| 10:28 UK time, Friday, 18 May 2007
The Times: Article on the "crusader journalist", following John Sweeney's investigation into Scientology. ()
The Guardian: Columnist Simon Jenkins on the 91Èȱ¬'s coverage of the Madeleine McCann story. ()
91Èȱ¬ © 2014 The 91Èȱ¬ 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
Does anyone else think that these "91Èȱ¬ in the news" posts don't really belong on the Editors' blog? It's certainly not the sort of thing I signed up to read. Perhaps they could exist on a separate feed?
Simon Jenkins succinctly outlines the pros and cons of the tabloid frenzy.
The question is whether the bbc should play a leading role in this? Its all part of the corporation’s paradigm shift down market.
Its interesting to do a relative comparison of bbc/Channel4 news. With the bbc frequently morphing into Newsround for challenged adults.
The 91Èȱ¬ should not be joining in with such a media feeding frenzy. Why send Huw Edwards to Portugal? What did that achieve? Equally, why send a news anchor to Virginia Tech after the shootings?
I have just watched the lunchtime news and hear that the 91Èȱ¬ are dropping the Australian soap Neighbours. I am one of the millions who have watched this program almost from the beginning. It is one of the lightest, easiest viewing programs on the 91Èȱ¬, ideal for family viewing at times of the day when all ages are either around the table or anticipating their meals while chilling out. I sincerely hope it is not replaced by yet another game show, an inane Richard and Judy type chat show, or extensions of the news. Maybe an opinion poll on the 91Èȱ¬ web for the owners of the 91Èȱ¬, THE VIEWERS, would have been the decent approach.
i think the most important critisism of the 91Èȱ¬ on the Madeleine story is the 91Èȱ¬'s utter contempt for portugese law.
You can't name susepcts in a case there and yet the 91Èȱ¬ took it upon themselves to name and shame a suspect who was never even arrested.
You have probably now ruined his life.
Where's the apology and reocnciliation? If it was me i would be sueing the 91Èȱ¬ over this.
Simon Jenkins is absolutely right regarding the 91Èȱ¬'s sense of priorities. The two main stories yesterday could both be described as "non-news" - the Portugese police holding a press conference to say that they had nothing to report and the expected confirmation that Gordon Brown had formally become leader-elect of the Labour Party. However, surely the identity of our next Prime Minister is more important than a lack of development in an ongoing story?
Can we expect the result of the next General Election to be reduced to a single sentence in the News In Brief part of 91Èȱ¬ bulletins?
For how much longer will licence-payers money be wasted on jollies for multiple reporters and support teams to Portugal? Of course, the event is tragic but it must be increasingly difficult for reporters to make up news.
Just how much has this story cost the 91Èȱ¬/us?
I do realise people are entitled to their own opinions, but I think they should stop moaning and challenging the 91Èȱ¬ on its license fee, every step of the way. They are reporting news, and if they require a team to do it, then there shouldn't be any challenges to their decision. Imagine if this was your child. Would you not want to keep their name in the media to get him/her found? I can barely imagine the anguish the parents are going through, and the 91Èȱ¬ are doing a good job at keeping the news current. If they really wanted to 'waste' our money, I'm pretty sure that helping to find a little lost British girl, isn't they way they would do it.