Jeremy Clarkson, Littlewoods and the professional complainer

"they should all be taken out and executed."

Was the comment that was made by Jeremy Clarkson on the BBC last night in reference to the public sector workers who had gone out on strike.  A comment which has until now attracted over 4769 complaints to the BBC on the basis that people were offended by it. 

There can surely be no doubt that Clarkson made the comment tongue in cheek, and that no-one surely believes that someone would advocate people actually being executed on prime time television. 

It seems that complaining about things on television has become a bit of a trend, and the feeling I get is that often people will complain about something they’ve never actually seen, but that they feel they wish to complain about anyway. 

I can’t help wondering how many people actually herd Clarkson’s comment first hand and complained based on what they’d heard at the time, and how many complained after they heard that people were complaining about the fuss that had been caused and decided to just add their name to the list of complaints. 

Another prime example of this has beenthe Littlewoods Christmas advert, which shows a group of children singing on stage about all the presents under the tree and how they have all been provided by "my lovely mother," with no reference anywhere to Santa.

This advert has generated several hundred complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority on the basis that it ruins the magic of Christmas for children.

If something is genuinely offensive and you have witnessed it first hand then of course I can see the motivation to complain – that’s what the regulatory bodies are there for after all.  But complaining simply because you wish to become a part of a trend/want to jump on the particular bandwagon just seems like madness to me.  After all if you really don’t like someone that much (and I have no doubt that many people will have complained purely on the basis they don’t like Jeremy Clarkson as an individual), then you always have the option to switch off the television or watch something else. 

As for the Littlewoods advert, while it is, in my opinion, a pretty awful advert which clearly depicts the level of consumerism that appears to be the expectation these days, complaining that it essentially ruins the magic of Christmas for our children because it shows the presents as having been brought by mother instead of delivered by Santa is just completely irrational. 

After all a child could just as easily find out in the playground that Santa isn’t real – would a parent see fit to go into the school and complain then? 

It’s fairly simple really – if you don’t want your children watching adverts (and I can see why people don’t want children watching adverts) then turn off the television during the ad breaks or invest in a recordable sky or freeview box. 

But you can’t realistically expect a regulator to take you seriously when you complain about an advert which is actually truthful i.e. which shows that the presents under the tree aren’t really delivered by Santa. 

media reporting - public interest vs what interests the public?

Yesterday Wales football manager Gary Speed died.  He was just 42 years old, and it is believed he took his own life. 

Within hours of reporting the news, the press had gone one further and reported the time he had been found, and the circumstances in which he had apparently taken his own life. 

This for me raises the question as to how much we really need to know when a story is reported.  I do actually think it absolutely right that it be reported that a man who was quite prominent in football, had a well-documented career, was well liked and well respected had chosen to commit suicide, at a time when people didn’t appear to know there was any indication he was planning to do so.  I think all too often that mental illness and depression goes unreported and that it’s much easier to sweep it under the carpet and to pretend that it doesn’t exist. 

However, there is surely a line between what is in the public interest here, and the issues that raises, and what it could be argued simply interests the public, in terms of the details that are provided. 

That a well-known public figure has chosen to end his own life is something I think we should be aware of.  After all, you can’t just report that someone has died, as often the circumstances surrounding their death may raise further awareness of particular issues, and in this case may bring the issue of depression to the fore and perhaps even bring help to others who are going through the same.  But the way in which that person chose to end their own life is and should remain personal to them and their family. 

This sort of reporting is fairly commonplace in the media.  It is not uncommon, for instance, when reading about a particular family’s tragedy, to also be told details which have no bearing on the particular issue, such as the value of their home, or their relationship status. 

How much someone’s house is worth or whether or not they are married or divorced, cohabiting or a single parent is generally not in the interest of the story being reported.  But the media would argue that in order to build a profile of the person they are reporting on, and to make that person more personable to the public, it is necessary to report on these details. 

I disagree.  The public may in some instances be interested to know how much someone’s house cost, or may form a judgement based on someone’s marital status, but it is not in their interests to know.  Just because something interests the public doesn’t make that in the public interest, and it is surely high time the press realized that and started reporting accordingly. 

Gary Speed’s family are no doubt going through their own personal hell at the moment.  It is bad enough that they know how he died, without that fact having been published in the national newspapers where presumably, his children will be able to read it, or even accidentally stumble across it in the future. 

And perhaps the press should question whether it is that the public wants to know, or whether they want to tell us.

Lies, fabrications and the Daily mail

“Guilty” was the first word from the judge in the appeal of the Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito appeal.  This word sparked the instant publication of an article to the Daily Mail website.  An article which described in graphic detail how Amanda Knox slumped down in her chair sobbing, with friends and family crying over the verdict, and quotes explaining what would now happen to the prisoners. 

Except that wasn’t the verdict.  The “guilty” was in reference to the fact that Amanda Knox had slandered an innocent man by implicating him in the death of Meredith Kercher. The judge then went on to quash the murder convictions and to set Knox and Sollecito free.

But she was guilty!  The daily mail had hit publish and the guilty article had been published for all of its millions of readers to see.  Moreover, several bloggers had taken screenshots of the article, so even when it was taken down and replaced by the accurate one which recounted how the convictions had been quashed, it was being published on blogs up and down the country, and perhaps the world over. 

The fact that the Daily Mail had pre-written an article for each possibility is not unreasonable.  After all, every newspaper wants to be the first to publish their story on the events as they happen.  In fact, the Sun, Guardian blogger, and Sky News also published the “guilty” verdicts prematurely. 

The difference with the Daily Mail however is the sheer amount of detail that had been written in the article, describing the reactions in the court in detail.  Reactions which in fact, didn’t happen, given that the verdict was not as had been described.  In short, the Daily Mail had done none other than write an entirely fictitious account of events, which they fully intended to publish should the verdict have been “guilty.”

We can surely only assume from this that any article which is published in real time is made up and then published, to then be amended later with more accurate information.  After all, if you click on any newspaper article there is usually an indication at the top of the article to show when it was last updated.  Anything that was written there before that is surely lost, and therefore, unless you are actually looking at the site at the time, most people would be unaware of what might have been written there beforehand. 

People rely on newspapers to keep up to date with current affairs.  Surely if we wanted to read fictional accounts of murder trials, the book shops seem to be amply stocked with novels on the subject. 

In the meantime Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have had their murder convictions quashed, and the Daily Mail readers have had any illusions that they were reading a source of accurate reporting obliterated.

Trial by media - when the media get it wrong

Today a woman in the US

Casey Anthony

Was found not guilty of murdering her two-year-old daughter in 2008.

It had been aledged that Casey Anthony had murdered two-year-old Caylee because she got in the way of her lifestyle. However, the jury unanimously found her not guilty of murder, manslaughter, and child abuse, with her only having been found guilty of lying to the police.

Over the past three years this case has received extensive media coverage, with numerous people connected with the case appearing on chat shows to discuss the guilty verdict before it had even gone to trial. The trial itself was televised, and you only need look at the various discussion forums and news sites to see that the public, and the media were in no doubt as to the outcome of this trial.

In short, Casey Anthony was found guilty of murdering her daughter and was going to be executed. The media had spoken, and the public were right behind them.

So you can only imagine their shock, anger, and dismay when the jury, after several hours of deliberation, returned a unanimous not guilty verdict. Casey Anthony, instead of going to the electric chair, will serve no more than four years in prison when she is sentenced on Thursday.

So what now of the media? What of the public who had been convinced that a woman murdered her daughter and was going to die, but instead will walk free in the next few months?

There is anger at the not guilty verdict. The public had decided she was guilty, they had spoken and were awaiting confirmation of their decision, but instead they have been told that Casey Anthony didn't commit the crimes they were convinced she had committed.

So how far should we take media involvement when it comes to reporting on crime?

It is not uncommon for newspapers to publish the names and addresses of suspects after they've been arrested even if they have not been charged.

Currently a case has begun against two newspapers in the UK, after the coverage of the arrest of a Bristol man,

Chris Jefferies

On suspicion of the murder of Jo Yeates in December last year. After his arrest, his name and address were published, with one newspaper even taking statements from people who knew him proclaiming that he always seemed "a bit dodgy." Within days Jefferies had virtually been found guilty of Jo Yeates' murder. After being questioned for three days he was released without charge, and has since been cleared of any involvement in the murder.

But it was too late. The press had done its work, and his character will forever be tarnished with the reputation that he was arrested on suspicion of murder. It doesn't matter that he was never charged, there will always be people who believe he was involved, mud sticks, after all. It is reported that Jefferies has since had to move away from the area.

We do have a public justice system, and I agree that it should be seen to be transparent, with the public being made aware of developments in a case, especially when such a high profile one. But surely a line needs to be drawn between the publication of what could be perceived to be vital information which might lead to more witnesses coming forward and ultimately to justice being served, and sensationalising the reporting of a case in order to encourage the public to become involved and even to imagine they have a hand in the justice process.

One can't help but wonder how impartial any jury could possibly be, when a case is reported in such great detail, some of which is just rumour and hearsay, before the case has even come to trial.

For Casey Anthony the future looks bleak. In the eyes of her haters, she killed a child, The fact she was found not guilty in a court of law is irrelevant - there will be some who feel she deserves justice and who might even seek retribution on behalf of the child they never either knew nor cared about until her name appeared in the headlines.

Perhaps it's time for the media to take a step back from the sensational details and concentrated on the justice they claim to seek on behalf of the innocent victims of crimes.