Avon Police ban ITN
Discussion
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344366/Jo...
I am stunned that any police force should ever ban a news outlet. They can ban a person but then only if there is suspicion of criminal activity. But for not being nice, which this seems to be?
ITN is a very respected news programme. But even if it wasn't to exclude them really strikes at a fundamental change.
Is this an attempt to control the news?
Wow! is the phrase that springs to mind.
I am stunned that any police force should ever ban a news outlet. They can ban a person but then only if there is suspicion of criminal activity. But for not being nice, which this seems to be?
ITN is a very respected news programme. But even if it wasn't to exclude them really strikes at a fundamental change.
Is this an attempt to control the news?
Wow! is the phrase that springs to mind.
Probably frustration on the part of the police, they opened up to the media to get the help of the public. Didn't get as much help as they hoped for in exchange for the information they gave out.
I'm not on the side of the police but I do think news should be news and they should restrict themselves to the facts. Opinion should be in some other prog.
Then I know what I'm getting.
Just like here
I'm not on the side of the police but I do think news should be news and they should restrict themselves to the facts. Opinion should be in some other prog.
Then I know what I'm getting.
Just like here
BBC2 Newsnight ran a piece on it tonight, which perhaps Derek may have seen.
The issue appears to have revolved around ITN interviewing a "criminologist" and him having some derogatory things to say about the way that A&S Plod are handling the case. "Naive and inaccurate reporting" were the criticisms levied.
The matter does of course raise an issue which has been done to death on certain parts of the media during the course of today. As mentioned on BBC Points West news tonight (almost verbatim): "The public are too used to watching cop drama shows on TV, where the plot and the result is neatly bundled by the scriptwriters into an hour long show to fit the schedules. Real policing isn't like that"
Newsnight dealt with the matter of 24/7 news, where journalists want ever more information from Plod which they might not have in the first place and, even if they do, might not yet wish to share with the media for a whole host of operational reasons.
Dealing directly with Derek's original point, this one appears to be rapidly developing into a storm in a teacup with, in my view, both "sides" having their cards marked by the other. I suspect the end result will be a bit more realism from both the press and A&S Plod.
The issue appears to have revolved around ITN interviewing a "criminologist" and him having some derogatory things to say about the way that A&S Plod are handling the case. "Naive and inaccurate reporting" were the criticisms levied.
The matter does of course raise an issue which has been done to death on certain parts of the media during the course of today. As mentioned on BBC Points West news tonight (almost verbatim): "The public are too used to watching cop drama shows on TV, where the plot and the result is neatly bundled by the scriptwriters into an hour long show to fit the schedules. Real policing isn't like that"
Newsnight dealt with the matter of 24/7 news, where journalists want ever more information from Plod which they might not have in the first place and, even if they do, might not yet wish to share with the media for a whole host of operational reasons.
Dealing directly with Derek's original point, this one appears to be rapidly developing into a storm in a teacup with, in my view, both "sides" having their cards marked by the other. I suspect the end result will be a bit more realism from both the press and A&S Plod.
Edited by rs1952 on Thursday 6th January 00:37
The banning of ITN still seems to me to be a dangerous precedent.
The press can do anything they like if it not against the law. The police have a duty not to be partial and they must not try and manipulate coverage.
In my force, force control room inspectors were the out of hours press officers. I gave ‘off the record’ background to one local reporter and was more than a bit miffed to find that my confidence was not respected. I phoned him the next day but he refused to take my call. Right, I thought. In the great shape of things I have to admit it didn’t really matter but I decided to pay him back.
He was the last to know of a big job, and by some time. I delayed publication until after his going home time. A month later when he phoned to see if anything was going on just before booking off I made out something big was coming in and said the old: call back in 15 mins. Then that there was nothing I could say just at this time, etc. After two hours I told him there was nothing.
I got a pull, and a fairly official one. When I pointed out that he’d betrayed a trust and I merely wanted to emphasise how important I viewed it, I was read the riot act.
The media is the fourth estate, probably the most important, and any attempt to influence it one way or the other is to be condemned. I accepted then, and now, that I was wrong. I do not feel guilty that I enjoyed doing it though.
Avon and Somerset were wrong in this case, and the mitigation seems more imagined than real.
A free press, such as it is, is vital to freedom. The so-called freedom of the printed media is largely illusory at the moment, with the overwhelming majority being right wing and a bit left wing. There is very little that is openly and impartially investigative. Private Eye does a fair bit given its resources but it has, to a great extent, been replaced by television.
What ITN presented was obviously comment but by someone with a bit of knowledge. The police were given an opportunity to answer the point of view. It was normal reporting.
Such manipulation goes on all the time. Ferguson is in the throws of it with the BBC and is, apparently, allowed to get away with it. OK, so it is only football and just continually brings up the reported conduct of his boy, but the police should, and must, be above such petty, and pathetic, behaviour.
If the programme had information which, to the editors’ knowledge, rendered the comments by the presenter wrong in fact then it was dreadful reporting. But knowing ITN I would suggest that this is unlikely.
The press can do anything they like if it not against the law. The police have a duty not to be partial and they must not try and manipulate coverage.
In my force, force control room inspectors were the out of hours press officers. I gave ‘off the record’ background to one local reporter and was more than a bit miffed to find that my confidence was not respected. I phoned him the next day but he refused to take my call. Right, I thought. In the great shape of things I have to admit it didn’t really matter but I decided to pay him back.
He was the last to know of a big job, and by some time. I delayed publication until after his going home time. A month later when he phoned to see if anything was going on just before booking off I made out something big was coming in and said the old: call back in 15 mins. Then that there was nothing I could say just at this time, etc. After two hours I told him there was nothing.
I got a pull, and a fairly official one. When I pointed out that he’d betrayed a trust and I merely wanted to emphasise how important I viewed it, I was read the riot act.
The media is the fourth estate, probably the most important, and any attempt to influence it one way or the other is to be condemned. I accepted then, and now, that I was wrong. I do not feel guilty that I enjoyed doing it though.
Avon and Somerset were wrong in this case, and the mitigation seems more imagined than real.
A free press, such as it is, is vital to freedom. The so-called freedom of the printed media is largely illusory at the moment, with the overwhelming majority being right wing and a bit left wing. There is very little that is openly and impartially investigative. Private Eye does a fair bit given its resources but it has, to a great extent, been replaced by television.
What ITN presented was obviously comment but by someone with a bit of knowledge. The police were given an opportunity to answer the point of view. It was normal reporting.
Such manipulation goes on all the time. Ferguson is in the throws of it with the BBC and is, apparently, allowed to get away with it. OK, so it is only football and just continually brings up the reported conduct of his boy, but the police should, and must, be above such petty, and pathetic, behaviour.
If the programme had information which, to the editors’ knowledge, rendered the comments by the presenter wrong in fact then it was dreadful reporting. But knowing ITN I would suggest that this is unlikely.
Derek Smith said:
The banning of ITN still seems to me to be a dangerous precedent.
The press can do anything they like if it not against the law. The police have a duty not to be partial and they must not try and manipulate coverage.
In my force, force control room inspectors were the out of hours press officers. I gave ‘off the record’ background to one local reporter and was more than a bit miffed to find that my confidence was not respected. I phoned him the next day but he refused to take my call. Right, I thought. In the great shape of things I have to admit it didn’t really matter but I decided to pay him back.
He was the last to know of a big job, and by some time. I delayed publication until after his going home time. A month later when he phoned to see if anything was going on just before booking off I made out something big was coming in and said the old: call back in 15 mins. Then that there was nothing I could say just at this time, etc. After two hours I told him there was nothing.
I got a pull, and a fairly official one. When I pointed out that he’d betrayed a trust and I merely wanted to emphasise how important I viewed it, I was read the riot act.
The media is the fourth estate, probably the most important, and any attempt to influence it one way or the other is to be condemned. I accepted then, and now, that I was wrong. I do not feel guilty that I enjoyed doing it though.
Avon and Somerset were wrong in this case, and the mitigation seems more imagined than real.
A free press, such as it is, is vital to freedom. The so-called freedom of the printed media is largely illusory at the moment, with the overwhelming majority being right wing and a bit left wing. There is very little that is openly and impartially investigative. Private Eye does a fair bit given its resources but it has, to a great extent, been replaced by television.
What ITN presented was obviously comment but by someone with a bit of knowledge. The police were given an opportunity to answer the point of view. It was normal reporting.
Such manipulation goes on all the time. Ferguson is in the throws of it with the BBC and is, apparently, allowed to get away with it. OK, so it is only football and just continually brings up the reported conduct of his boy, but the police should, and must, be above such petty, and pathetic, behaviour.
If the programme had information which, to the editors’ knowledge, rendered the comments by the presenter wrong in fact then it was dreadful reporting. But knowing ITN I would suggest that this is unlikely.
sums it up prefectly. no police force in england should be allowed to ban the media.The press can do anything they like if it not against the law. The police have a duty not to be partial and they must not try and manipulate coverage.
In my force, force control room inspectors were the out of hours press officers. I gave ‘off the record’ background to one local reporter and was more than a bit miffed to find that my confidence was not respected. I phoned him the next day but he refused to take my call. Right, I thought. In the great shape of things I have to admit it didn’t really matter but I decided to pay him back.
He was the last to know of a big job, and by some time. I delayed publication until after his going home time. A month later when he phoned to see if anything was going on just before booking off I made out something big was coming in and said the old: call back in 15 mins. Then that there was nothing I could say just at this time, etc. After two hours I told him there was nothing.
I got a pull, and a fairly official one. When I pointed out that he’d betrayed a trust and I merely wanted to emphasise how important I viewed it, I was read the riot act.
The media is the fourth estate, probably the most important, and any attempt to influence it one way or the other is to be condemned. I accepted then, and now, that I was wrong. I do not feel guilty that I enjoyed doing it though.
Avon and Somerset were wrong in this case, and the mitigation seems more imagined than real.
A free press, such as it is, is vital to freedom. The so-called freedom of the printed media is largely illusory at the moment, with the overwhelming majority being right wing and a bit left wing. There is very little that is openly and impartially investigative. Private Eye does a fair bit given its resources but it has, to a great extent, been replaced by television.
What ITN presented was obviously comment but by someone with a bit of knowledge. The police were given an opportunity to answer the point of view. It was normal reporting.
Such manipulation goes on all the time. Ferguson is in the throws of it with the BBC and is, apparently, allowed to get away with it. OK, so it is only football and just continually brings up the reported conduct of his boy, but the police should, and must, be above such petty, and pathetic, behaviour.
If the programme had information which, to the editors’ knowledge, rendered the comments by the presenter wrong in fact then it was dreadful reporting. But knowing ITN I would suggest that this is unlikely.
It has to work both ways though - if the police have no updates on a case, the media need to accept that and fill their airtime with other stories, not with speculation and conjecture about that case.
So often we see a frenzy of speculation in the absence of any actual information. It isn't surprising that those trying to do their policework get frustrated by this, especially when (to a member of the public) it appears the media are more interested in getting press conference time than letting the police investigate.
So often we see a frenzy of speculation in the absence of any actual information. It isn't surprising that those trying to do their policework get frustrated by this, especially when (to a member of the public) it appears the media are more interested in getting press conference time than letting the police investigate.
I think both ewen and Derek make good points.
A good start would be to ban 24-hour rolling news channels, instead having hourly or half-hourly bulletins. FFS, Sky News yesterday had, as their "Breaking News", the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury would be marrying Bill Windsor and Kate Middleton.
A good start would be to ban 24-hour rolling news channels, instead having hourly or half-hourly bulletins. FFS, Sky News yesterday had, as their "Breaking News", the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury would be marrying Bill Windsor and Kate Middleton.
Derek Smith said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344366/Jo...
I am stunned that any police force should ever ban a news outlet. They can ban a person but then only if there is suspicion of criminal activity. But for not being nice, which this seems to be?
ITN is a very respected news programme. But even if it wasn't to exclude them really strikes at a fundamental change.
Is this an attempt to control the news?
Wow! is the phrase that springs to mind.
At the very first press conference by the investigating police officer, it was quite apparent that the officer was highly nervous and unable to deal with the “live” press conference. From that day on the media has created a” reality “ live solve the murder type theme TV show, with the media almost dictating the direction the investigation is proceeding.I am stunned that any police force should ever ban a news outlet. They can ban a person but then only if there is suspicion of criminal activity. But for not being nice, which this seems to be?
ITN is a very respected news programme. But even if it wasn't to exclude them really strikes at a fundamental change.
Is this an attempt to control the news?
Wow! is the phrase that springs to mind.
The police should now take more control and continue their investigation, and should really try to preserve anonymity of suspects and helpers unless and until a charge is made. The media should be removed from the possible “scene of the crime”, stopping immediately trial by tv, tabloid, broadsheet and social networking sites, which in turn will stop speculation and defamation, the same being an insult to the memory of Jo, her friends and more importantly the feelings of her parents and brother. RIP Jo.
CommanderJameson said:
I think both ewen and Derek make good points.
A good start would be to ban 24-hour rolling news channels, instead having hourly or half-hourly bulletins. FFS, Sky News yesterday had, as their "Breaking News", the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury would be marrying Bill Windsor and Kate Middleton.
You sound as bad as the Police who wanted to ban the news. FFS you can't ban free speech . . . if the public are stoooopid enough to believe and suck in all they read or hear on the news then that's a problem for the public but the Police should simply ignore things they read in the press, the same as the rest of us do.A good start would be to ban 24-hour rolling news channels, instead having hourly or half-hourly bulletins. FFS, Sky News yesterday had, as their "Breaking News", the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury would be marrying Bill Windsor and Kate Middleton.
The court has the means to restrict information that can be published, quite easily in cases like this I would imagine. That's a reasonable safeguard.
Busa_Rush said:
CommanderJameson said:
I think both ewen and Derek make good points.
A good start would be to ban 24-hour rolling news channels, instead having hourly or half-hourly bulletins. FFS, Sky News yesterday had, as their "Breaking News", the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury would be marrying Bill Windsor and Kate Middleton.
You sound as bad as the Police who wanted to ban the news. FFS you can't ban free speech . . . if the public are stoooopid enough to believe and suck in all they read or hear on the news then that's a problem for the public but the Police should simply ignore things they read in the press, the same as the rest of us do.A good start would be to ban 24-hour rolling news channels, instead having hourly or half-hourly bulletins. FFS, Sky News yesterday had, as their "Breaking News", the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury would be marrying Bill Windsor and Kate Middleton.
The court has the means to restrict information that can be published, quite easily in cases like this I would imagine. That's a reasonable safeguard.
In fact, I don't want to ban anything.
What I want is for the media to stop acting in this ridiculous manner, where every aspect of a case of interest is speculated about from here to the far end of a fart, where peoples' lives are possibly in the process of being ruined (what if the freaky-looking landlord chap in the Jo case is innocent, for example?) and where there's little to no in-depth analysis of things that actually matter - like the economy.
But they won't; they'll continue to act in a completely solipsistic manner. The media's right to report isn't without limit.
Busa_Rush said:
You sound as bad as the Police who wanted to ban the news. FFS you can't ban free speech . . . if the public are stoooopid enough to believe and suck in all they read or hear on the news then that's a problem for the public but the Police should simply ignore things they read in the press, the same as the rest of us do.
The court has the means to restrict information that can be published, quite easily in cases like this I would imagine. That's a reasonable safeguard.
Thoase same stupid people are the ones that sit on a jury, having being influenced by lies and speculation, printed by scum-sucking journalists.The court has the means to restrict information that can be published, quite easily in cases like this I would imagine. That's a reasonable safeguard.
Journalists are not interested in facts, they are in business to sell copies of the Daily Mail. I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.
CommanderJameson said:
Busa_Rush said:
CommanderJameson said:
I think both ewen and Derek make good points.
A good start would be to ban 24-hour rolling news channels, instead having hourly or half-hourly bulletins. FFS, Sky News yesterday had, as their "Breaking News", the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury would be marrying Bill Windsor and Kate Middleton.
You sound as bad as the Police who wanted to ban the news. FFS you can't ban free speech . . . if the public are stoooopid enough to believe and suck in all they read or hear on the news then that's a problem for the public but the Police should simply ignore things they read in the press, the same as the rest of us do.A good start would be to ban 24-hour rolling news channels, instead having hourly or half-hourly bulletins. FFS, Sky News yesterday had, as their "Breaking News", the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury would be marrying Bill Windsor and Kate Middleton.
The court has the means to restrict information that can be published, quite easily in cases like this I would imagine. That's a reasonable safeguard.
In fact, I don't want to ban anything.
What I want is for the media to stop acting in this ridiculous manner, where every aspect of a case of interest is speculated about from here to the far end of a fart, where peoples' lives are possibly in the process of being ruined (what if the freaky-looking landlord chap in the Jo case is innocent, for example?) and where there's little to no in-depth analysis of things that actually matter - like the economy.
But they won't; they'll continue to act in a completely solipsistic manner. The media's right to report isn't without limit.
Elroy Blue said:
Busa_Rush said:
You sound as bad as the Police who wanted to ban the news. FFS you can't ban free speech . . . if the public are stoooopid enough to believe and suck in all they read or hear on the news then that's a problem for the public but the Police should simply ignore things they read in the press, the same as the rest of us do.
The court has the means to restrict information that can be published, quite easily in cases like this I would imagine. That's a reasonable safeguard.
Thoase same stupid people are the ones that sit on a jury, having being influenced by lies and speculation, printed by scum-sucking journalists.The court has the means to restrict information that can be published, quite easily in cases like this I would imagine. That's a reasonable safeguard.
Journalists are not interested in facts, they are in business to sell copies of the Daily Mail. I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.
If journalists have been printing rubbish and lies then they should be brought to task . . . by the press complaints commission. The commission should have the power to suspend a journalist for a period of time (for example) . . . that's the way to address it, deal with the lies and rubbish but leave free speech as it is. The Daily Wail is a well read paper, people like it . . . you can't stop it.
Education is as always the best approach - if the country is better educated they won't want to read the Daily Mail.
Busa_Rush said:
Elroy Blue said:
Busa_Rush said:
You sound as bad as the Police who wanted to ban the news. FFS you can't ban free speech . . . if the public are stoooopid enough to believe and suck in all they read or hear on the news then that's a problem for the public but the Police should simply ignore things they read in the press, the same as the rest of us do.
The court has the means to restrict information that can be published, quite easily in cases like this I would imagine. That's a reasonable safeguard.
Thoase same stupid people are the ones that sit on a jury, having being influenced by lies and speculation, printed by scum-sucking journalists.The court has the means to restrict information that can be published, quite easily in cases like this I would imagine. That's a reasonable safeguard.
Journalists are not interested in facts, they are in business to sell copies of the Daily Mail. I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.
If journalists have been printing rubbish and lies then they should be brought to task . . . by the press complaints commission. The commission should have the power to suspend a journalist for a period of time (for example) . . . that's the way to address it, deal with the lies and rubbish but leave free speech as it is. The Daily Wail is a well read paper, people like it . . . you can't stop it.
Education is as always the best approach - if the country is better educated they won't want to read the Daily Mail.
Busa_Rush said:
CommanderJameson said:
Busa_Rush said:
CommanderJameson said:
I think both ewen and Derek make good points.
A good start would be to ban 24-hour rolling news channels, instead having hourly or half-hourly bulletins. FFS, Sky News yesterday had, as their "Breaking News", the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury would be marrying Bill Windsor and Kate Middleton.
You sound as bad as the Police who wanted to ban the news. FFS you can't ban free speech . . . if the public are stoooopid enough to believe and suck in all they read or hear on the news then that's a problem for the public but the Police should simply ignore things they read in the press, the same as the rest of us do.A good start would be to ban 24-hour rolling news channels, instead having hourly or half-hourly bulletins. FFS, Sky News yesterday had, as their "Breaking News", the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury would be marrying Bill Windsor and Kate Middleton.
The court has the means to restrict information that can be published, quite easily in cases like this I would imagine. That's a reasonable safeguard.
In fact, I don't want to ban anything.
What I want is for the media to stop acting in this ridiculous manner, where every aspect of a case of interest is speculated about from here to the far end of a fart, where peoples' lives are possibly in the process of being ruined (what if the freaky-looking landlord chap in the Jo case is innocent, for example?) and where there's little to no in-depth analysis of things that actually matter - like the economy.
But they won't; they'll continue to act in a completely solipsistic manner. The media's right to report isn't without limit.
And then I subsequently pointed out, with an example, the pointlessness of these things.
And in my response to you outlined why I thought it would be a good start.
At no point did I say I wanted to ban them.
Anyway, what would be wrong about news on the hour, instead of by the minute?
ewenm said:
One minor step that would make a difference is to force papers to print retractions/apologies in the same font, size and on the same page as the original story was printed. At the moment journalists/papers get their wrists slapped and print an apology on page 24 in 8 point type which no-one sees.
I concur. A bit of responsibility for their actions.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff