Back to openDemocracy Email us Powered by TypePad  
political magazine Help bring democracy to the US
political magazine The New oD Today
political magazine China's modernisation and its discontents
political magazine openDemocracy widget
political magazine Goodbye Habeas Corpus
political magazine Dance the guns to silence?
political magazine Don't be a lawyer in China
political magazine Have we hit the ground yet?
political magazine The strange ways of Falungong
political magazine 2000 dead
political magazine April 2006
political magazine December 2005
political magazine November 2005
political magazine October 2005
political magazine September 2005
political magazine August 2005
political magazine July 2005
political magazine June 2005
political magazine May 2005
political magazine April 2005
My Photo oD Today
A weblog from the editors, staff and friends of openDemocracy.net

« German election blog | Main | US petition for Iraq Exit »

A Question of Attribution

by Brian Cathcart

There is outrage today in Britain at the latest revelations about the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian electrician shot dead by police who feared he was a suicide bomber. The outrage has two main causes: first, that it is now clearer than ever that the suspicions which led to the shooting were wholly unjustified and second, that the police initially misrepresented the events and then allowed a false narrative to stand uncorrected.

The anger is evident in the press -- the conservative Daily Telegraph, for example, is demanding to know whether London’s police chief, Sir Ian Blair, knowingly allowed false information to be spread and appears to want him sacked if he did. Such bitterness is to be expected when journalists feel they have been duped into telling the public an untrue story, but what we are not seeing, and what we probably should be seeing, is some media self-criticism.

On 22nd July, the day of the shooting, Sir Ian Blair went on record as saying that de Menezes’s dress and behaviour had been suspicious, and we now know this was untrue. But it did not stop there. A good deal of additional “detail” was published that day and the following morning, for example that de Menezes ran from police, failed to heed a warning and jumped over a ticket barrier in an underground railway station – all incorrect. The provenance of this material was probably unclear to most readers or viewers, but most of it none the less passed into the popular consciousness as fact.

It appears from newspaper reports yesterday and today that the “detail” emanated largely from off-the-record briefings by police officers – in other words, those sessions in which people say things but reporters don’t specify afterwards who said them. Surely British newspapers and broadcasters should be asking themselves today whether they should have accepted so much untrue information on these terms and passed it on to their readers without health warnings designed to encourage an appropriate scepticism. They appear to have allowed themselves to be the vehicles for a scandalous untruth; will they now ignore the problem and move on, or will they do something to prevent it happening again? My money is on the former.

August 18, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83454872c69e200d8345487e669e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Question of Attribution:



Comments

http://www.hugechoiceof.com/

Posted by: account | 22 Apr 2007 12:25:24

The comments to this entry are closed.

Back to openDemocracy Email us Powered by TypePad