, all perfectly reasonable and logical and all prescribed by "the majority". Everything you wear, eat, do is determined by "the majority".
I'm afraid I can't remember the title but it not only ridicules the NSP but also warns of the consequences of rule by "the majority".
Fortunately our hero wakes again to find that sleeping for 400 years was a dream, or nightmare.
JH
|
|
do you mean "the new utopia"?
|
That's the one!
And if anyone is interested, it's available as a PDF.
tinyurl.com/y8oyq8x
JH
Last edited by: Tooslow on Tue 13 Jul 10 at 16:07
|
Thank you for that - brilliant, not actually read it before.
The perfect riposte to the dangerous notion of majority rule, and a humorous counterpart to Martin Niemoller's "First they came..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
One to remember when having a go at minorities who might incur our disapprobation - start with bikers, 4x4 owners, lorry drivers...and who knows where it ends up!
|
...but on the night John Sopel was as useless as a choccie fire guard...stick to reading the news mate...
Newsreaders do not make good hard news reporters and vice-versa.
The difference is that a good hard news reporter is more than happy to admit he can't read the news, but a lot of newsreaders won't admit they can no longer report, assuming they ever could.
The bonny female newsreaders seem to resent being called 'autocueties', but they should worry, some of them make 10 or 20 times as much as the journalist whose copy they are reading.
|
">> Moat's brother is now bleating about the use of a taser
"If a taser was used when the man was pointing a cocked shotgun at his own head, then I think the brother has more than a point. If they had just shot him dead when they found him, as they might have done in America, everyone would have known where they were. Doing whatever was done in private after a long standoff, and then refusing to say what happened until an official version has been prepared, is just asking for hostile or paranoid speculation.
"It's true that people's families quite often have a lot to answer for in cases like this. But there seems no particular reason to blame other people for Mr Moat's condition without considerable inside knowlege, which we haven't got. It isn't very like other cases of this sort. There are oddities. Moat appears better respected and more articulate than the general run of berserkers."
The above is a post I made in the closed thread on this matter. It still seems relevant to me. I think people seem to be making assumptions about this man's family that they aren't entitled to make.
I absolutely agree that mad-dog gunmen should be neutralised promptly without any wimpish nonsense about their rights. But that wasn't what happened here. I don't think the police PR was well managed. The big media, notably the BBC, drowned the story with overkill. The correspondents were bored, uncomfortable and embarrassed. It wasn't anyone's finest hour to tell the truth.
My own experience as a journalist is that when something becomes a big story it is ruined for everyone and becomes sleepless drudgery in a snarling scrum of not-best-pleased hacks. If that doesn't sound a bit of a nightmare, it should.
|
The news problem is caused by technology. The ability to broadcast to a centre live via satelite and the availbility of bandwidth to transmit 24 hour rolling news, has created the need to fill airtime. You now have 24 hours of airtime to fill. If the news on site is not constantly changing, then the same reports get boring. Hence rediculous tripe is made up or created to fill the yawning gaps in real action.
Alas the police are not confident enough to say on the daily press briefing "there is no news the situation remains the same - good night"
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 13 Jul 10 at 12:15
|
One thing that has annoyed me about the media coverage is their obsessive asking of locals whether they 'want things to get back to normal'!
I'm just waiting for a resident to tell them to 'p' off an leave them alone!
|
...I'm just waiting for a resident to tell them to 'p' off an leave them alone!...
I know several people in Rothbury.
The honest ones admit to enjoying the attention, and enjoying watching people and places on the television which they know and can recognise.
Media fatigue would set in eventually, but it won't get the chance because the story has largely moved on.
|
Did the media help pull the trigger? - Armel Coussine
