Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 22

[april4sky]

Have no fear, I won't be answering your posts again! Better not to give you the satisfaction of an argument as I feel that is all you are here for!

Barbaby you stated Madeleine had run out and hidden for 30 minutes. I asked a simple question..is it true or a rumour...Since when was asking a question an argument. :waitasec:
And it's entirely up to you if you choose to answer my posts...no worries.

 

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

All the press do it Texana not just the British press. It's a very competitive business and they are usually under pressure to get a story for their most important thing...Sales!!
Sales is often more important to them than truth. So if they haven't got a story they will make one up and add the word source, friend, local, or PJ insider etc. to make it sound true. It's all the same to them. They just pick the most convenient one to fit their story.

There is no way this happens as often as you insinuate. A newspaper might be bias, might lean toward a cause, might even spin, but if newspapers just make crap up for sales, they would all be shut down from millions of lawsuits. Nope, I'm not buying it...(and I would never buy a newspaper known to print a pack of lies...would you?)

 

[april4sky]

No, that wasn't what I meant. I meant that the McCanns often use the "family friend" as the source, and we really don't know who/what that friend is.

It's very common in all fields for reporters to use inside sources who will give quotes as long as they aren't named specifically. They either call or know the inside sources directly or it's set up by someone like Clarence Mitchell who coordinates these things, either officially ("I can get you an interview with a McCann relative if you promise not to use names") or unofficially "I think if you give so-and-so a call, you'll find they have some information for you on that subject."

It's not just a game, it's a tool for people to get their views across in whatever way works for them.

Texana from wherever it comes from when the press say "family friend" you can't just assume it's really from a family friend...even if it may have happened...the press say the same about all people they want us to believe they have a scoop on.
One thing for sure though, it does make it very difficult to sort out the truth from the rumours.:waitasec:

 

[april4sky]

Just wondering, is there any media reports, (besides the 100's of Madeleine sightings) that have been proven false? Seems strange that I never hear/see any of the rumors PROVEN false. What has been said about the McCanns in the Media that are blatant proven lies? Do you know? :waitasec:

IW, I noticed you had altered the text. Thank you.

No one should have to prove rumours false.
As for lies, the press had to pay out a large amount of money recently because they printed lies about the McCanns.

 

[Barnaby]

Barbaby you stated Madeleine had run out and hidden for 30 minutes. I asked a simple question..is it true or a rumour...Since when was asking a question an argument. :waitasec:
And it's entirely up to you if you choose to answer my posts...no worries.

I will answer this one just to prove how argumentative you are. You asked for the link you got it & you still disputed it!
In your book the whole world are liars except the McCanns!

 

[Barnaby]

IW, I noticed you had altered the text. Thank you.

No one should have to prove rumours false.
As for lies, the press had to pay out a large amount of money recently because they printed lies about the McCanns.

& there is a difference between printing lies & unproven facts which is what the paper printed!

 

[Texana]

Texana from wherever it comes from when the press say "family friend" you can't just assume it's really from a family friend...even if it may have happened...the press say the same about all people they want us to believe they have a scoop on.
One thing for sure though, it does make it very difficult to sort out the truth from the rumours.:waitasec:

Is it really so hard to admit that sometimes family friends of the McCanns do help them in putting out positive stories about the McCanns? Why do you seem to have such a hard time believing that?

Do you really not believe that is part of a press secretary or PR rep's job?

What do you think Clarence Mitchell gets paid (and paid well) to do?

We have a PR rep for the ballet company and I can assure you, it's done on every level from organizations like ours to cabinet level government officials on both sides of the ocean. The PR reps have contacts within the media and it's the PR person's job to work those contacts to the advantage of their client.

Newspaper reporters don't get to sit around making up sources, much as you would like to perhaps believe that. They may exaggerate the articles, put spin on the quotes, leave out context, or hype minor details, but the wholesale fabrication isn't happening. The sources themselves may or may not be putting a spin on their own words and leaving out important details or context as well.

 

[april4sky]

I will answer this one just to prove how argumentative you are. You asked for the link you got it & you still disputed it!
In your book the whole world are liars except the McCanns!

Sorry Barnaby but at no point did I ask for a link.
I asked a question, nothing more! And if you check back my exact words were....

"Is this a fact...That she both hid, and that it was for as long as 30 minutes?" or is it one of the many many rumours."

IW then posted the link which clearly shows the claims were allegations and not fact.

 

[SleuthMom]

April:

All the press do it Texana not just the British press. It's a very competitive business and they are usually under pressure to get a story for their most important thing...Sales!!
Sales is often more important to them than truth. So if they haven't got a story they will make one up and add the word source, friend, local, or PJ insider etc. to make it sound true. It's all the same to them. They just pick the most convenient one to fit their story.

If that's how you really feel about the media (and I saw many of your posts about it) why do you bother to post links in your messages? or is it that you do exactly what you accuse the media of doing, in your case choosing those links that paint the Mc Canns in a good light or those favorable to them.

Is it that those links (the ones "good" to the Mc Canns) are valid and real and the ones that do not portrait them in that light are just smears and rumors?

 

[april4sky]

Is it really so hard to admit that sometimes family friends of the McCanns do help them in putting out positive stories about the McCanns? Why do you seem to have such a hard time believing that?

Do you really not believe that is part of a press secretary or PR rep's job?

What do you think Clarence Mitchell gets paid (and paid well) to do?

We have a PR rep for the ballet company and I can assure you, it's done on every level from organizations like ours to cabinet level government officials on both sides of the ocean. The PR reps have contacts within the media and it's the PR person's job to work those contacts to the advantage of their client.

Newspaper reporters don't get to sit around making up sources, much as you would like to perhaps believe that. They may exaggerate the articles, put spin on the quotes, leave out context, or hype minor details, but the wholesale fabrication isn't happening. The sources themselves may or may not be putting a spin on their own words and leaving out important details or context as well.

Texana I didn't say it doesn't happen just that everytime the press says "family friends" it won't always be so.
And yes I do believe the press often use source, friend, insider and in this particular case..a PJ insider. Sometimes it may be true, other times not. The same with what is said.
And the press wouldn't have printed so many lies, which they have admitted, and paid a high price, if they were not trying to increase their sales. That was their only motivation. IMO. So lying about sources is nothing new.

I noticed you didn't exactly make the press out to be honest in you last paragraph.

 

[Texana]

Texana I didn't say it doesn't happen just that everytime the press says "family friends" it won't always be so.
And yes I do believe the press often use source, friend, insider and in this particular case..a PJ insider. Sometimes it may be true, other times not. The same with what is said.
And the press wouldn't have printed so many lies, which they have admitted, and paid a high price, if they were not trying to increase their sales. That was their only motivation. IMO. So lying about sources is nothing new.

I noticed you didn't exactly make the press out to be honest in you last paragraph.

I don't think it's a question of honesty. I don't regard it as dishonest if the writer of an article chooses to emphasize (for whatever reason) one comment more than another, or one aspect of a person more than another. If a material fact is left out which substantially changes the emphasis of the article, then that's different, of course, but emphasizing one point over another and leaving out other things is all part of the writer's choice and the reader's opinion.

Writers/reporters have to make judgment calls as to what gets put in an article, and what gets left out. Writers do this every day on their own and then again with an editor.

As for the press being reliable or truthful, the marketplace itself regulates that. When people begin to consider a publication untrustworthy or too biased, they simply stop reading or purchasing it. (a reason commonly given for the decline in the circulation of the NY Times, which may or may not be true or partially true.)

So within the parameters of printing a hot story or sales-inducing article, editors know that if they have to make too many retractions or are proven to be false, they'll lose readers over the long haul. (and possibly pay legal costs as well, although the courts in the United States at least, are fairly lenient when it comes to allowing stories about public persona. The laws for libel are different for perceived "public" people as opposed to private citizens.)

In a free market, the consumer, as they choose to wield it, holds the power of exacting truth from the media.

I notice you didn't say anything about Clarence Mitchell.

 

[april4sky]

April:

If that's how you really feel about the media (and I saw many of your posts about it) why do you bother to post links in your messages? or is it that you do exactly what you accuse the media of doing, in your case choosing those links that paint the Mc Canns in a good light or those favorable to them.

Is it that those links (the ones "good" to the Mc Canns) are valid and real and the ones that do not portrait them in that light are just smears and rumors?

No SleuthMom I don't think just the favourable ones to the McCanns are valid.
I won't deny that I post links to articles that are favourable to the McCanns because I believe the McCanns. It would be very strange if I didn't post favourable ones.
But articles such as the ones recently about the Amber alert system and the anniversary of Madeleine's disapearance isn't a problem.

Where it is about reports of possible "evidence" or the recent claims of the arguedo status being lifted then I usually try to add the words...it may or may not be true.
Especially if the info is attributed to an unamed source.

 

[colomom]

Speaking of the lifting of the Arguido status:

Madeleine: Judicial secrecy deadline extended for another three months - Prosecutor's Office

13 de Maio de 2008, 18:05

Lisboa, 13 Mai (Lusa) - The deadline for the judicial secrecy over the investigations into the case of the disappearance of the English child, Madeleine McCann, in the Algarve, was extended for three months, a source at the State Prosecutor's Office told Lusa Agency today.

If this deadline had not been extended for another three months, it would have ended on the 15th of May.

The English child disappeared on the 3rd of May 2007 at the Ocean Club tourist resort, in Praia da Luz, Lagos, Algarve, and the girl's parents - Gerry and Kate McCann - were made arguidos in the inquiry, a decision that revealed itself as controversial.

(see: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2215645&postcount=272)

Ain't happening.....

 

[april4sky]

I don't think it's a question of honesty. I don't regard it as dishonest if the writer of an article chooses to emphasize (for whatever reason) one comment more than another, or one aspect of a person more than another. If a material fact is left out which substantially changes the emphasis of the article, then that's different, of course, but emphasizing one point over another and leaving out other things is all part of the writer's choice and the reader's opinion.

Writers/reporters have to make judgment calls as to what gets put in an article, and what gets left out. Writers do this every day on their own and then again with an editor.

As for the press being reliable or truthful, the marketplace itself regulates that. When people begin to consider a publication untrustworthy or too biased, they simply stop reading or purchasing it. (a reason commonly given for the decline in the circulation of the NY Times, which may or may not be true or partially true.)

So within the parameters of printing a hot story or sales-inducing article, editors know that if they have to make too many retractions or are proven to be false, they'll lose readers over the long haul. (and possibly pay legal costs as well, although the courts in the United States at least, are fairly lenient when it comes to allowing stories about public persona. The laws for libel are different for perceived "public" people as opposed to private citizens.)

In a free market, the consumer, as they choose to wield it, holds the power of exacting truth from the media.

I notice you didn't say anything about Clarence Mitchell.

Sorry Texana It's past midnight here so I can't answer fully now but I don't doubt Clarence Mitchell also occasionally uses the press.

Goodnight.

 

[Salem]

I would really like to see a copy of the lawsuit the McCann's pressed against the media. My thought that the only thing determined to be slander was all the (in my opinion) nonsense about Gerry wasn't Maddie's bio father, and all the rest of that stuff. Does anyone know if this stuff is public in England, like in the US? It seems strange that more info was not posted about it. I think part of the deal must have been a "quiet order" about what really happened in the lawsuit.

I don't believe for a minute the papers had to pay for parroting what the PLE and other sources were saying.

Salem

 

[Salem]

Most of those stories naming a "family friend" as the source were in the British media and were very sympathetic to the McCanns. It would be wonderful if the sources for every article or comment were named.

Here's one right here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564621/Kate-McCann-will-risk-jail-to-find-Madeleine.html

You know, Texana - this is an interesting article. Published back in October of 2007. I wonder if this is one of the articles the McCanns sued about:crazy: Just kidding.

However, have you heard anything at all about anything Kate might have said that would speak to the truth of what happened to Maddie or that might break the rules of secrecy? I haven't, so apparently going to jail is not really an option for her, but it makes her look good.

Doing anything within your power to find your child includes telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, thinking of your child before you think of your reputation, and participating in any activities LE thinks may be beneficial to determining what happened. NOT speaking to the media about how brave you are when in fact you know you have absolutely no intention of doing what is necessary

Salem

 

[Barnaby]

Speaking of the lifting of the Arguido status:

Madeleine: Judicial secrecy deadline extended for another three months - Prosecutor's Office

13 de Maio de 2008, 18:05

Lisboa, 13 Mai (Lusa) - The deadline for the judicial secrecy over the investigations into the case of the disappearance of the English child, Madeleine McCann, in the Algarve, was extended for three months, a source at the State Prosecutor's Office told Lusa Agency today.

If this deadline had not been extended for another three months, it would have ended on the 15th of May.

The English child disappeared on the 3rd of May 2007 at the Ocean Club tourist resort, in Praia da Luz, Lagos, Algarve, and the girl's parents - Gerry and Kate McCann - were made arguidos in the inquiry, a decision that revealed itself as controversial.

(see: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2215645&postcount=272)

Ain't happening.....

:woohoo:

Sorry Texana It's past midnight here so I can't answer fully now but I don't doubt Clarence Mitchell also occasionally uses the press.

Goodnight.

Now there's a joke & a half, he is a Press Officer for God's sake!

I would really like to see a copy of the lawsuit the McCann's pressed against the media. My thought that the only thing determined to be slander was all the (in my opinion) nonsense about Gerry wasn't Maddie's bio father, and all the rest of that stuff. Does anyone know if this stuff is public in England, like in the US? It seems strange that more info was not posted about it. I think part of the deal must have been a "quiet order" about what really happened in the lawsuit.

I don't believe for a minute the papers had to pay for parroting what the PLE and other sources were saying.

Salem

Absolutely agree!

You know, Texana - this is an interesting article. Published back in October of 2007. I wonder if this is one of the articles the McCanns sued about:crazy: Just kidding.

However, have you heard anything at all about anything Kate might have said that would speak to the truth of what happened to Maddie or that might break the rules of secrecy? I haven't, so apparently going to jail is not really an option for her, but it makes her look good.

Doing anything within your power to find your child includes telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, thinking of your child before you think of your reputation, and participating in any activities LE thinks may be beneficial to determining what happened. NOT speaking to the media about how brave you are when in fact you know you have absolutely no intention of doing what is necessary

Salem

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[ThoughtFox]

Lisboa, 13 Mai (Lusa) - The deadline for the judicial secrecy over the investigations into the case of the disappearance of the English child, Madeleine McCann, in the Algarve, was extended for three months, a source at the State Prosecutor's Office told Lusa Agency today.

If this deadline had not been extended for another three months, it would have ended on the 15th of May.

The English child disappeared on the 3rd of May 2007 at the Ocean Club tourist resort, in Praia da Luz, Lagos, Algarve, and the girl's parents - Gerry and Kate McCann - were made arguidos in the inquiry, a decision that revealed itself as controversial.

(see: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2215645&postcount=272)

Ain't happening.....

Good deal. And it shouldn't happen because there are still too many questions about the disappearance of Madeleine.

It ain't over till it's over.

 

[Texana]

You know, Texana - this is an interesting article. Published back in October of 2007. I wonder if this is one of the articles the McCanns sued about:crazy: Just kidding.

However, have you heard anything at all about anything Kate might have said that would speak to the truth of what happened to Maddie or that might break the rules of secrecy? I haven't, so apparently going to jail is not really an option for her, but it makes her look good.

Doing anything within your power to find your child includes telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, thinking of your child before you think of your reputation, and participating in any activities LE thinks may be beneficial to determining what happened. NOT speaking to the media about how brave you are when in fact you know you have absolutely no intention of doing what is necessary

Salem

I know, it sounds really dramatic, doesn't it?

Willing to do anything but not willing to answer all questions.

Willing to do anything but not willing to participate in a reconstruction.

Willing to do anything but not release the actual heighth and weight of Maddie or even put out age-progressed drawings.

We could go on and on, couldn't we?

 

[chronictonic]

And on and On and On! I totally agree with that..............

How heavy do ya suppose 4 thousand pages is anyway? Very heavy, I think! This case is not rocket science. But it is very sick and disturbing. The McCamp goes where the $$ are, in almost every instance that rears it's ugly head. Photo ops, amber alerts, tv shows, talk shows, books, scripts, yet interesting how their own link to the investigation on Madels site, is DOWN.
It doesnt even WORK, did you all read that last night?? Yet they shamelessly plug those tees and wrist bands, and paypal. SICK, I tell you.

:bang: