News or Entertainment?
I am not sure which I have found more shocking over the last week. Of course I am, like everyone else, shocked by the murder of 5 women in Suffolk but I think running close is my shock at the sheer feeding frenzy of the press and media in their coverage of these terrible events. It has almost become light entertainment to the various news organisations while they try to "analyse and inform" with information and conjecture that is probably nothing even close to resembling the truth. It has almost been bloodlust.
Suffolk1
Of course, this cannot be totally laid at the door of the news organisations, as the police must bear some responsibility for feeding this frenzy. I was surprised on Tuesday afternoon to watch a press conference - less than two hours after the latest two bodies were discovered - led by the Chief Constable of the local force and the chief investigating officer. I would have thought that these two gentlemen would have been expected to be standing in the fields at the site of the discoveries wearing wellies and directing the search for clues. Instead, they were in front of the cameras at another location announcing the 'discovery' of the two bodies. Following the press conference they were then giving individual interviews to anyone who had a microphone - preferably attached to a camera!
Is this a good thing? I remember the days when the police avoided giving press conferences for fear of revealing information that might highlight their progress in catching the murderer. There was also a view it might prejudice any subsequent trial.
So why are the police now so keen to appear on the TV at every opportunity and why has the man who is supposedly responsible for leading an investigative team of what is reported to be over three hundred men, got the time to give regular updates to the feeding journos? Could it be that the investigation has been unofficially taken over by officers who are more
Suffolk 2
experienced in investigating this sort of crime but the local officers are being allowed to look like they are still in charge? Does it really matter? I guess not as long as the murderer is caught at the soonest possible moment.
What it does do though, is increase the frenzy of the media. We then get interviews and opinions from every conceivable 'expert'. Retired detectives, criminal psychologists, forensic scientists and anyone who might have 'something' that adds to the theories is dragged in front of a camera to hypothesise about what may be the motivation or method being employed by the killer and the methods by which he may be caught. I have even seen an interview with two young frightened single women sitting in a bar who have told us how they are careful not to get caught out by the killer while their full names are shown at the bottom of the screen. A challenge to an unstable calculating killer if ever there was one!
This killer must be caught as soon as possible, but an 'investigation' by a news organisation is not the way to get it done. Sky News in particular are acting like they are playing a giant game of Cluedo and I am sure they think they are going to solve the murders themselves with the help of their various 'experts'
I hope when the person is eventually caught his trial is not jeopardised by the possibility of failing to find a jury that has not been influenced by the things they have seen on the TV or read in the press.
As they say......never let the facts get in the way of a good story!!
|