the main reasons I can think of are:
when the press describe him as the killer rather than the defendant or suspect or accused.
when the press repeatedly omit the word alleged when discussing the alleged confession released by the Peruvian police, repeatedly calling it "Joran Van der Sloot's confession", using terms like "in his own words" etc. The worst form of this I saw was on the Nancy Grace Show when they would replay over and over for weeks an actor reading their favorite phrases from the "confession", in an accent that sounded like a bad guy in a movie, and did not state or show anywhere on the screen that it was an actor reading the lines and not Joran Van Der Sloot himself! LOL
when the press claim not only that he committed the crime against Stephany but go even a step beyond and continually report that the reason is that he's a Psychopath (has Antisocial Personality), (forgetting the possibility of mental illness such as Schizophrenic episode, Manic episode, etc, or even blackout or delirium due to drugs, etc. By definition, the diagnosis of "Antisocial Personality/Psychopathy" can't be applied unless Schizophrenic episode and Manic episode and various other potential conditions were not present. And "Psychopath" implies a much more conscious act.) If he in fact is the one who killed Stephany.
when the press, rather than trying to get all the evidence and discuss all the evidence from every possible angle, only discuss select items of alleged evidence from a prosecution viewpoint. For example, we don't hear them raising any questions about "do the rest of the hours of videotape confirm that no one else entered the room?", "have independent authorities confirmed this", and many other questions. We don't hear any questions raised about "why did Stephany's father say the first day that fingernail evidence from under Stephany's nails would convict Joran Van Der Sloot, but then later we heard she would have to be exhumed to collect this evidence, then later after JVDS was actually in custody back in Peru we heard that the evidence was now at the lab and they were awaiting results.....) etc. First we heard "wrappers from date rape drugs were found in Stephany's car so JVDS drugged her", but no questions asked about why would the wrappers be in her car, why if he'd drugged her would he be letting her drive, etc. No questions raised about this or even the possibility that he could be the one who had been drugged for example. LOL No questions asked about "are there prints on the wrappers?" and so many other questions. The alleged evidence for the most part has been presented very selectively and only from a prosecution angle.
though JVDS with his weird confessions in the past has also made himself look guilty of various things (could be due to mental illness or drug addiction.)
And the circumstances and alleged evidence that have been released in this case so far do make him look guilty, and maybe he is.
Respectfully Quoted seagull
I have to agree with you. The way news is reported is wrong. When someone is guilty, it may not matter(but who can say, morally)but if this is the practice then how hurtful to those that are innocent?
Impartiality should always be the name of the game in reporting and reporting should always be just the facts. Sometimes the facts are only what we can know at the time, but as I have seen following some cases on WS-the media jumps at any "word" put forth so as to have a "bombshell"(no specific person is meant as I feel this way regarding all media)to sell their papers.
I do not like JVS-but that is a personal opinion. For my moral code, what even his supporters will admit is negative about Joran and what I have heard from him in his words and from his mouth(in interviews and video tape) is already too evil for me. :snooty:
I do not need the media to report to me what I want to hear. Just as on WS, the facts are the facts, we can and do all read them and we still can have exact opposite opinions/conclusions of those facts. If the media had to report the way TOS of WS has us post, there would be way less confusion.
I will say that I understand how some information is(especially in the case)lost in translation or up to individual interpretation no matter how hard we try to be impartial. But, I noticed that many of the videos and reports regarding the SF case, although in a foreign language(Spanish, Dutch)there was still a "AP" tag. My understanding is stories are bought from entities such as AP and Routiers(sp?)by major and local outlets for them to "rework" and broadcast. If you Google any news story, and follow every link for that specific day and read the stories you can begin to see there was a one source story and the different news agencies put their spin on it.
During the Bloom story, where the man said God led him to Nadia, the story was/is essentially the same except for how much "religious" detail was given in the story. If it was a Christian news outlet then more focus on how the man "fasted and prayed" and spoke to God and how God spoke to him.
I also dislike the money that is exchanged for interviews. That anyone involved in these cases should make any money is wrong to me. Well, true victims should have consideration that could include monetary help for obvious reasons. But no one should be getting rich. IMHO.
Boo to the media. Message boards, where everyone's voice can be heard and facts must be checked and agreed on by all-where errors are openly corrected and opinions laid bare: imo is the wave of the future for information exchange or "news."
:twocents:
