Listening to the news over the last day or two I'm left wondering whether the loss/abduction of one 3 year-old out of 60-odd million of us really warrants the leading headlines that it has made over the past couple of days?
Of course this of huge and highly emotional importance to the family involved, but is it really more important than, say, the questions currently arising about UK banking - the success or failure of which will affect the future of all of us, however much we may fail to recognise it.
So, is the fate of one small boy really so dominant as to take over the news in the way it has when compared with much more fundamental issues which will affect us all ...
Tony (who used to push Harley out of the front door when he was 3, but he kept coming back (joking of course)).
I think the difference is that the more media attention missing people get the more likely it is that they are found. Publication of leading issues these days? Chances are not much changes, at least in the first instance something happens. Ya digg?
They'll go with what will cause a buzz and sell papers, not what is actually important. The mainstream media didn't have a thing to say about the conflict in Syria which had been going for decades until the chemical weapons attack, which is when they could make a '200 KILLED IN BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS ATTACK! in Syria' headline.
One missing kid is worth a lot more emotional points than the banking system being messed up. Also the banking system/corruption is sort of ubiquitous and people get fatigued reading about it endlessly.
I think its important for things like this to be in the news, as it can maybe help people who have information or to be aware so they can help find the child.
There are so many important things that should be broadcast, but I do think if a child is missing, then they needs all the support and attention needed to find them and prevent it happening again.
I guess the banking crisis is not as new as Mikaeel's disappearance, and thus less worthy of a front page news story. I also think our faith in humanity is challenged more by the murder of a three year old than it is by greed or financial difficulty and thus it is more newsworthy, and rightly so.
I haven't suggested that the story was not newsworthy - only that the disappearance of one 3 year-old doesn't warrant it being reported ahead of the many more important issues facing the country. I do of course accept that widespread reportage gets more eyes looking out for the child, which is of course helpful.
However, according to the news at 10pm this evening it seems that the child has now been found dead. Very sad, and it appears that there is a lot more of the story still to come out, though without any of the facts I'm not going to speculate as to how the boy died, still less to start throwing blame about.
One heartwarming thing about the case was the reaction of the local population in rallying round to help in the search - full marks to those who turned out.
All that said, I remain convinced that it shouldn't have been run as the number one news story it the way that it was ...
I actually agree with Tony. This story is horrific but worse attrocities occur every day and as awful as this story is, there are other events tht impact more on humanity as a whole than the disappearance of that poor little boy.
Is the job of the media not to report things that interest the public? Not just so that they sell more papers/get more viewers, but their remit is to report the news, and news could be defined as information on recent event of interest to the public prioritising in order of what we the public find most important.
I'm not sure, is their job to report news the way we want it (i.e. missing kids first) or the way they think we should want it (i.e. events with most local/national/global impact first)?
Watch the BBC 24 hour news. It shows everything. Using the media to help find missing children, then reports on the UK economy, world news, other important events.
I think the news should 100% be used to help police investigations. But I am also glad they report on other relevant areas.
The only thing that bugs me (though it wasn't the case here) is that reports of missing people tends to be those who are white and female. People go missing everyday but, 9/10, the ones reported on are female and white middle class.
Of course both human-interest and national-interest stories should be reported, and of course it is the Editor's prerogative to decide just which stories are to sell more of his papers - which is of course his primary role. It is certainly not, Narcissa, for an Editor to decide what we should read on the basis of his personal views of what he thinks we should read (to educate us? does he think he's God?).
But clearly Mammon rules in Fleet Street - hence all the tacky stories currently running about eavesdropping et al.
Meanwhile, may God rest the soul of the poor child involved in this particular story, however sensationally it has been featured ...
The only thing that bugs me (though it wasn't the case here) is that reports of missing people tends to be those who are white and female. People go missing everyday but, 9/10, the ones reported on are female and white middle class.
Yes - that's why I stopped following the missing white girl stories a dozen years ago (same with the attractive female criminal stories that go for months.). I pretty much gave up watching television news
I agree with the fact there are many more 'important' stories but these stories can be a lightening rod for awareness across the country, awful as they were, it stirs people into action, for example social services have become much more vigilant since baby P and so on, which I know is bad in some cases but saves one heck of a lot of children who might have been left to rot had that not happened. The only objection I have to the mass-publication of missing children is that although it might result (fantastic) in the child being found, it might increase the chance of the child being killed/dumped because the abductors/whoever know they will be spotted because the child is well known therefore awful as it is they get rid of them to hide the evidence. I know that sounds morbid but these things happen.
'Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you.'
['There is only one thing we say to death. Not today'.']
'We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell. Oscar Wilde
Its hard to dance with the devil on your back. Sydney Carter
^they do, but most kidnappers either want money, to abuse/hurt, to make a political statement, or to threaten/coerce/punish. They often will have already decided if they want their victim to live or not. If anything, the media can be useful in making the kidnapper feel on edge and therefore panic, leave evidence or let the victim go. It becomes a danger when the kidnapper has not hidden their face, or if the victim is known to the criminal. So it can kinda go both ways.
Of course something has to go onto the front page. My point was that something as relatively trivial as the disappearance of a single child didn't warrant it making the headlines which it did - even though a single life and a single child are of course important in their way.
I gather that the mother was due to be charged in court today ...
