BBC:
On 13rd September 2012 BBC did a short summary of what happened the last 5th September near the Annecy lake.
It points out the possibility that the murder could be linked with Saddam Hussein. The article talks about an "Iraqi link".
On 27th September BBC did a radio report about Annecy killings
In the next article, on 4th October, BBC did an interview with chief prosecutor Eric Maillaud.
He said that there is no hope of solving the murders in the near future.
On 19th October the BBC's report explains that police believes that the cyclist found dead at the scene was shot first, according to a leaked provisional scenario.
The police thinks also that the killer has worked alone but without much logic and that the identity or motive of killings hasen't been cleared yet.
On 22nd October BBC did an interview with the uncle of a woman shot. He thinks that the French prosecutor also focused on the family without presenting any evidence. In his opinion it is a kind of wild speculation.
It also did a summary of provisional scenario.
On BBC news there aren't more information about this murder.
I notice that BBC doesn't highlight the link with Iraq or Saddam. Instead, the broadcaster is very cautious and it prefers to concentrate the report about how the massacre was done on the dynamics.
V.
Hi guys! I think you're doing a great job comparing different views of the same fact. It is really interesting to read how news are reported and which aspects are highlighted more.
RispondiEliminaAbout this specific tragedy, I noticed that Al Jazeera repeated several times that killers are disorganised and unprofessional, and this is in total opposition with the BBC hypothesis of an Iraqi link and terrorism. Have you discussed about it? Do you think that this is due to the fact that journalists are simply focused on different aspects or they tell us what we want to hear?
Honestly, I find your work really interesting. It is really shocking see how the same fact is represented in different articles and this arouse some question. Going behind the episode of the French family involved in the crime news, I think that the point is to understand if the different focuses and emphasis that exist in the articles (and for extension in the Media system of information) are something that enhance our knowledge or not. On one hand using information to manipulate the public opinion is a very common use. The family murdered in a quiet afternoon in “such a safe, nice place” (as BBC reporter Jackson wrote), for some journalists can be related to Saddam Hussein and terrorism and who know what else, on the other hand comparing this description to the others it’s handy to develop one self-judgment of the information that we receive. If well used the pluralism of information is a good way to create opinions that are “filtered”, you can read more descriptions and draw the conclusions. To understand why is good that they exist different oriented way to show reality can be helpful one reduction ad absurdum: if newspapers (now is newspaper but this principle can be extended to other aspects of human life) are standardized, saying the same thing, doing the same reflections, etc, how could be a person able to understand the no objectivity of the reading? Having a multiple choice, be part of different points of view is the best thing. In the end reality can change according to the observer, and if this would not be like this, how boring the life! Accepting the challenge is what we are expected to do, is obvious that limit ourselves only to a point of view can be deleterious and it can create a sluggish public opinion.
RispondiElimina