Moat - end of story

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Well Eric, you are viewing this situation from a great distance, and I am pretty sure that you are not being given wall to wall coverage of this story......with newsmen/women who are like bloated blowflies, intent on sensationalising every aspect of the story.

And I think the vast majority of the population will have little confidence in a police force which took seven days,and untold amounts of costly resources to capture one paranoid man...but hey that is only my opinion....anyway the guy will be being judged in a much higher court by now.

Maybe ... but people like Moat are all over the world (they most commonly crop up in the US; the home of trigger happy cops, brutal prisons, and the death penalty) ... And I still believe that limits on the press are limits on our freedoms .... I think Milton wrote along these lines in the 1640s in his "Areopagitica" (I could google this, but sometimes I prefer to be old fashioned and use my memory).

[Margaret Pilkington]

I am not suggesting that news reporting should be censored(as such), but that the wall to wall coverage, with little that is really newsworthy being reported.should be reined in, or reported to the general population after the event, instead of the blow by blow account of events.

These broadcasts really did not show the police in the best light, and I feel they will have done irreparable harm to the confidence the general public have in the ability of the police to handle a major incident.

[Less]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

These broadcasts really did not show the police in the best light, and I feel they will have done irreparable harm to the confidence the general public have in the ability of the police to handle a major incident.

As a member of the General Public, I can honestly say that no harm irreparable or otherwise has occurred to affect my confidence, I know the Police are and always have been incompetent, just like all the rest of us.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Well, Less that's Ok too......they have confirmed what you already knew, but some folks believe these programs on TV where the police show themselves to be technologically assisted and in control....all of the time.

[spignific]

Although some people from that certain that area have told me ' moaty ' was generally jolly and popular when he was well know as a doorman in newcastle,it dont change that he had to be stopped..HOWEVER he had 4 days just outside a village not a city ?? ,and when 4 armed army vans where brought in from northern ireland at a cost of £ 50,000,yet four school teachers jobs are in threat in that same village it makes wonder where 'the big society' is .yea cost cutting,right..should have just send gazza in with his bread,lager and fishing rods

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I am not suggesting that news reporting should be censored(as such), but that the wall to wall coverage, with little that is really newsworthy being reported.should be reined in, or reported to the general population after the event, instead of the blow by blow account of events.

These broadcasts really did not show the police in the best light, and I feel they will have done irreparable harm to the confidence the general public have in the ability of the police to handle a major incident.

I think we grew up in an age Margaret where it took days for news to filter through to the general public, but this day and age its instant access. Only 15 years ago or even less, if you were away from home you had to find one of those red boxes to make a call, now nearly everybody has a red box in their pocket, unfortunately I don't think we can ever turn the clock back, or for that matter would we want too

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by Eric

organized law enforcement, which has to act within the law
police forces, which have to uphold the law.

And that is exactly what they are doing, If that Countries Laws have the provision for lethal force you can guarantee at some point it will be used, the guy on the ground must make that decision good or bad & if that means someone will be shot/tazered well that is one of the harsh realities of modern life.

If that officer decides not to shoot he risks personal Death & Injury & no accounting what is likely to happen to the wider public. I don't know if you are referring to specific incidents or not, but what we tend to get filtered through to us from the media are these terrible killing sprees, which can only be stopped with a well aimed shot, is shooting such a wrong decision to make then when you consider the likely outcome of not shooting ?

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by jaysay

I don't think we can ever turn the clock back, or for that matter would we want too

In circumstances like this.....I think I would answer 'Yes'.

The news people move in and take over. They bombard us with stuff that isn't news....it is just sensationalising what is, a tragic event.
It may be that we feel that the criminal got what he deserved, but what about the families of those who are involved......the innocent man who was killed, the ex girlfriend who was shot??
No thought is ever given to them.

Let the locals be informed, but stop these vultures from moving in and telling us what the crims grandma had for her breakfast.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

In circumstances like this.....I think I would answer 'Yes'.

The news people move in and take over. They bombard us with stuff that isn't news....it is just sensationalising what is, a tragic event.
It may be that we feel that the criminal got what he deserved, but what about the families of those who are involved......the innocent man who was killed, the ex girlfriend who was shot??
No thought is ever given to them.

Let the locals be informed, but stop these vultures from moving in and telling us what the crims grandma had for her breakfast.

Well Margaret I said at the time, When Brown announced the GE I didn't watch another news program until a week after the event, I used to watch BBC breakfast from 6am until 9-15am every morning, but even now I only put it on about 8am and don't watch any other news program, I use the Internet and Ceefax then I can choose what I read or watch, and no I don't buy the Daily Mail either

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I am not suggesting that news reporting should be censored(as such), but that the wall to wall coverage, with little that is really newsworthy being reported.should be reined in, or reported to the general population after the event, instead of the blow by blow account of events.

These broadcasts really did not show the police in the best light, and I feel they will have done irreparable harm to the confidence the general public have in the ability of the police to handle a major incident.

H. L. Mencken observed that "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public"; and it seems as if the British media now operates according to his dictum.

However, it seems as if you are suggesting that the media act according to your values ... in other words you are setting yourself up as censor.

[cashman]

that seems a strange arguement to me, using that theory terrorists should be allowed to use free speech.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Eric

H. L. Mencken observed that "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public"; and it seems as if the British media now operates according to his dictum.

However, it seems as if you are suggesting that the media act according to your values ... in other words you are setting yourself up as censor.

Such news stories are almost treated as a reality TV show......and that can't be good....it trivialises what is a serious event....and I don't think I am setting myself up as a censor......I am not saying that news should not be reported per se, I am saying that more selectivity should go into the reporting.....I am getting fed up with the trivial, sensationalisation of what are grave human tragedies. I think there is a difference, but I am sure you will correct me if you think I am wrong.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by jaysay

Well Margaret I said at the time, When Brown announced the GE I didn't watch another news program until a week after the event, I used to watch BBC breakfast from 6am until 9-15am every morning, but even now I only put it on about 8am and don't watch any other news program, I use the Internet and Ceefax then I can choose what I read or watch, and no I don't buy the Daily Mail either

I can understand your reticence to watch the news, because they do over-report, what to them, are major events. I suppose they are major events to us too, but there are only so many ways you can present things to the population and the population soon get tired of hearing the same things over and over.
i think the Election suffered as a result of this, and of course the leaders debates too...they(imo) trivialised the election, and didn't tell us much...smoke and mirrors....turned a lot of people off politics.

[Less]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Such news stories are almost treated as a reality TV show......and that can't be good....it trivialises what is a serious event....and I don't think I am setting myself up as a censor......I am not saying that news should not be reported per se, I am saying that more selectivity should go into the reporting.....I am getting fed up with the trivial, sensationalisation of what are grave human tragedies. I think there is a difference, but I am sure you will correct me if you think I am wrong.

You may well be right, it may be that too much coverage by the media helps to trivialise serious events, but like the rest of us if you don't like it you do have an on/off button.


(I know I chose not to watch the main event live, but I did catch up later with all the repeats).

[Margaret Pilkington]

Yes, you are right Less...and I didn't watch the goings on in my own house, but it was on the TV as background when I went over to someone else's home....
Like Jaysay, I rarely watch the news on Tv these days....I don't watch much TV full stop.
I rely on the internet....you can choose how much or how little to view......plus, do you know any house where the female is allowed to have control of the remote control(other than those where no man resides)?