Emotive Bollocks

[Still Not George]

It's been getting at me increasingly for a couple of years now, and tonight it finally bubbled over. During the ITV News report on the Bichard Report on the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, the cuntage of a news reporter comes out with something like "shocking new developments in the wake of the inquiry into the murders of Holly and Jessica." It was then that it occurred to me that I hate one thing in modern reporting more than anything else, one thing that our dear Morris has pointed out repeatedly and the low-brow news sources (ITV News, Sky News) are still doing, in their endless search to sound more like a televisual version of the News of the World:

The continual use of the first names of victims.

It may seem like a tiny thing to pick out amongst the barrage of biased reporting and prior assumption of guilt that surrounds the whole Huntley/Carr mess, but it really grates with me. Why the hell must they insist on attempting to increase the emotiveness of the story by using the first names of the victims? I didn't know either of the victims. I don't know their families, or anyone directly connected with them. Nor, I am assuming, do the majority of the people that were watching the bulletin. Nor, I can safely assume, do the majority of the people involved in making the bulletin.
Now, was I the only person brought up to believe that you only use the first names (at least alone) of friends and family? I doubt I was. At the least you add the surname. The Beeb, to their eternal credit, still do. What is it they're trying to do by making this implicit statement of closeness to the victims? It's not just emotional manipulation, it's obvious emotional manipulation; and not only that, it's also highly disrespectful, especially in cases where the person is dead. Why Sarah's Law? Why not Payne's Law? Perhaps because the baying crowds would feel less secure in their oh-so-deep connection to someone they've never met? Or is it just because it sells more column inches and advertising seconds?

I blame Diana.

Right, rant over. I shall now go back to making personal comments and bragging about my cock in otherwise sensible threads.

edit: A pox upon my inability to work out the correct verb usage for singular group nouns.

[Vermschneid Mehearties]

Interesting to note the ratio of the pictures of "Hez n Jez" dressed in Manchester Utd shirts looking all smiley and cute in comparison to two photos making them look like utter tearaways which was used very, very rarely. News reports are edited down to that sort of detail, and each one has its agenda to push, apart from, maybe the BBC.

[Dr David V]

The news is just like any other TV show now. If it doesn't suck you in, make you feel part of the story and tug on your heartstrings, they feel they've failed. At least that what I seem to have gathered from recent newswatching.

[thomasina]

Great post.  Especially interesting how it's Holly/Jessica but Huntley/Carr (Look, these could be your children, but this could never be you).  I once had a media lecture where the lecturer deliberately referred to Jon and Robert, to make that exact point..

[Vermschneid Mehearties]

When Maxine Carr was arrested, and the Soham residents tried to evade a line of police officers, stop a moving vehicle, and then break into a locked cabin guarded by four officers and two police dogs with gnashers set to stun, I remember the report outside absolutely loving it. I can't be word perfect here, but he said "And the people of Soham displayed their anger, their united hatred of Maxine Carr, Queen of Darkness."

Like SNG says, it was Diana, and later Jill Dando that has helped create this horrible culture in the media.

[MarmiteCarpenter]

You sure its not just because they where kids? It woud have sounded wierd otherwise. I agree, it doubtlessly works, but I don't think I've heard it used for adults.

I agree totally with the emotive business, they dont want you to have any doubt in your mind who is 'good' and who is 'bad', and they are totally shameless about what tricks they use to make sure you feel good about hating the baddies.

[A Passing Turk Slipper]

Interesting to note the ratio of the pictures of "Hez n Jez" dressed in Manchester Utd shirts looking all smiley and cute in comparison to two photos making them look like utter tearaways which was used very, very rarely. News reports are edited down to that sort of detail, and each one has its agenda to push, apart from, maybe the BBC.

Well surely the parents would rather have the pictures that make them look nice rather than some ones that make them look like criminals shown to whole country. They were the pictures that were used the most by the media, there will have been nicer pictures of them and ones that were worse but the fact that there are rubbish pictures in existence which weren't used by the media doesn't mean they were trying to promote any particular view of what the girls were like. When pictures of someone are shown at a funeral they pick the nicest possible pictures to show, this doesn't mean that they are completely ignoring the negative sides of that person, they just want a nice picture to remember their dead loved one with for fucks sake. I don't think the papers and BBC etc should be criticised for trying to show some murdered children in a good light. What where they meant to do? I don't know how to say what I am thinking, but I just reckon it's wrong to say that they were pushing some kind of secret agenda purely because they used some photos where they looked cute.

[Vermschneid Mehearties]

There were only two photos of both of them in the same picture I seem to remember.

[A Passing Turk Slipper]

Well what's the problem with them picking the nicer picture then? I just don't understand your point. If there are two photos, one of them is fairly average (they didn't even look cute let's be honest), and one of them has them looking like the 'tearaways' you described what possible reason would you have for wanting the shit picture of them used instead of the nice one? It's not like the other one is fake, they weren't held at gunpoint and asked to look all cute for the cameras.

[dan dirty ape]

The picture of them in the Man U shirts, the last picture to be taken of them alive, was broadcast widely while they were still being looked for, surely for the reason that that was how they were dressed when they went missing, no? I really don't know what point you're trying to make, VM.

[Vermschneid Mehearties]

It's just typical that they'd choose the 'nicey-nicey' one. The other one which shows the two of them scowling and gurning as if they've just ripped the hubcaps from your Ssangyong Musso is still a picture. News is supposed to be the illustration of events, true events, not a warped, clincisced version of events. The other picture is just as appropriate for use on TV, it's clear and good quality, it just doesn't portray the cute, innocent image the other one did- which is why that was used more often. And that's why I've got a good point.

EDIT- I mean after they were discovered dead, dan dirty ape. Obviously that was sensible at the time, but then after they were discovered dead, there wasn't any need for that.

[A Passing Turk Slipper]

I'm sorry but I still do disagree with you here. There will have been a number of reasons for keeping that image even after they'd been found. For a start that is the picture that everyone kind of knows them from. Should they just have switched to the shitty picture once their bodies had been found? The nice picture isn't false in any way, and I know if I suddenly died the picture I would want of me to be circulated around the media would be one in which I look nice and not like a criminal. I'm sure not only the parents and the family but everyone who knew the girls would want them to be remembered by that picture rather than the other. I don't know where I'm going with this, I just seem to be saying the same thing, I still reckon simply not using a rubbish picture is not 'heart-string pulling' in a any way.

[untitled_london]

What where they meant to do?

errm, how about fair and unbiased reporting.

that'd be nice for a change.

how about, not acting as judge, jury and moral arbitor - that'd be nice too.

i might sound old hat in an increasingly competitive & profit-oriented world, but i had a great deal of respect for the 'rethian' principals of old. they did after all help create the wolrds formost broadcastining institution.

its not just this 'actual' news coverage that bothers me, its the rest, the more trivial issues where it really does the most damage. football commentary has it down to a fine art, and imo is beating the path that the rest of the broadcasting will follow.

i.e. complete unquestioning bias.

call in nationalism if you want - its weak minded & pathetic.

its not a strong challenege - its a career ending foul

thats what gets me most, and i fear that the rest of the news is heading down this path.

maxine carr should never have been pursued for the extra's that they got her on poxy dole fraud - - it was an abuse of whoever oredered it to happen's powers.

i'm not defending her actions to carry out those dole crimes, but she wasn't being tried for those - somebody somewhere was ordered to investigate the rest of her life to the fullest extent possible. surely that is illegal - and if it is not - i bet its stretches the letter of the law to borderline breaking point

sory do rant on and off the point - but TV in this country is in a dire state - lowest common denominatore seems to be the guiding principal...

poor effort imo

[Vermschneid Mehearties]

What? You've just disagreed with stuff I didn't even say!

Should they just have switched to the shitty picture once their bodies had been found?

I didn't for a second suggest they should. In fact I think they should have mixed them up as evenly as possible. They are photgraphs after all, snapshots of real events in time. The actual fact the so-called 'bad' photograph was hardly used was because it portrayed Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in a manner which they didn't want, wheras the Man U photo fit in with their agenda of presenting Holly and Jessica as innocent spotless girls, despite the fact that they could have been like anything. I'm not for a second suggesting that they deserved what happened to them, but the news reporting was a twisting of the truth. All I want is the truth. I don't care whether they were scallys or not. No-one deserves to be killed. This twisting of the truth in my opinion belittles the truth, which is something I'd much rather the parents received.

[A Passing Turk Slipper]

Untitled London:
I totally agree with you that there is a huge amount of bias and spin in the media. But for fucks sake, what is hugely biased and 'unfair' about picking the nice photo of two murdered children to show the world rather than one where they look like criminals? Bloody hell, I justified the 'what should they have done?' comment in my posts with arguments and my view on this specific bit of reporting. I am not talking about Huntley or Carr or them being shown in a bad light I am talking specifically of that picture being chosen and saying I don't think there is any problem with that. I bloody agree with that rant you just made which was basically directed at me, it's not like anyone here wants a biased media is it?
VM:
I can see your point, that the good picture is promoting the best side of the girls and kind of ignoring the less cute nicey-nicey side but I still don't think there was any problem in promoting that good side. When they've just been killed it is no time to be talking about the girl's faults. They were making the crime seem awful, which it was, and however much spin etc the media put on it we will never know how horrific it was for all the families involved and for the girls themselves. But anyway, I suppose I'm being a bit patronising now. I take your point but I do disagree with aspects of it.

[dan dirty ape]

I see what you're saying about the press using 'positive' images to corral public opinion, but honestly, leaving aside the period when the guilty party had yet to be determined, it was still a child murder case, what difference would it have made what photos of the kids were more commonplace in the press?

[Purple Tentacle]

The Man United picture was the last picture taken literally before they walked out of the door never to return.

it was entirely relevent for a criminal investigation for people to see what the girls were wearing / looked like when they went missing.

You fanny.

[poison popcorn]

it's the same way they use the names of celebs we're encouraged to like. posh & becks, j lo, kylie... (heh, how long since i watched telly, are they still in the news? most likely...) but we never get freddie west, bradey & hindles. mind you we do get the abbreviated bin laden, maybe he's being groomed as an up and coming showbiz personality?

[Cerys]

I think this 'discussion' of which photos should or should not have been used is a fucking waste of time.  As PT says, the Man United photo was the one most relevant to the search for them before they were found; and after it was known that they were dead, what on earth would be the point in suddenly changing the photo that the public had come to recognise?  In addition to this, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman and their families are not on trial here.  Trying to justify or disparage the choice of photo that the press uses is, frankly, insulting to the families.  It's they who will have given the photos to the police, and the police who will have released the photos to the press.  So, what are you saying?  That the Wells' and Chapmans should have consulted a style agent before trying to get justice for their kids?  Believe it or not, sometimes that's not what's most prominent in people's minds when their children have been murdered.  This is not our issue.  They don't belong to us, and they never did.

[untitled_london]

Untitled London:
I totally agree with you that there is a huge amount of bias and spin in the media. But for fucks sake, what is hugely biased and 'unfair' about picking the nice photo of two murdered children to show the world rather than one where they look like criminals? Bloody hell, I justified the 'what should they have done?' comment in my posts with arguments and my view on this specific bit of reporting. I am not talking about Huntley or Carr or them being shown in a bad light I am talking specifically of that picture being chosen and saying I don't think there is any problem with that. I bloody agree with that rant you just made which was basically directed at me, it's not like anyone here wants a biased media is it?
VM:
I can see your point, that the good picture is promoting the best side of the girls and kind of ignoring the less cute nicey-nicey side but I still don't think there was any problem in promoting that good side. When they've just been killed it is no time to be talking about the girl's faults. They were making the crime seem awful, which it was, and however much spin etc the media put on it we will never know how horrific it was for all the families involved and for the girls themselves. But anyway, I suppose I'm being a bit patronising now. I take your point but I do disagree with aspects of it.

nope, i'm sorry if that seemed ditrected at you - it wasn't. i took the what they should do a little far, but, in trying to draw a general picture of the iased media, it seemd the easiest point to start from.

again, sorry, its not an attack on you or what you said.

i'm glad you can take at least some of my points on board, they were hastily composed, and i got caught up in an IM for an hour or so, else i might have toned them down a bit.

i quite agree, the pic of the girls is a very endearing image (no doubt a bunch of philidelphia cream cheese's got off on it (see vision mong/ mong request for ref: )) and no doubt it was the image the family chose to have beamed around the world in 180 odd countries to portray their daughters, and why not, let them have some dignity in death, i agree. i also think it would have helped the families to know that the daughters were to be portrayed in such a way.

i also agree, scally or no....they didn't desreve that - no -one does (barring the royal family and their kith and kin - and even then - i opt for for lethal injection if it were available)

back to the topic though: the girl's family were obviously allowed to choose their image - huntley and carr were denied that opportunity - thta is an incredible bias, and one that i doubt the PCC, OFcom or any of the other bias generating industry regulators are likely to repeal.

in essence it is trial by TV - and that is my point, that really fucking sucks, i have some pics of myself that make me look like shady FBI wanted material - if they wer boradcast i'd go down. simple!

the first bite is with the eye, and when tv is the mainstream diet - we should watch what we eat.

(talk about mixing metaphores huh)

my point is tv is essentially being used to borderline deny ppl their rights/ acces to a fair trial .

thats a human right enshrined in the european constitution if i'm not mistaken. the fact that blunket than decided that Carr had 'escaped' justice, and ordered a full investigation into every application form she'd ever filled out for a job, and they basically hung her in public... man ... thats too depressing to even go into.

the juxtaposition of images has always been a contentious issue - in the coming age, its not losing any of that contention.

(can of worms half closed :P )

[5 Knuckle Shuffle]

no doubt it was the image the family chose to have beamed around the world in 180 odd countries to portray their daughters, and why not, let them have some dignity in death, i agree. i also think it would have helped the families to know that the daughters were to be portrayed in such a way.

Have you even bothered to read what Cerys so eloquently put? You fucking Idiot.

the girl's family were obviously allowed to choose their image - huntley and carr were denied that opportunity - thta is an incredible bias, and one that i doubt the PCC, OFcom or any of the other bias generating industry regulators are likely to repeal.

But the girls weren't exactly on trial, were they? Anyway, I've seen literally dozens of pictures of Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr in the paper and on the news. We've even been subjected to watching moving footage of them and listening to what they had to say before they were even suspected, and quite frankly, they looked and sounded like a right pair of cunts from the outset.

[Almost Yearly]

I blame Diana.

Or Madonna? Similar.

Especially interesting how it's Holly/Jessica but Huntley/Carr (Look, these could be your children, but this could never be you).  I once had a media lecture where the lecturer deliberately referred to Jon and Robert, to make that exact point.

And what a good point. Thanks to your lecturer for that. It's mine now.

love,
Reid.

[Alberon]

It seems fairly usual for news companies to latch onto one specific photo for victims, especially children. The Soham girls in Man U shirts was an obvious choice, as pointed out above. I've seen some cases where a school photo obviously a couple of years out of date was used.

ITV news is utterly unwatachable now. I watch them stomp around their virtual set and with their ridiculous computer graphics.

I have gone from watching ITV News and then the excellent  Channel 4 news and I've been horrified by the way the ITV news twisted and over-simplified stories that only become clear on Channel 4.

[Lady Beany]

I know this might seem like a waste of a post, but I totally agree with Cerys here.  I would add more, but I think she hit the nail on the head there.

[jutl]

Why Sarah's Law? Why not Payne's Law?

I think it's because it was a straight borrowing of California's Megan's Law, as featured in The Big Lebowski. You're right, I believe, that there is a morbid and cynical amplification of emotion by the news media. Still, I can see that some dramatisation is necessary - dry facts reported tersely can fly by all too easily while you're waiting for the second half of the Bond film to start. If a little pathos gets people to take others' suffering seriously then it's probably justified.

As others have pointed out, the photos used on TV and in the papers tend to be supplied by the families via the police, and one might easily conclude that they would pick photos that are both pleasant and calculated to inspire people to cooperate. You can't really blame them for that.

What irks me like a mother-fucker is the bullying tendency of journlaists to insist upon tears in interviews. It takes the effort to involve the audience (via emotional amplification) and cranks it up to eleven. I can detect of someone is upset without having to see the tears - thanks. Obviously sometimes people cry. I just think that - unless the interviewee insists - it should be standard practise to turn off the cameras at this point and let them cry. Then they can resume the interview.

Actually (and as usual) I'm a hypocrite on this. One of the greatest documentaries ever made - Shoah contains an interview in which Lanzmann deliberately forces an interviewee on through a fit of crying. This is particularly unfair because the guy is cutting someone's hair at the time. Still - it was an almost uniquely grave and appalling subject, in an area in which there are active extremists trying to deny the facts. The intearview should be a real weapon of conviction. As it is, it happens in every second fucking local news item.

[untitled_london]

5KS: wrong side of bed pal?

i'll rise to it

yes, i did read what cerys wrote. i fail to see how that makes me a fucking idiot.

to be quite honest, you and you're well placed commas and capitals, less than eloquently seem to have made my case for me...but, before i get to that, try this on.

obviously the girls wern't on trial. they were dead. what was the point of your statement, either you are unbelievably stupid and failed to grasp the situation,or alternatively you are presenting the ridiculous by way of avoiding the issue and substance presented to you. either way , it doesn't bode well as a method of presenting a coherent or well reasoned arugument.

but, fuck, if you can do it so can i...

Anyway, I've seen literally dozens of pictures of Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr in the paper and on the news.

thats your statement of expertise is it....mildly relevant, but hardly dealing with the substance of what i presented was it? (that's rhetorical - i dont really want your answer)

We've even been subjected to watching moving footage of them and listening to what they had to say before they were even suspected,

taped your eyes open did they? i doubt it. you choose to look at the shit TV & press pal, its your own fault.

again,borderline relevance. your not really dealing with the front page SUN juxtaposition. furthermore, the images you are talking of are mainly crowd shots, &/or the single interview with huntley answering a question to camera - the same interview later used to depict him as evil & cold, callous, and calculating.

anybody with any knowledge in the field is likely to say that the guy was scared shitless, and instead of doing the obvious (running/ change ID etc etc) he froze. hence objective media coverage would have protrayed him as below average intelligence, menatlly ill, and a largely incompetant criminal. very much the opposite of what was actually presented, and therefore potentially perverting the course of justice.

and quite frankly, they looked and sounded like a right pair of cunts from the outset.

and this is it, the creme of the crop, you make my argument for me,...trial by TV? hit your red button now. or for those of you without digital wanking stations dial 09xxx xxx xxx 01 for guilty etc etc. it'd be easier. plus we can just assume who is guilty without having heard any credible evidence, we can just say 'they looked like a right pair of cunts'.

swift justice, bring it on i say!

you're a dick head, make no bones about it.

all the speeling mistakes and typographical erros are deliberately there to piss you off, so don't bother having a pop from that angle either.

[mwude]

... and later Jill Dando that has helped create this horrible culture in the media.

What the fucking hell?  I've only skim-read the rest of this thread after reading that so sorry if it's been brought up but how exactly did Jill Dando help 'create this horrible culture'?  By being murdered?  What a heartless bitch.

I hope that I've misunderstood and you mean that "the media's reaction to Jill Dando's murder has helped create..."  As far as I'm aware Jill Dando was a fairly pleasant news / holiday presenter.  Accusing her directly of being the route cause of overly-emotive reporting seems frankly insane to me.

[Vermschneid Mehearties]

"the media's reaction to Jill Dando's murder has helped create..."

That's what I meant. Sorry about putting it so clumsily!

I did say "helped", and not "completely the fault of" though.

[zozman]

On a similar note (um, not really), when James Bulger was killed, the press all started calling him "Jamie", despite the fact that his name is James and his famile never called him Jamie.

Apparently Jamie is just more emotive - what a bunch of tripe.

[5 Knuckle Shuffle]

yes, i did read what cerys wrote. i fail to see how that makes me a fucking idiot.

Considering that Cerys had already explained, and almost everyone else for that matter why that picture was used, but you still go on to say that there was probably still another underlining reason why they gave that photograph to the Police, who subsequently gave it to the press, then that's why. As was said by Cerys, you are insulting the families of the dead children if you think that at that terrible time, they had any underhanded reason for giving that particular photo to the police . All I did was add that you are a fucking *Idiot for thinking so, just to back up that point. Something by which I still stand by.

* The capital 'I' was typed on purpose.

to be quite honest, you and you're well placed commas and capitals, less than eloquently seem to have made my case for me...but, before i get to that, try this on.

No. I think you'll find that they are correctly placed.

obviously the girls wern't on trial. they were dead. what was the point of your statement, either you are unbelievably stupid and failed to grasp the situation,or alternatively you are presenting the ridiculous by way of avoiding the issue and substance presented to you. either way , it doesn't bode well as a method of presenting a coherent or well reasoned arugument.

I didn't make my point clear enough I admit. However, from what I can gather, you say it was unfair that the Chapman and Wells families got to choose their pictures, but Huntley and Carr didn't. Who said that they couldn't offer their own photos? What difference, in this case, would it have made whether Carr and Huntley did offer better photographs or not? He admitted that he had both girls in his bathroom, and that they both died in his bathroom with nobody else involved, so I fail to see, in this case, why nice photos would have made any difference to the outcome?
Oh yes, I can see several of the jury saying, "Well he did kill them both, but he's got a lovely smile in that school photo, so let's just say it was in self defence."

Anyway, I've seen literally dozens of pictures of Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr in the paper and on the news.

thats your statement of expertise is it....mildly relevant, but hardly dealing with the substance of what i presented was it? (that's rhetorical - i dont really want your answer)

Well tough, you're going to get an answer. The point I was making is that they were given plenty of  exposure by several different types of media in which to come across as the lovely child doting couple that you wanted them to come across as, but in each case, they failed miserably. Now that's hardly unfair.

We've even been subjected to watching moving footage of them and listening to what they had to say before they were even suspected,

taped your eyes open did they? i doubt it. you choose to look at the shit TV & press pal, its your own fault.

What the hell are you on about? I am not bothered that they had been on our screens. If you put my whole paragraph together it would explain my point that they had plenty of time to use the media to become their/ our darlings, and not the evil looking tossers they so inherently came to be.

gain,borderline relevance. your not really dealing with the front page SUN juxtaposition. furthermore, the images you are talking of are mainly crowd shots, &/or the single interview with huntley answering a question to camera - the same interview later used to depict him as evil & cold, callous, and calculating.

Given the way that he admitted in the trial to how he removed the bodies and dumped them, then yes, I think the media did a good job of exposing him as such.

anybody with any knowledge in the field is likely to say that the guy was scared shitless, and instead of doing the obvious (running/ change ID etc etc) he froze. hence objective media coverage would have protrayed him as below average intelligence, menatlly ill, and a largely incompetant criminal. very much the opposite of what was actually presented, and therefore potentially perverting the course of justice.

Considering he had to undergo a test to see whether he would be fit for trial, obviously mental as well as physical tests, then yes, objectively, he was deemed to be a calculating and competent criminal. Fortunately, he got caught out by the more competent and calculating police. Eventually, after an initial fuck up, it has to be said.

and quite frankly, they looked and sounded like a right pair of cunts from the outset.

and this is it, the creme of the crop, you make my argument for me,...trial by TV? hit your red button now. or for those of you without digital wanking stations dial 09xxx xxx xxx 01 for guilty etc etc. it'd be easier. plus we can just assume who is guilty without having heard any credible evidence, we can just say 'they looked like a right pair of cunts'.

I never said that I thought they were guilty at that time of anything though. This being well before anyone believed they were suspected of any involvement in the murders, including me. I was merely attempting to state that prior to them becoming suspects, they had plenty of unbiased media attention. However, there didn't seem to be a redeeming picture, sound-bite, or film that could be used after they were arrested for the murders in which to paint them in a better light. It's their fault that they looked like cunts in every media picture, and nobody elses.

you're a dick head, make no bones about it.

Quite. I'd love to know where the saying, make no bones about it comes from? I may have to put it in the other thread. Thanks. At least you've said something useful in this thread.

foul mouthed wanker, instead of 5KS

Oh, the irony.