Police's stupid Soham comment?

[Goodsoulette]

Although in retrospect not the cleverest way of getting his point across does anyone else think the comment was taken out of context.

I am sure the press jumped on this cause it knocked them. I think he was just trying to highlight the differences in the way coverage is handled for different ethnic groups. I know when with the Millie Dowler case the same week a boy of 15 from a Scottish council estate went missing and was found murdered, it didnt make the national news. So it seems to apply to sex and and what estate you live on too.

However, I believe that the Soham case would always have been a huge deal because of it being 2 children and a woman kind of being involved in it.

[Lonnie]

Goodsoulmate, your so right in your comments, I also think that Sir Ian Blair, as he hasn't been made to stand down for past inapropiate comments, this last one should be the straw that broke the camels back, he should go now.

[Drusilla]

I think Ian Blair made a valid and important point, poorly. He needs to get a better press officer, or learn to censor his own statements more effectively.

[WoWo]

You need to look at it in context, the Soham case wasn't about murder to begin with. It started as a missing persons case, all be it 2 people which is unusual and immediately points to foul play. That went on for a couple of few weeks as I remeber before the bodies of the girls were found, this then set a level of interest that went further when the culprits were found to known members of the local community.

If it had been a random killing where the bodies were found in a day with no suspects it would have slowly slipped out of the news.

I can think immediately of two cases from the black comunity which have recieved similar if not more coverage (my perspective may be skewed because I live in London). Damilola Taylor and Stephen Lawrence. There was also the case of two black gils being shot which also had a lot of coverage.

It's also true that more white people are murdered than black in this country, no doubt due to their greater numbers, but the fact is with 4 times more white people murdered than black it's obvious it will be reported in the papers more.

The other case mentioned was Lawyer Tom ap Rhys Pryce in comparison to Balbir Matharu. But again the two cannot be compared directly, Tom ap Rhys Pryce was killed after being mugged and giving all of his possesion, Balbir Mathrau was killed when he challenged somebody stealing his car, he was knocked down and dragged down the street for 40 meters.

While Mr Mathrua was clearly murdered the circumstance is very different (I think if caught the person responsible could plead manslaughter) and I feel the media can easily justify greater coverage.

[Grunty]

It works the other way as well. Does anyone remember at the time of the Anthony Taylor murder, a white youth was murdered in London by a black or Asian person (I can't remember which without looking it up) who made obvious racist comments at the time. It was completely overshadowed by the Anthony case.

Where I think Sir Ian has gone wrong is in failing to preserve the image of the police as being impartial. This is by no means the first time he has done so, and in future should not comment on contentious issues, unless it is necessary in order to lead to an arrest.

[gary baldy]

Ive moaned about this before.
If you are a white middle class lawyer or banker the world goes mad. if you are a pretty middle class blonde haired girl from the home counties there is blanket coverage.
if you are an unattractive girl from a council estate or god forbid a young black man the media wont touch it with the proverbial barge pole.
I could cite numerous examples - i dont think Blair should apologise - he is dead right.

[brachiopod]

Totally agree, Drusilla, and to paraphrase you;
Ian Blair made "a valid point - poorly expressed".

Mind you, even if he had said;
"I don't know why [Soham] became such a big story, whilst other [equally dreadful events] did not."
then there would still be sections of the media that would take the quote out of context to infer that he meant he didn't consider it a serious / tragic crime and didn't care.

I'm no fan of Blair (I.), but this kind of sloppy reporting and making something out of nothing really gets my goat.

[eupraxia]

I don't think he should have to apologise for a valid comment but the media will make him because the comment was against them. The media know that they can do what they like, say what they like when they like and people will go for it. They often remind me of sneaky, little rats in the play gorund telling lies and stirring just to watch the results.

The Soham case was nasty as is all murders but the media has been showed up for what it is. At the end of the day they love slinging mud but they can't take it themselves.

[brachiopod]

Right, it's unusual for me to post at this time on a Friday night - but I have just seen the ITN so-called news - and, boy, have the meeja got it in for Blair (Ian).

On the train home, I saw the headline "Get Your Own Force In Order" from the London Evening Standard (= Associated Press = Daily Mail). The meeja starts to hit back.

I then see the News at Ten-ish-depending-if-there's-football-or-a-film-on, which leads with the out-of-context quote;
"Metropolitan Chief says ' "almost nobody" could understand why the Soham murders became the biggest story in Britain' "
followed by a swift character assasination and calls for him to resign.
Now, I am no fan of Blair (Ian), as mentioned earlier above, but having seen this so-called news, I am in total agreeance with what he was trying to say.
The meeja is feeling chastised, and is kicking out in the only way it knows.
Firstly;
ITN had the gall to put some "meeja expert" on saying that Blair had got it wrong because there WAS something different about the "Holly & Jessica" case. In that; (and I quote, or at least paraphrase)
"They were two pretty girls, from a [adjective not heard] town, with photos of them in their Manchester United football shirts.... so there was something special about this murder"
Doesn't this idiot (and ITN who gave him the air-time) see that THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF BLAIR'S COMMENT ABOUT THE PRESS COVERAGE OF THE SOHAM MURDERS !

[cont.]

[brachiopod]

In a knee-jerk reaction against criticism, they [ITN]continued in character assasination mode;

"In the light on the Menesez� case, and Sir Ian Blair's failed attempt to detain innocent suspects for 90 days�, after his [latest comment]....isn't it time he resigned?"

� Much at my distaste and opposition over Menesez and a "shoot-to-kill policy (qv. AB and many a "shooting's too good for'em" and 'bring back hanging' thread) - Blair was acting on information fed to him - I didn't like it then and I don't now. But the meeja wanted an instant soundbite there and then - in the days that followed it's easy to say "you were wrong -we've got you on tape"

� At the time of Blair (Tony)'s defeat over the 90 day detention paper - (most of) the meeja was criticising the Prime Minister for not ensuring it went through (though the rest focussed on the fact that it was his first defeat) - there was no criticism of Blair (Ian) for proposing the 90 day detention-without-trial in the first place!

So now, they [the meeja] have totally changed their tack - once again, they are treating us with contempt, treating us as if we are totally stupid and as if we don't remember last week, let alone last month or year.

Whatever paper you read, left-wing, right-wing, red-top or "high-brow" - the meeja is stinging from this criticism and is doing its best to counter the attack with all its mis-quoting and mis-interpretating muscle.

Whatever your views, (even you, Ward-Minter!), you have to see the media for what it is and say NO to being spoon-fed this cr�p.

[brachiopod]

Oh, and not forgetting to emphasise, the Soham murders, like any (child?) murder, was a heinous crime. This (despite today's mis-quotes and attempts to portray it as otherwise) was never the issue.

[gary baldy]

The 'meeja expert' to which you refer was a newspaper editor!
So he's going to impartial then isnt he?
My foot nearly went through the telly when he said "we have got to decide what is going to be the murder story with the most human interest".
I think his name was Mike Hunt (well - i was shouting something similiar at the telly anyway)

[brachiopod]

gb, I very nearly pressed 'Report This Answer' thinking I was awarding you stars *** !

Nice one!

[brachiopod]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4655064.stm

Phil Hall, former editor of the News of the World, said

"newspapers and television are commercial enterprises - they are looking for human interest stories, and it is detail that really makes stories take off."

Yeah, no matter what or who gets in the way.

Scum.

[littleoldme]

I'm afraid the days of sensible, balanced news reporting from ITN are long gone. They have become more and more sensationalist and gimmicky over the years and are now little more than a downmarket tabloid in television form. I don't know how His Royal Trevorness stands it - I guess he feels he's too close to retirement to move on (and he's probably on a tidy packet of course).

[Steve_Luts]

garybaldy - I have to take issue with your point "if you are an unattractive girl from a council estate or god forbid a young black man the media wont touch it with the proverbial barge pole"

Utter tosh. Two names - Damilola Taylor and Stephen Lawrence - there was blanket media coverage of these stories to the point of excess, in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong - any murder is a tragic event - but to suggest if you are white it gets covered much more than if you are black, or on the basis of your socio-economic grouping, is utter baloney.

In the case of Stephen Lawrence, the enquiry into his death coined the phrase "institutionally racist", which has again reared its head in the furore surrounding Ian Blair. Institutions* are not racist in themselves - it is a subset of people within them that can be. For an enquiry to suggest something like the Met is racist from top to bottom - everybody in it - is brush-tarring of immense proportions!

Anyway, I digress, but as you may guess I have a bugbear over that particular term.

....tbc...

[Steve_Luts]

..contd...

Back to the question - I think Ian Blair's comments were taken out of context. I suspect the point he was trying to make (badly) is that some murders seem to have the intangible 'media factor' that attracts more coverage to them than any other murder story. The papers know this, and cover these stories in detail - alas making money out of somebody's personal tragedy, which the media-buying public lap up (I include myself in this). Hands up who hasn't honestly thought "I wonder what's going on in XYZ case and looked on TV/bought a paper/surfed the net to specifically find out about it?

Its sad, but a hard fact of modern life I'm afraid.

Steve

*Only when an institution is racist by definition - for example the National Front or KKK - then can one say it is "institiutionally racist". Other than that, its an offensive, misguided and ill-used phrase.

[gary baldy]

Steve Luts - there is acommon thread between Lawrence, Taylor and more recently Anthony Walker. They were all 'non threating' black people. They were good kids from good homes, worked hard a school and were killed in henious, random crimes.
These lads fitted into the image of black people that the media feels comfortable with and therefore were newsworthy.
If the victim is a black lad with perhaps a criminal past and was murdered in gang related violence it isnt newsworthy.
This doesnt apply just to black people - on the same day that that welsh lawyer was murdered the trial started in Manchester of three lads who murdered a moroccan father of three who has kicked to death when he didnt give one of his murderers a light. It just scraped into the local news never mind the nationals.
There is definitely a clear hirearchy in the media for what murder gets coverage and it is based on the race, class and physical attractiveness of the victim.

[Goodsoulette]

Gary- Baldy, I like your name by the way. I can never be bothered to rate answers but I would like to thank you for your well thought out, intelligent answers that weren't boring and didnt go on for an age. maybe you could come and argue with my hubby for me.

I think Drusilla wrapped it up nicely though.

[gary baldy]

Why - thank you goodsoulette!
Even though my missus would perhaps like me to take my arguments elsewhere in the interest of the ongoing gender wars i'm afraid i cannot take the side of the enemy in domestic arguments (tempting though the offer is!)
I agree - this thread has been nicely covered but i just wanted to respond to steve luts as a sign off.
I'm off to Music now to try and find some disco questions to answer as light relief!

[Steve_Luts]

garybaldy - I still wholeheartedly disagree with you.

Please read: www.cjsonline.gov.uk/downloads/ application/pdf/Race_and_the_cjs.pdf

If you are black you are statistically FIVE TIMES more likely to be involved in a homicide than a white person. Statementy of fact - I am not saying it is in any way acceptable - those are just the figures, and I was a little shocked to find it that significant a difference.

Ergo, as a more prevalent crime amongst your ethnic group, you are not going to get as much coverage as a dead black male than a dead white one.

The tone of your answers implies that media editors have the attitude of "he's black, don't bother" and decide not to cover something on the basis of ethnicity alone, whereas the (sad) fact is that a black male homicide is relatively more frequent that a white male one, and for that reason is not, in your words, so 'newsworthy'.

I think we're in danger of going slightly off-topic here - the original was about the Soham murders - and for the record I would like to say that I generally agree with most of your posts, you strike me as 'a voice of reason'. However, on this occasion, I think you are playing the race card when its not in your hand to deal.

As you said, lets get back to 80's disco, or in my case, obscure 90's indie. :-)