While many of us were taken aback by the extent of Panorama's bias in favour of the McCanns, the original intended programme by producer David Mills would have amounted to nothing less than journalistic advocacy in favour of the McCanns. BBC management instructed the re-editing of the programme and the producer walked out. We also read that while Kate and Gerry accepted the eventual broadcasted version the rest of the family were said to have been far less happy.
Were the BBC right or wrong to interfere with Panorama's journalistic independence ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/25/bbc?gusrc=rss&feed=media
2007-11-24 22:27:53 · 11 answers · asked by 17pdr 4 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I read that, and apparently he was going to make the PJ look bad, and prove that the McCanns have had nothing to do with it. Er, how? Pray tell, Mr. Mills, have you been privy to the PJ's files? This was going to be propaganda, and I'm glad someone had the sense to try and make it balanced. The BBC made the right call this time, otherwise it would have been an hour of PJ bashing, and another person declaring the McCanns' innocence without knowing all the facts. The BBC should be impartial, and I'm glad they interfered. Nobody knows anything, and being biased either way, especially with the eyes of the nation on them, doesn't help anyone.
2007-11-24 22:41:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
Good point but let's all think a little.... if "...the BBC management instructed the re-editing of the programme" then why was the program that was broadcast still biased ?! Could it be that the BBC management DID NOT IN FACT, AT ALL, instructed the re-editing of the programme ??? That is more likely in my view.
About the whole affair I still say that
(1) MCCANNS SHOULD GO ANSWER THOSE 40 QUESTIONS and that...
(2) when the case is closed the PJ-GNR Police officers will be allowed to give interviews and tell us their version of events. Now THAT would be worth reading !! Haven't we all heard of the importance to hear BOTH sides ? Since then has that ceased to be important ?!
2007-11-25 01:46:26 · answer #2 · answered by RED-CHROME 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
think of how bad it could look in the future when it is proved the McCanns had an involvement in the case if the BBC had been more biased. I don't think the BBC could have aired anything more biased given the fact that everything it does is scrutinized so much
having thought about this a bit more I think it's just more spin to make people think that the programme was not biassed
2007-11-25 04:35:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Here is some feedback from the other side of the pond.
Unfortunately, I did not see the BBC version, but I saw instead the CBS 48 Hours version, which, it is claimed, was more biased towards the McCanns. (Believe me I have followed every detail of this affair and have been able to form an ex-pat's unbiased overview from afar).
Here is my feed-back on what is (or should be) an investigative documentary on a case which remains unsolved.
What was blatantly missing was the PJ's argument against the abduction theory, (which they DID pursue), and the details of facts that led them to investigate alternative theories, and which led them to place the McCanns as arguidos.
On the other hand, alot of facts were intricately presented on the behalf of the McCanns' defense of their involvement in their child's disappearance.
The faces we saw were those of Tanner, Mitchell, Metodo 3, the McCanns and members of their family, which were obviously representing the bias in their own favour.
Murat was included too, for obvious reasons, but was not given air-time to state his case....just a mystery figure who was fingered by Tanner, (whose story is more 'ludicrous' when she was interviewed than in prior reports).
So, where was the representation of the PJ?......the body that represents an alternative theory to that of the McCanns. If this information is not available the film should not have been made until it IS available, to provide a fair and unbiased report of a case that is still pending.
Where was it mentioned that the PJ have been blocked from almost all reasonable investigation of evidence of a crime scene?:
The DNA tests (still not returned after 7 months!!!)
The mobile-phone records of calls placed by Gerry during a crucial window of time.
The 40-100 questions still unanswered by the whole McCann group, and blocked by intervention from British authoities.
If I were innocent of what I'm being suspected of, I'd want all this information made available to the investigatory body, in order to clear my name and to prove that I have nothing to hide and I'm telling the truth....so help me find my child!
About the only item that was included that would cast doubt on the McCanns' story was that the view from the tapas bar to their apartment was obscured by foliage, in contradiction of the McCanns' statement that they could monitor 'comings and goings' from where they had dinner. This being a minor detail, was defended by their claim that physically going to check on the apartment was more important than viewing it from afar. That's why the McCanns allowed this film as 'fair'....only one minor detail to tip the balance against their obvious bias.
Last but not least, Clarence Mitchell's prior connection to the BBC and his hiring of buddy David Mills to produce this film, reveals the fact that he is still in full control of steering the ship of McCann deceit. Says it all really!
The BBC were clearly right to interfere with this kind of journalism when it is concocted by a powerful PR machine that has conspired to hood-wink the public in order to protect self interests.
The Panorama programme is a non-partisan journalistic presentaion of facts from all sides. It does not accept advertising within its broadcast, and that's what this film is all about..... ADVERTISING.
Pity they didn't just nix the film altogether!
2007-11-25 10:31:19 · answer #4 · answered by starling 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If I had been Gerry McCann I would have kept my wife well away from it, given her performance on there. I don't know if they are genuine but they come across very badly. Simple contrition and humility would play much better, even if they were being economical with the truth. These people have been badly advised.
2007-11-24 23:43:03 · answer #5 · answered by ketkonen 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Last night on TV it was said that the Panorama Mc Cann special, is to be repeated either tonight or tomorrow night.
I cant remember which
2007-11-25 01:52:03 · answer #6 · answered by Rosebud 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The BBC should remain impartial to political or outside preasures and not be used as a sounding board to exhonorate the actions of either the McCanns ar any other issues,,,
2007-11-24 22:35:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 2⤋
i hope next year the planet mccann disappears down a black hole,and gives is all a happy new year! and peace.
2007-11-24 22:37:37 · answer #8 · answered by d@dz 5 · 6⤊ 2⤋
I thought Panorama was quite harsh about the McCanns, but I don't get into debates with mentally ill people, you certainly fall into that category.
2007-11-24 23:09:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 9⤋
What is this journalistic freedom that you speak of?
2007-11-24 22:42:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋