 |
I could not believe my eyes on Sunday. The News of the World ran the diaries of Kate McCann, the mother of missing Madeleine. Why, I wondered, would the McCanns suddenly agree to a red-top publishing such an intimate document? And surely they could not have sold the rights?
Then I noticed the odd phrasing in the standfirst, which explained (partially at least) their provenance, and which also implied that Kate McCann had not sanctioned publication. It said that the diaries "were passed to us by a reporter in Portugal."
On the other hand, given that if the diaries were real ? and they read as if they were ? the NoW's lawyers would certainly know they faced copyright problems if the editor dared to run them. They must have felt confident, however, because they were being featured on the paper's website as well.
We have previously heard very little about these diaries, thought to be in the hands of Portuguese prosecutors. A year ago the Daily Mail ran a tasteless story about them being liable to fetch 1 million from publishers. The Sun did mention a leak in late July this year. But nothing much had emerged.
There were follow-ups to the NoW's scoop, including this one in the Daily Telegraph. Google is showing more than 3,000 stories about the diaries in various publications around the world.
I forgot about the matter until today someone urged me to try the link to the News of the World's website once again. The diaries had been taken down (though, of course, the link from Google remains in place). Then she revealed that lawyers were now "heavily involved."
No, I thought, surely the NoW's accident prone editor Colin Myler had not cocked things up again? He could not have run the diaries without obtaining permission from Kate McCann, could he?
My source, under no illusion about Myler's supposed abilities, is adamant that the News of the World is in very hot water indeed. "I understand Gerry and Kate are very upset," she said. "Even though the paper tried to dress it all up as sympathetic, it was obviously a grotesque intrusion into their privacy."
And then there's the copyright problem too. After the previous court settlements in favour of the McCanns, this is one giant - if rather obvious - editorial mistake.
Whitenights
Sep 18 08, 11:21am
Whitenights
Sep 18 08, 11:25am
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2958664/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-McCanns-diary-reveals-anguish-of-losing-her.html
Is it normal for senior polticians to telephone working class folks like the McCanns who's child has 'disappeared' ?
Perhaps it's because of the unpublicised connection between Dr McCann and the future of the British Nuclear industry as a member of the COMARE committee.
lorenzo1
Sep 18 08, 11:47am
Let us not forget the damning judgement last time the Screws was in court over Mosely when the judge criticised the journalists for resorting to blackmail and committing perjury in court. Under normal circumstances those two acts are regarded as criminal and would lead to prosecution, something that if a "civilian" committed then the NotW would be calling for their head on a stick alongside those who fail to act.
So time to act. Let's prosecute the journalists who commit blackmail and perjury and editors who breach the law should be dragged into court to answer for their actions.
cricketmad
Sep 18 08, 11:56am
Were did this information come from? And what do/did the McCanns have to say about it?
Iamnonumpty
Sep 18 08, 12:09pm
Mr Greenslade why would the NOW be in hot water for reporting on the Diary? Is it the same Diary that the PJ copied and when the case was Archived that same copy of the Diary, was possibly contained within the DVD that was released to the Media. The same DVD that will be available to the public in due course, so if the Diary is in there any member of the public who obtains a copy can read it themselves. There is also a letter from Sofia Leal the wife of Gon?lo Amaral in the Correio da Manh? Sky and the Metro have reported on selected snippets of the letter. This, imo, is unfair to the writer and also misleading to the UK viewer and reader. Is this not misrepresentation? Especially given that the full letter is available on the Internet. When will the UK get unbiased reporting on this case?
Whitenights
Sep 18 08, 12:13pm
A ten year old could use Google to confirm what I wrote. The message wiill be deleted. It always has been before Perhaps there is a D notice ?
If this was a serious piece of journalism, Roy would be asking why the lawyers decided to publish. I wonder if damaging parts of the diary were published ? Iif not, it is a wind up.
Whitenights
Sep 18 08, 12:17pm
The question is whether the information is in the public domain and if that makes it copyright free. I am sure the NOW lawyers know what they are doing.
Troubleshooter
Sep 18 08, 12:47pm
Wow, you take holding on to grudges to new levels, dont you Prof?
lorenzo1
Sep 18 08, 1:23pm
These included Katie Price and Peter Andre, Cherie Booth/Blair and Max Mosley...sure looks like they don't know what they are doing or more likely the editor and proprietor take a calculated risk that paying out court costs is worth it for peddling unfounded stories and allegations - their stock in trade.
If that is the case then they are no longer able to self regulate and need much stronger deterrents and regulation based on the simple premise that we have no idea how many stories that are baseless, flawed, fraudulently gathered or simply libellous and wrong that are published every week against those without the resources to resort to law.
As for Troubleshooter's "Noted, yet another personal dig at the editor from Greenslade" - yep, but hey, here's a thought maybe this paper is such a problem that it requires much more scrutiny than it currently gets. As for personal attack on the editor...well the decision to run a story or not lies with the editor. Not so personal just a question of fact.
Or perhaps those who feel the attention is unwarranted feel that it is ok for journalists to blackmail, perjure themselves or break the law in a number of different ways including accessing phones and emails. As far as I can recall the spurious argument the NotW trots out of public interest is now so threadbare that its modus operandi requires severe scrutiny.
diddyde
Sep 18 08, 2:04pm
If people have paid money for it, more fool them!
Whitenights
Sep 18 08, 2:06pm
Thank you for making my point.
I suspect however that thiscould be a deliberate leak by the McCann team to show only the parts of the diary they want publicised. I obviously don't read the NOW so I have no idea what information they printed.
Alvinson
Sep 18 08, 2:25pm
What previous court settlements in the McCanns' favour? As far as I'm aware, the McCanns have steered well clear of court and accepted an out of court payment from the Express group - the pygmies of Fleet Street - despite the fact that many other more well-financed rags were printing similar stuff about them.
Currently, the police investigator who worked on their daughter's case - one Goncalo Ameral - has a book topping the Portuguese bestseller lists, in which he expresses the view that Madeleine was not abducted but died in the apartment where she and her parents were staying. He has stated publicly that he thinks Gerry McCann hid her body on the beach. Why are they not suing him? Surely this is far worse than whatever Kate herself has said in her diaries? It might prevent people from searching for their child in the very place she went missing.
If the McCanns sue the News of the World but not Ameral, it will look very much as though they care more about getting money than they do about seeking the truth and helping their child.
Tenkens
Sep 18 08, 2:41pm
Kloe
Sep 18 08, 4:24pm
Copy
Sep 18 08, 4:38pm
While attacking the editor of the News of the World, he appears reluctant to ask why Kate McCann refused to answer 40, perfectly proper questions, put to her by Portuguese detectives investigating the disappearance of her child. Or comment on perhaps finding it odd that the public has yet to see the woman shed a single tear.
Whitenights
Sep 18 08, 5:07pm
No, Roy was assistant editor of the Sun from 1981-86, Margaret Thatcher's most triumphal years. He then became editor of the Mirror from 1990-91. His owners were Rupert Murdoch and Captain Bob Maxwell, two of the most valiant truth seekers in human history.
Tenkens
Sep 18 08, 5:47pm
Tenkens
Sep 18 08, 7:59pm
Copy
Sep 18 08, 11:08pm
He was indeed the not-very-successful features editor of the Daily Star, and went from there to the Sun. Perhaps the Sun lacked social cache. Whatever the reason, he joined the Sunday Times, A much more socially acceptable place of employment.
Meantime, what about Kate McCann's 40 unanswered questions? Is Mr. Greenslade ever going to get around to those? Or do editors make easier targets for his interminable sniping.
As the late John Junor used to say: "Shouldn't we be told"
Nobjocki
Sep 19 08, 2:19pm
The McCann's have run a sophisticated and well-financed media campaign that has all but obliterated genuine questions and criticisms about their behaviour and character.
So once again congratulations to the New of the World for daring to challenge this in an adventurous way.
Roy - you're becoming like the doddery old fart in the corner of the pub saying " thinks were never like this back in the good old days. "