Nacktschnecken omlet Cube

[Henchanted]

Like most people I have followed this story from when Jo Yeates, the Bristol Architect, first went missing, then when her body found and the start of the murder inquiry.

 

I felt for her like any human would feel for another human and then also as a mother/partner/sister/daughter/friend I felt for her family, partner, friends and colleagues.

 

This week the murder trial of the man who has admitted to killing her began and has been covered in both the local and national tv and radio news reports as well as the papers.

 

Yesterday we were treated to the disclosure of how she died in grizzly and unnecessary detail. Today we were treated to a live walk through her flat, following the footsteps of what the jury saw today, showing her bedroom, bathroom, kitchen as it was left with close ups of her make up table and views of her lounge showing the Christmas decorations and cards, marking the time of this horrible tragedy.

 

I cannot help feeling that the media have overstepped an unspoken line, between informing the public of facts and goulishly intruding into parts of her life with no regard for the feelings of the people who knew or loved her. Since when do we the public need (or want) access to intimate parts of her life. When someone dies in such a manner, how and with who's blessing, does their life become public property.

 

Surely she deserves for us to respect her privacy in death in the way she would have had a right to in life?

 

I just felt I needed to offload here, I don't know what anybody here thinks but I just think that our media needs to go back to school for some morals and ethics training. Just because you can (report it) doesn't mean you should.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Guest

[chickencam]

I couldn't agree more, I really felt for her family yesterday when the manner of her death was reported in detail. I accept that the jury have to be given the details, but really feel it unecessary to report them outside the court.

[Seagazer]

I totally agree with you, I don't think we need to see or know a lot of these details. I feel so sorry for the family.

[patsylabrador]

I don't watch the news on any channel now, I hate the way some journalists almost get excited about tragic & unpleasant news. I find them distasteful.

I'm currently reading a reasonably good book about the Whitechapel murders and it's interesting how little journalism has changed. They were sensationalist then, got under the police's feet, disclosed & ruined evidence, interviewed witnesses & then published it all. It was the same in America post-war, 'The Black Dahlia' case, the press were appalling, stomping over and keeping back evidence so that they could be first with the biggest scoop.

Isn't this the case where the landlord was found guilty by the press? I guess they're feeding the public that relish all the information they ladle out.

[clootie]

I also agree. I'm feeling for Michael Jackson's children at the moment too. Sadly the masses are only too happy to read about the most personal details regarding his demise. And as for publishing the coroner's photograph. Words fail me.

[Henchanted]

I don't watch the news on any channel now, I hate the way some journalists almost get excited about tragic & unpleasant news. I find them distasteful. ..

 

... Isn't this the case where the landlord was found guilty by the press? I guess they're feeding the public that relish all the information they ladle out.

 

I seem to have heard the news headlines on the radio or seen or read on the tv or internet the news reports tens of times over yesterday alone. Personally like most people I know, I do not relish this level of information, it seems so intrusive and unnecessary particularly as it is all so fresh for the family and friends and really not in the public interest now that the killer is known and incarcerated, yet there seems to be no way of avoiding it (other than cutting off all contact with the outside world)

 

Yes you are right, this is the case where one or more of the tabloids had to pay damages to the landlord whom the media at large had rubbished and declared the undoubted murderer based purely on his proximity to her.

 

I wonder whether it feels worse to me than historical media reporting because a) it is local to me and b) there are so many more ways for it to get to you, including news highlights between tv programmes in the evenings as well the as hourly reports on the radio and newsfeed via computer or mobile phone....aaarrrgh

 

I'm distressed by the lack of human empathy. Would the journos be as comfortable if this reportage was about a relative or friend of theirs. Would they not want to protect their privacy and expect dignified reports of their own relative/friend. Why can't that be extended to Joanna Yeates and others.

[The Dogmother]

I'm also disgusted at this trend towards the american need for over exposure and minute, personal detail. I've made a decision not to read any articles on the subject, and I rarely watch TV, so that doesn't matter.

[Griffin]

The pictures in the papers this morning disgust me. Do we really need to see the bed she slept in, what perfume she wore, her trainers on a shelf by the door and best of all, close up shots of her cats litter tray and food bowls? What is the point? That was her home, it shouldn't become public property now that she's dead. I totally understand why the jury had to visit, but the Great British public had no right to be there.

[patsylabrador]

This is quite relevant.

link

[Griffin]

Thanks for that, Steve Coogan was marvelous.

 

I guess what is missing in the tabloid press is respect. Respect for privacy. Respect for the feelings of others. It's missing in certain sections of society too but that's a whole other debate.

[The Dogmother]

I agree but I just choose to not read it - a bit like Mary Whitehouse when she complained about programme content... just use the 'off' button. there's nowt I can do to stop them publishing this bilge

[Henchanted]

I too choose not to seek out nor to read the whole articles but I'm simply appalled by the news headlines unnecessarily announcing the number of wounds found on her body, or how her body was in the boot of the killers car when he went shopping in a local supermarket. One very brief radio report went on to expand how much she must have struggled and how she must have suffered (how dreadfully tactless for her family and friends) and this is just the headlines so I don't know about the rest.

 

None of this reporting is in the public interest actually. I think all most of us want is to know the jury's ultimate decision and accordingly the sentence given him.

[Henchanted]

I like to winge like the next person but rarely bother to complain officially, but this time I complained to the BBC for the intrusive and senseless reporting of the case

 

Here is their reply.

 

Thanks for contacting BBC News.

I understand that you felt the amount of detail given on BBC News programmes, both local and national, regarding Joanna Yeates death was too much, and too graphic. I also note you felt it was inappropriate to broadcast images form the inside of her house on the 12 October, and that both issues could be upsetting to family and friends of Joanna.

Your concerns were forwarded to the relevant editorial staff at BBC News who passed on the following response:

“We're sorry if some people found the pictures from inside Joanna Yeates' flat to be inappropriate.

Unfortunately, this court case is one of the most high profile cases of the year and of considerable interest to the audience. The jury was taken to see the inside of the flat - and we were subsequently allowed to film there - as the flat, its geography and what the police found there already form an important part of the court case - and are likely to continue to do so as the case continues. Therefore we considered it was appropriate and necessary as part of the coverage of the case to show the scene as the judge and jury had seen it.

Having said that, we fully appreciate that for many people it is upsetting as it reflects the normal and happy life that Joanna Yeates and her boyfriend had until the night of her killing and we will endeavour not to over-use the images in future, beyond what is necessary to tell the story”.

In regards to the details of the night of her murder that was included in news programme, we are aware of the wide range of people who view our news reports but, equally, we have a responsibility to report the main news events, especially in high profile cases such as this where there is a huge public interest in it. News is unpredictable and can be disturbing and we have an obligation to provide our adult audience members with informative and comprehensible news. We believe it would be unacceptable for us to distort or suppress important news stories because of their subject matter.

Nevertheless, we’re guided by the feedback we receive and I can assure you I've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's made available to all BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, news editors and other senior managers.

The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.

Thanks for taking the time to contact us.

 

I think they missed the point entirely. I guess I must try harder to get it across again.

[snowberry]

I suppose the next step would be to complain to OFCOM:

http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/tell-us/tv-and-radio/

[Tweety]

I'm not sure that they missed the point, it's just that they are looking at it in terms of their audience.

 

There is considerable public interest in this case, as they say, and unfortunately there are a lot of people who do want to hear all the grisly details - in past times they would no doubt have gone to watch public executions etc. There are also people who simply want to know, for example, how the defendant can admit that he is guilty of manslaughter but deny murder, and all the details go towards giving as true a picture as possible of what actually happened.

 

I am very sorry for Jo Yeates and her family. It must be a nightmare for them to have to hear the evidence, but I am sure that they want justice to be done and the details are actually very important as far as the outcome of the trial is concerned. I do understand what you are saying, and I sympathise with your point of view, but the facts are the facts, and the media are entitled to report them - whether we choose to read them or listen to them is a personal matter, but I think it is right that we have the choice.

[Olly]

I have avoided reading most of the coverage, and this sort of thing is one of the reasons I don't read newspapers and rarely watch the news. I've got a couple of observations, however.

 

What we have read/seen so far is the prosecution case. Vincent Tabak has yet to present his defence, and no doubt he will want his point of view to be given just as much publicity. We often hear that victims are overlooked in the criminal justice system but in effect, by giving so much publicity to the prosecution case, this is presenting the victim's (and her family's) side of things, so although the details are distressing, I think I'd agree that it is in the public interest. There'd be an outcry if it were only his defence that was publicised.

 

Secondly, although we see a lot of sensationalist reporting, particularly in the 'red-top' papers, a free press is a true sign of a healthy democracy. To give just one example, and there are many others, it was the work by the Sunday Times that exposed the Thalidomide scandal and persuaded Distillers to put up the substantial funds for compensation for those victims. I'm not comparing that sort of investigative journalism with the sometimes intrusive reporting of criminal cases such as this, but they are both different sides of the same coin, and I don't think you can regulate one without the other.

 

The idea of a closed trial with no reporting fills me with dread; I wouldn't want to live in a country where that happens.

[Griffin]

 

I think they missed the point entirely. I guess I must try harder to get it across again.

 

Our attitude, because I share your concerns, and the attitude of the media are at odds with one another. A couple of years ago I complained to the editor of the Racing Post and to one of the racing channels because on the front page of the paper was a photo of a jockey, face down in the turf, unconscious with blood trickling from his ear. My complaint was that it was morally wrong to print the picture, he deserved more respect and privacy, would no doubt be upset they chose to print that photo so largely and on the front cover. His family must've been hurt by it too. I was more or less told to 'man up' and stop being so old fashioned. If my concerns for others and a desire for decency make me old fashioned then I am happy to be it. I don't want to be part of the society that thinks this intrusion is acceptable.

[Griffin]

 

The idea of a closed trial with no reporting fills me with dread; I wouldn't want to live in a country where that happens.

I don't think any of us want that, but is it really necessary to have images of the contents of her dressing table in the papers? A line needs to be drawn somewhere.

[Snowy]

I do agree with Olly, however I note that the response from the BBC uses the word 'audience'. I find that indicative of the way they will always approach their reporting - as if they were putting on a play or performance for their 'audience'. It's all about entertainment, not about accurate and factual reporting of the necessary information. But the more we refuse to listen to or watch their drivel (and continue to write and complain about it) the more effect we will have. They are only giving the majority what they want to see.

[Redwing]

I too choose not to seek out nor to read the whole articles but I'm simply appalled by the news headlines unnecessarily announcing the number of wounds found on her body, or how her body was in the boot of the killers car when he went shopping in a local supermarket. One very brief radio report went on to expand how much she must have struggled and how she must have suffered (how dreadfully tactless for her family and friends) and this is just the headlines so I don't know about the rest.

 

None of this reporting is in the public interest actually. I think all most of us want is to know the jury's ultimate decision and accordingly the sentence given him.

 

I didnt know any of those things nor even that the inside of Jo's flat had been shown on TV until I read about them here and I'd even go so far as to say I didnt know that the guy had even been taken in to custody!

 

I personally dont think its difficult to avoid the scandal/scaremongering/distressing stories

[The Dogmother]

Me too, I had just decided not to read about it.

 

Thank your lucky stars that you're not in Thailand (or many other far east countries for that matter) they don't see a problem with gory detail and the papers will often publish detailed front page photos of (for instance) a car crash with the bodies still in place

 

I don't feel the need to know this detail and just give those stories a miss.