Read All About It

I am thrilled by this

Whatever you believe when it comes to the McCann’s, I think you have to admit that the reporting of it all has been disgusting. People believe what they read in the papers. A lot of people took what they read as gospel, which is one of the reasons people have such a hatred for them. But if you took a step back and looked at what the papers were actually saying, if you read what evidence there actually was, all of it was nonsense. Pure speculation and rumour. Someone thought they heard/saw this. A friend of a friend knows this. Give me some actual hard evidence that they killed her and hid her body and I’ll be right there with you in condemning them, but you can’t, because there isn’t any.

This is not journalism, and it’s one of the reasons I spend a lot of my time in fury at what I read these days. Journalism used to mean something didn’t it? Wasn’t it about getting the truth to people? Actually having reliable sources, checking the facts, (using a spellcheck, proofreading)? The amount of utter drivel written (badly) these days is quite astounding. There seems to be no standards whatsoever for what can and can’t be published. If someone writes a load of crap that turns out to be false, people believe it, because any kind of retraction is hidden at the bottom of page 15.

There’s another good example of sloppy journalism here looking at the Clinton/Obama insanity and how it is twisted in whichever way people want it to be. How do we stand a chance of figuring it all out when things are turned around in such a way?

So this, this makes me happy. I want people to take a look at what they read, and what they believe straight off the bat, and actually think about it. I’m sure I’ve been guilty of it, probably still am at times, because it is easy to believe the worst in people, especially when these people are famous, celebrities who seem to have everything. That’s our way isn’t it? Build you up and knock you down. But it’s maybe even more disgusting when it’s people who have had something tragic happen to them, and we all can’t wait to jump on the bandwagon calling for them to be strung up.

I’m really hoping it changes, and that I can start to read something without wondering where the writer’s bias lies, but I can’t see it happening anytime soon.

Sickened

My dislike of Eamonn Holmes grows.

Firstly his comment about the McCann’s this morning that “people want to be reassured that they are suffering”. People Eamonn, or you? Actually that’s probably unfair, as I know a lot of people in this country do feel that way.  Clarence Mitchell, the spokesman for the McCanns, was much more poised in his reaction than I would have been. Are people not going to be satisfied until they are on television 24/7 wailing and screaming about their child? Nevermind the fact that they have two other children to look after and a missing child to find? I find this whole mentality quite sick. It seems to be a form of sport or entertainment now to watch them, to judge them. What concern is it of ours whether they are suffering or not, or how much they are suffering? This is not Big Brother. It is not a game show. When it ends, if we decide we like them enough, if we decide they have suffered sufficiently for our liking, they don’t win their daughter back. They don’t win anything.

As for Eamonn in general, I really wish Sky News would get rid of him. He is not a news reader to me. I can’t take him seriously. His words have no weight behind them. Half the time I am not convinced he has any idea what he is talking about. There’s too much of his own opinion wrapped up in what he says. If I want opinion I’ll watch GMTV (which I don’t, seeing as Fiona Phillips is even more annoying and idiotic).

And in my usual unrelated news, I have Tonsillitis, which is a great big barrel of laughs.

Oh and I’m rather annoyed about this too:

I’m just a little ball of rage today it seems.

The winner of the Man Booker Prize, Anne Enright, has written a 2000 word essay for The London Review of Books entitled Disliking the McCanns. In it she writes:

“Disliking the McCanns is an international sport,” and “I disliked the McCanns earlier than most people (although I am not proud).” Um, are you sure about that?

“I thought I was angry with them for leaving their children alone. In fact, I was angry at their failure to accept that their daughter was probably dead.”

Look, I don’t claim to be an expert on anything to do with this case. I’ve followed it quite closely, mainly because at one point you couldn’t shift for it, but I don’t know all the details and we can’t know all the details. A lot of what we read about it is completely made up, just speculation and gossip, feeding into that hideous culture of ours where digging up dirt on people is a fun sport. But what the hell has it got to do with this woman anyway? Who is she to decide who should and should not be liked? Why is it necessary to write an essay about it? It couldn’t possibly be to gather more publicity for herself now, could it?

She also says that it is Gerry McCann that she most dislikes, because, “The sad fact is that this man cannot speak properly about what is happening to himself and his wife… the language he uses is more appropriate to a corporate executive than to a desperate father. This may just be the way he is made. This may be all he has of himself to give the world just now.”

Is it not also possible that, because he is a suspect in the case and not allowed to talk about certain facts, he’s being very careful of what he says so he doesn’t end up in prison? And just what should a desperate father sound like? Should grieving parents be given a step by step guide on how to act in situations where their innocence may be called into doubt? Should they both be complete wrecks every time they are seen on camera? Just because they do not weep in public does not mean they don’t do it behind closed doors. Keeping up a show of grief 24/7 would be exhausting, if grieving for your lost child in your own way is not exhausting enough anyway.

It’s probably clear where I stand on this, that I will be beyond shocked if it turns out they had something to do with her disappearance (though I am willing to keep an open mind of course). But I am sick of people jumping on the bandwagon and slamming people when really they have no idea about the situation. Just because they too may be in the public eye does not give them any more right to criticise them. Don’t they get enough of that every day anyway?

I was rather astounded that this woman has children of her own to be honest. Angry at their failure to accept she is dead? Can’t they hold on to what little hope there is left?

It has made me not want to read that damn book anyway.