Yet a critical piece on them by the Express yesterday that suggested an inquiry might be launched to look into the McCanns behaviour that night, and no other paper mentions it. Not even a peep (sans the Evening Standard who then turned the story on its head to say how a 'smear campaign' against the McCanns was taking place)
Balanced reporting as usual from the British media.
(and need I go into how the Evening Standard completely changed the tone of their story yesterday from the morning's online edition to that which appeared in the afternoon. How suspicious is that?)
2007-07-22 23:15:12 · 15 answers · asked by dave s 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
very suspicious. biased and unfair reporting. Gerry must be lining a few pockets with the fund money.
2007-07-22 23:19:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 6⤋
Dave, on the subject of b), i think of it extremely is a significant progression. I see purely 3 techniques right here: a million. it extremely is all lies and no-one observed this sort of guy. 2. the guy who observed him did no longer difficulty to tell the McCanns. 3. The McCanns have been advised yet did no longer act. how in the worldwide could desire to between the team have seen a wierd guy peeking into the home that evening and not even bothered declaring it to the McCanns?! it is truthfully no longer credible. Did they certainly tell the McCanns yet this a approach or the different wasn't sufficient for them to desert yet yet another evening out?! this could be an fairly stunning revelation! could this be why there's a p.c.. of silence....of course they could all understand that any doubt interior the known public ideas over regardless of if the McCanns were negligent could be bumped off if human beings knew that they were advised approximately this. per danger the associates all agreed to guard the McCanns from this unfavorable revelation? properly i think of we are able to rule out determination 2 yet which of the different techniques is the fact? one in all them ought to be!
2016-11-10 03:55:56 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is a case of trying to draw the attention away from the McCann team. They are using Robert Murat as a scapegoat.
2007-07-22 23:51:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
Murat is one of the suspects I guess so anything about him is going to be printed.
Rumour about the McCanns are unlikely to make the papers as there are new ones floating about everyday.
Although, having looked at these boards you would not think it, but the press realise people to do not want a witch hunt against this family, they just want facts.....
The majority of people think it was neglectful of them to leave their children that night, and thats where it ends.......
2007-07-22 23:51:42 · answer #4 · answered by LEXY 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
They have to use Robert Murat because they can't face the fact that they were wrong about the McCanns all along... but like sheep, as soon as the Sun turns against Kate and Gerry all the papers will!
2007-07-22 23:24:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 4⤋
Having thought abut the Express and the London Evening Standards decisions to halt the publication of their stories I assumed that the McCanns lawyers have approached the editors to stop the print,,,,this would not have been done without the express permission of either Gerry or Kate,probably Gerry who is fully conversant with the UKs attitude towards them from this site and the many others,He is well aware of the impending backlash .....HE is the manipulatator in all of this,
And I also now know that JK Rowling is a personal friend of PM Gordon Brown.The plot thickens.....
2007-07-22 23:23:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 4⤋
cause he is the scapegoat here. i think the police are no where near to finding out what happened to madeleine and they are searching for a needle in a haystack.....murat for whatever reason seems to be the only person they are pointing a finger at.
2007-07-23 03:17:47 · answer #7 · answered by daisy 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
When every paper covered Madeleine & her family, it was called cheap publicity & the McCanns were derided for it, complaining that other missing children were being neglected. Now that they are not so much in the news as most of what needs to be said is said, you complain that they are not being covered & are being protected?
There is much to Murat that is suspicious. Surely it does need to be reported. OR should the papers exclude anthing to do with him as that does not sit well with your little theory?
You do seem to know much about journalism. I don't. What i do understand is that good newspapers always present both sides of the story till a verdict comes forth. Isn't that what is happening here?
2007-07-22 23:33:32 · answer #8 · answered by Faith 6 · 2⤊ 6⤋
Told you. The McCanns have bought off the papers.
2007-07-22 23:25:44 · answer #9 · answered by UniBeauty 5 · 9⤊ 3⤋
Biased media ... .a great British institute.....
Why are they sooooooo scared of team mccann???
Hats off to the evening standard .. shame they backtracked ...
2007-07-22 23:24:41 · answer #10 · answered by sammie 6 · 10⤊ 2⤋
all of this is really opening my eyes about the media and how it is either controlled by those in authority or controlling those in authority. at some point the anger felt by the general public (because is not the minorty that feel this way), will have to result in answered questions. (i hope)
2007-07-22 23:25:18 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋