Ipswich murders: Contempt for what?

Would Martin Bell, Mark Lawson and even Chris Doidge please get off their high horses?

The reporting of the Ipswich murders has been a little over the top, but on the whole journalists have simply been reporting readily available information.

If having a slightly weird web profile photo were an indication of any real murderous tendencies, we'd all be guilty. But there's no harm in showing it.

What's important is that none of this stuff prejudices the administration of justice. I doubt very much that it does.

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by Blamerbell @ 12:08 pm,

2 Comments:

At 9:10 pm, Anonymous Chris Doidge said...

Did you watch the main news bulletins or the rolling news channels? It was the latter that was principally to blame for the O.T.T. coverage, which if you'd seen it, you would have found hard to think was acceptable. It wasn't "reporting readily available information", it was blatant speculation.

 
At 3:11 pm, Blogger Blamerbell said...

Yes, I watched it.

What exactly was the problem?

Further to the actual coverage we also had some rather good pieces on the problems of drugs and prostitution in general - a sensible approach I thought.

Though I was a little surprised when the BBC reporter on the News at 10 implied on Friday that it was 'good to see whores back on the streets again'.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home