Question

Simon Bucks, What benefits, other than satisfying peoples' morbid curiosity, do you think the media coverage of the McCann case has brought?
Asked by sunnyday on Oct 31 2007 2:58:53 AM and supported by 33 members MORE!

Answer

The McCann case touches anyone with children who has had to make daily decisions about looking after them. I completely reject the idea that our coverage is only designed to satisfy morbid curiosity. But all news coverage depends on the consumers being interested, or indeed curious, in the subject. The implication of your question is that we should prescribe what people should be interested in, a philosophy more suited to a dictatorship than a democracy.

1 comment

sunnyday at Dec 26 2007 12:00:00 AM : But Mr.Bucks editors the world over DO prescribe what their readers or viewers should be interested in, through the very process of deciding what to lead with and what to omit from the day's news.I agree, that what people are very often interested in is the "sensational" - which is why the Sun sells approx five times more than the Times - but is it necessary to pander to the Public's need for the sensational and indeed to encourage it? If the Media had forgotten the McCann story a day or so after it broke, do you think there would have been an outcry from the Public that they wanted more? Were the Public leading the Media here or vice versa?

Topics you are talking about:

People you are asking:
Brian Barwick Jeff Winter Hazel Blears Adam Crozier James Purnell Trevor Philips David Miliband Gordon Brown GILLIAN PARKER QPM, BSc.(Hons), MSt.(Cantab) John Hemming Paul Hudson Douglas Carswell Tony Blair Banksy Inzamam ul Haq