programme because he felt it gave too much weight to baseless accusations against the McCanns and their friends: "'We had an investigative team looking into the story for weeks. Our assessment was that the purported DNA evidence was weak and inconclusive, while so far as we could tell the supposedly significant "discrepancies" between the stories told by the McCanns' friends about the night of Madeleine's disappearance amount to very little indeed", and that as a result it "verges on the dishonest"?
gvih2g2, pardon me from hijacking part of your post but its so good it needs to feature as a Q in its own right. Wanted to ask your permission but you don't allow email, so had no choice but to go right ahead...Thanks.
2007-11-27 20:17:20 · 4 answers · asked by Faith 6 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
He asked "how, without any meaningful evidence, the Portuguese police and the media in Portugal and Britain have been able to convince most people that the couple were involved"...
Wish there were more respected journalists like this who would quit rather than resort to vindictive lies & accusations to drip feed the lynch mom mentality of the fickle public.
2007-11-27 20:20:47 · update #1
The anti's will spin this around. Let's watch.......
2007-11-28 00:45:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
He wanted it to vilify the PJ, and make the McCanns look like saints. He hasn't seen the files, so he doesn't know what evidence there is. He was going to go on a witch-hunt against the PJ, while complaining that the McCanns are victims of one. It would have 'verged on the dishonest' if he had produced a totally biased programme. The BBC did the right thing, and I thought, from what I've read about it, that it was balanced. Amy's right, he only liked it because it was his opinion, and he hated it when it was changed and it didn't suit his opinion. That's not journalism, it's propaganda.
2007-11-28 05:34:25 · answer #2 · answered by flamebolt666 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
He is not happy because it did not reflect HIS opinion. Had it been more like he wanted it to be - an attack of the PJ etc, he would , of course, have been very pleased with it. How can his way be any fairer?. Everything is about 'opinions'. Just because this programme didn't portray his, he is making a big fuss, and has quit. Deciding that now, after all the years he has been doing it, its not done fairly!
2007-11-28 04:57:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
He saw how Clarence the cross eyed reporter benefitted from supporting them and figured he would do the same.
2007-11-28 04:48:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋