A woman has been questioned in connection with the deaths of three hospital patients. She hasn't been tried, she hasn't been convicted; just taken in for questioning. And guess what? Her name is all over the papers, together with her photo, and the names of her parents and her boyfriend. Excerpts from her Facebook page have been publicised; she has apparently been fed up with work, hated night duty, on some days only went to work for the money ("arrested nurse moaned about job on Facebook" bellowed The Times, devoting part of the front page and all of the third to this story).
Well, haven't we all felt like that about our jobs at times? But we didn't start killing people to make ourselves feel better, did we? I loathed night duty, but can say with my hand on my heart that I was never tempted to kill my patients. This information is not relevant.
Whatever happens in this tragic case, this young woman's reputation will be in tatters. If she's tried and acquitted, will anyone employ her now? Would you? Would I? I very much doubt it. Our wonderful free press are it again, with the hacking scandal still ongoing. She may be guilty, in which case she deserves to be punished. But is it too much to expect that a civilised society should at least wait for the trial before publishing this damaging - and possibly misleadling - information?
Showing posts with label freedom of the press. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom of the press. Show all posts
Thursday, 21 July 2011
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
Public interest?
The News of the World thing is of course only the tip of the iceberg; more and more things are now coming to light, and it seems that other tabloids are implicated.
There's a world of difference between what is in the public interests (MPs's expenses; after all, it's our money they're spending), and what the public are interested in (horrific diseases and accidents, horrible things happening to famous people etc). That the second appears to be more entertaining (in a nasty, salacious kind of way) than the former is not the point; we don't NEED to know whether or not Kate's grandfather was a window cleaner.
And then there's the bit in between; things we don't need to know, but in a way are entitled to know, because the people involved have, as it were, invited us into their lives. There are many "celebrities" who do just that. They court public attention when they want it, and while it doesn't exactly bring out the best in the public when the press revel in the marital break-ups or the perceived cellulite of these people, they have more or less asked for it. And if you're going to call your poor wretched child Harper Seven, people are bound to, well, notice, aren't they? Complaining about press interest in these cases would be like inviting people round to your house, and then slamming the door in their faces. You either want publicity, or you don't. Presumably you have to take the rough with the smooth.
On the other hand, there are people like the Browns (Gordon and Sarah) and the Dowlers, who have been visited by tragedy, and never invited the press in, but they barged their way in anyway. This is absolutely unforgiveable.
Lastly, there are people like (for example) J K Rowling and Judi Dench; people at the top of their game, who could presumably have made millions by inviting Ok or Hello into their homes, but have always opted to remain private individuals. They deserve to have that privacy respected, because they never sought to exploit their celebrity status. They leave that to others. And, let's face it. There are plenty of those.
There's a world of difference between what is in the public interests (MPs's expenses; after all, it's our money they're spending), and what the public are interested in (horrific diseases and accidents, horrible things happening to famous people etc). That the second appears to be more entertaining (in a nasty, salacious kind of way) than the former is not the point; we don't NEED to know whether or not Kate's grandfather was a window cleaner.
And then there's the bit in between; things we don't need to know, but in a way are entitled to know, because the people involved have, as it were, invited us into their lives. There are many "celebrities" who do just that. They court public attention when they want it, and while it doesn't exactly bring out the best in the public when the press revel in the marital break-ups or the perceived cellulite of these people, they have more or less asked for it. And if you're going to call your poor wretched child Harper Seven, people are bound to, well, notice, aren't they? Complaining about press interest in these cases would be like inviting people round to your house, and then slamming the door in their faces. You either want publicity, or you don't. Presumably you have to take the rough with the smooth.
On the other hand, there are people like the Browns (Gordon and Sarah) and the Dowlers, who have been visited by tragedy, and never invited the press in, but they barged their way in anyway. This is absolutely unforgiveable.
Lastly, there are people like (for example) J K Rowling and Judi Dench; people at the top of their game, who could presumably have made millions by inviting Ok or Hello into their homes, but have always opted to remain private individuals. They deserve to have that privacy respected, because they never sought to exploit their celebrity status. They leave that to others. And, let's face it. There are plenty of those.
Monday, 3 January 2011
The press - too much freedom?
I have several problems with the reporting of the murder of the Bristol woman, Joanna Yeates.
Firstly, the media's preoccupation with this particular case. As I recall, there was a young boy shot dead over Christmas, but nothing was made of that. So why focus so much attention on the case of Ms Yeates (tragic as it is)?
Secondly, what gives the press licence to refer to her as "Jo", as though she were a friend, or someone we all know well (or feel we do, like Princess Di)? Most of us don't know her at all, and it seems to me that it would be more respectful - especially under such devastating circumstances - to refer to her by her full name.
And lastly, there is the appalling trial-by-media of her landlord, who has been granted police bail and released. Perhaps he is guilty, but there has been no trial, and he may well be innocent. People have been interviewed and have described him as odd, or weird. But there are lots of odd, weird people around, and that doesn't make them murderers (never mind the fact that these are subjective opinions, and one person's odd may be another's interesting, or just a bit eccentric). This man had had his reputation ruined for the forseeable future, whatever the outcome. Should he even have been named at all?
As far as this last is concerned, I'm all for the freedom of the press. Up to a point. But there's always a price to be paid, and quite often the person paying it is both vulnerable and, more to the point, perfectly innocent.
Firstly, the media's preoccupation with this particular case. As I recall, there was a young boy shot dead over Christmas, but nothing was made of that. So why focus so much attention on the case of Ms Yeates (tragic as it is)?
Secondly, what gives the press licence to refer to her as "Jo", as though she were a friend, or someone we all know well (or feel we do, like Princess Di)? Most of us don't know her at all, and it seems to me that it would be more respectful - especially under such devastating circumstances - to refer to her by her full name.
And lastly, there is the appalling trial-by-media of her landlord, who has been granted police bail and released. Perhaps he is guilty, but there has been no trial, and he may well be innocent. People have been interviewed and have described him as odd, or weird. But there are lots of odd, weird people around, and that doesn't make them murderers (never mind the fact that these are subjective opinions, and one person's odd may be another's interesting, or just a bit eccentric). This man had had his reputation ruined for the forseeable future, whatever the outcome. Should he even have been named at all?
As far as this last is concerned, I'm all for the freedom of the press. Up to a point. But there's always a price to be paid, and quite often the person paying it is both vulnerable and, more to the point, perfectly innocent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
