The Daily Mail and Missing Children.

[Abdulmajid]

I happily read The Daily Mail as I genuinely believe it reports news in a non-judgemental and unbiased manner. And there is just the right amount of gossip and celebrity news for it to be classed independently from The Sun and Mirror etc.

However, regarding little Shannon, the missing 9 year old, I find that there is very little coverage of this for quite a major story. In fact I think the BBC and other news agencies are also guilty.

I am comparing this to the Madeleine McCann circus which still has inchage in The Daily Mail.

Now, I would like to believe that The Daily Mail scoffs at any form of snobbery. However, do you think the fact Shannon comes from a broken home, with poor working class parents whom, even given their dreadful predicament, could do with a good wash whilst Madeleine is the daughter of attractive, stable upper-middle class parents has effected the reporting with an obvious bias?

If my assumptions are true, then the media are a bit of an arse to be honest.

[meglet]

As far as newspapers are concerned I think the majority of the British press is an absolute disgrace. Your point about the social standing of the victims or their families having a bearing of news coverage was made several times in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine McCann�s disappearance and I believe there to be some truth in this.

But in comparing the two cases I feel there are relevant differences. Shannon is significantly older and as such was left to travel home under her own steam. There is no proof of abduction at this time and she had expressed a desire to see her natural father. This could simply be that a young girl has run away from home whereas it was reported from the beginning that Maddie had been abducted.

I think it will become a much bigger story if anything has happened to her.

[weeal]

it is such a worry this story, i do hope they find her alive and well

the McCann story became so big cos the McCanns made sure it was a big story, i still cringe at that pair ! shivers

[meglet]

Just turned Sky News on. Its the top story.

[Kromovaracun]

I happily read The Daily Mail as I genuinely believe it reports news in a non-judgemental and unbiased manner.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HA !!!! HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Oh, hang on.. I'll just respond to your main points... when.. tee hee...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AAAAGGHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Joking. I'll respond in the next post.

[Kromovaracun]

I broke the tables. Guffaw.

Regarding the Daily Mail's integrity, I suggest you pick up a copy or two of Private Eye which is usually full to the brim with examples of the Mail making an arse of itself (and, to be fair, other newspapers in the UK too).

The Daily Mail (and other newspapers, like the Independent which pretends to be highbrow) makes its money by writing in outraged tone all the time and usually grossly exaggerating things in order to do so. As I say, Private Eye has plenty of examples.

Regarding the media generally: the press in the UK is generally pretty bad. The Economist is just about the only (self-described) newspaper I can think of which is constantly well-informed and less judgemental. The Guardian and Telegraph aren't too bad but you have to be very wary of the opinion columns in them. The BBC is also usually pretty good.

Personally, I've not been keeping up with the Shannon case (or the Madeleine one) so I can't comment on class bias.

[aka pixi]

I dont know about the Daily Mail but I have noticed there is little coverage on national news for Shannon compared to Madeleine. I read somewhere to Clarence Mitchell used to be head of the Media Monitoring Unit, maybe this is why.

[aka pixi]

I meant that Clarence Mitchell, not to ^^^

[Kromovaracun]

To be honest, while class might come into it, I do think it's a bit daft to assume that's all of it.

The McCann case had everything needed for a good story (well, with more than a little manipulation. But that's no problem if you write for the DM): a tragedy, corrupt/incompetent police, neglectful parents, foreign locations, a big campaign (which might be where the class elements come in as the McCanns could afford it) which then led to even more stuff (like the Pope and things)

With other cases there's much less drama to be scooped out because they're on a smaller scale, so while they do get some coverage they pale in comparison to cases like the McCanns where all the high profile stuff made for more dramatic reporting.

[NikkiB]

There are all kinds of double standards on this issue, although there appears to be an effort to to change this of late.
Historically, photogenic children and professional parents sell papers.

A scruffy urchin or a tiny little offspring of chav parents going missing appears to raise no more concern than it would have done 150 years ago.

Non white children don't get much coverage. There's an undercurrent of if a child belongs to another culture, different rules apply.

This is never better illustrated than the en masse abduction and forced marriages of hundreds, thousands of largely Muslim teenage girls by their own families.
If even one case happened in a white, secular family the country, lead by the press, would rightly howl from the rooftops and have day to day spreads, stake outs of airports, churches etc. But these wretched Asian girls are deemed to be subject to and in peril of different laws and human rights.
It's a disgrace.