Trial By Media: The McCanns

It is more than probable you have read an article on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. You might also have visited a website, commented on a blog, or even donated to the campaign. Perhaps you have merely passed newsstands or speculated with friends or colleagues about the mysteries that surround the case.

In doing any of these things, or all of them, you would not be alone. Most people on these shores, and many beyond, now greet the sad details of this case with familiarity. Not only column inches, but countless blogs and bandwidth have been devoted to them. Commentary on the commentary itself has helped smother a nominally minor news event with deeply flawed information.

'The British public have recognised it as an extraordinary story with multi-layered fascination,' said Steve Bennedik, Networked Media Editor at Sky News, when I interviewed him. But does this fascination justify ignoring other, more classicly newsworthy events? Witness, for example, the strength of language used in a September Sky News Online article:-

'Never mind Burma, never mind the General Election, never mind bluetongue disease. There's only one question on people's lips - did the McCanns do it?'

'All news coverage depends on the consumers being interested, or indeed curious, in the subject,' explained Simon Bucks, Associate Editor at Sky News, 'people find it easier to relate to individuals than to large nebulous groups and abstract concepts.'

Owing to this interest from media consumers, dedicated teams were sent to the Algarve. Editors found the pull of the McCann stories too tempting to ignore and journalists felt pressure to submit stories, however tenuous. As Gerry McCann observed later, in a BBC interview, 'even early on, there was saturation coverage with nothing to report.'

The McCanns attempts to professionally publicise the crime have played into the hands of a media increasingly desperate for 'Maddie' stories. So when they were named as suspects, interest in the case redoubled, and took on new forms.

As Davinia Darch, Director of the UK Missing Children's helpline told me, 'I think [the McCanns] wanted maximum exposure, and they have got that. It's important in cases like these that publicity is controlled. Publicity can have mixed blessings.' As pressure for stories increased, the need for different angles has mushroomed.

Commentary from all angles of the media spectrum has played a significant part in filling the vacuum where facts would normally reside. The analysis and re-analysis of the case and its coverage became part of a self-perpetuating media circus.

As Steve Bennedik continued: 'When the Tonight programme looked at the media coverage of the Madeleine McCann case and asked if there was a witch-hunt, I am sure they were well aware that a programme about Madeleine wouldn't do any harm for their ratings.'

Broadsheet columnists, such as Matthew Parris of the Times, have criticised others in the media for their blanket coverage and exploitation of the individuals involved. In this respect, Parris and his ilk cannot be faulted because several facts cannot be denied. There has been exploitation and harrassment. We have seen xenophobia at work. There has been, for want of a better phrase, a wild goose chase.

There exists a deep irony, however, in newspapers advertising their critiques of media exploitation by splashing Madeleine McCann's face on their front page. Likewise, ordinary people don't seem to see the problem with discussing whether 'Maddie' is still alive while simultaneously complaining about the coverage the case has received.

With this in mind, media commentator Roy Greenslade wrote a post on the McCanns last week, duly receiving over twice the average rate of comments. As it turns out, this was a ruse. Greenslade was attempting to demonstrate any McCann material receives increased attention, whatever the content, or intent of the writer.

Comments denouncing the tone and extent of the McCann story's prominence are now ubiquitous. Rarely do these comments acknowledge the role that even criticising the story has contributed to its longevity.

 A problem with critiquing the media, in this context, is the powerful evolution of the term itself. In this age of citizen journalism, aren't we all potentially a part of the media'?

Steve Bennedik admitted that, 'after seven months, the Madeleine story is no longer dominating the news in the way it was, and we can no longer justify its prominence.' But who does Bennedik mean when he says 'we'. Is it the professional media, or society as a whole? This question should be answered by everyone, not just the honourable denizens of Wapping.