| 09:27 UK time, Tuesday, 5 September 2006
The Telegraph: "The ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ has defended its decision to use a former prisoner to make a documentary that questions the conviction of Jill Dando's killer". ()
The Guardian: An obituary of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ journalist Michael Vestey. ()
³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Â© 2014 The ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
Comments
The wording used by the Telegraph is a fine example of how some in the media manipulate the thoughts and opinions of the public.
While the opening sentence contains words which are no doubt accurate, the intention is obviously to malign the programme maker.
Yes, he was a prisoner once but as I understand it, he was wrongly convicted .
So, rather than "former prisoner", the term "wrongly convicted" would have been just as factually correct, more accurate and less inflamatory. It would have told the same story but would not have raised the immediate suspicion in the mind of the reader that the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ has taken to using career criminals, axe murderers etc to make documentaries that seek to exonerate other murderers etc.
It is this sort of poor reporting and blatant manipulation of the facts that puts the Telegraph on a par with other scandal sheets.
A decent paper would use the language in such a manner as to give the correct first impression. Shameful!
The press were right to lambast this film - particularly in that it expensively revealed almost nothing new. For proof of this, take a look at the following two articles - one from the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ news site plugging the Panorama piece, the other from more than four years ago.
and
Is the Panorama piece really that different to justify all the bbc huff? I don't think so.
Comment two is exactly the point and justifies the need for investigative journalist to do what people who judge from a far can't. The scientific evidence was tested at the trial. Contamination was the issue. Both sides agreed the particle was firearms residue - our investigation questions that assertion and goes further and provides another explanation the jury were able to consider.