Saudi millionaire cleared of rape after claiming he fell and accidentally penetrated teenager

Chris Dolan posted:

True - but the headline gives the impression that the defence version of the events is incredible and the reference to "Saudi millionaire" ramps it up.

Chris, out of interest, how would you have rewritten that headline in such a way that it would make people read it (which is the point of a headline), while still giving a sense of the story and fitting in the pace available?

Harry posted:

 Mind you, that plucky British spaceman who got launched this week generated a lot of what the media chose to now call news.  A description of what the rocket looked like and the colour of the sky. An interview with his wife. An interview with his mum. An interview with his dad. I expect his best friend was unavailable. Compared to that kind of "news" I suppose "Accused rapist gets off but based on no evidence we want you to disbelieve it and hate him" is pretty serious, high brow stuff.

What you fail to grasp is that for the vast majority of UK readers/viewers, the story of Tim Peake is what we in the trade call "a primarily human interest story."

I'd be interested to hear your suggestions for reporting Mr Peake's adventures to a mainstream UK audience (one that is not overly interested in, or cognisant of, science)...

Harry posted:

You may or may not care to skim over the volume of feedback posted world wide about the case. If so you will have little option but to conclude that a significant proportion of people who have not heard the evidence are willing to believe that he should be strung up. Or burned with acid, as one contributor in this thread has suggested.

Well thart is indeed true - there are plenty of people out there willing to ignore the fact that he was found not guilty, but how is that the fault of the media? At least the fact that he was found NG was widely reported.

Kevin-W posted:

Harry posted:

 Mind you, that plucky British spaceman who got launched this week generated a lot of what the media chose to now call news.  A description of what the rocket looked like and the colour of the sky. An interview with his wife. An interview with his mum. An interview with his dad. I expect his best friend was unavailable. Compared to that kind of "news" I suppose "Accused rapist gets off but based on no evidence we want you to disbelieve it and hate him" is pretty serious, high brow stuff.

What you fail to grasp is that for the vast majority of UK readers/viewers, the story of Tim Peake is what we in the trade call "a primarily human interest story."

I'd be interested to hear your suggestions for reporting Mr Peake's adventures to a mainstream UK audience (one that is not overly interested in, or cognisant of, science)...

Do a documentary, or maybe put it on Blue Peter. How is a proud dad news?  

Kevin-W posted:

Harry posted:

You may or may not care to skim over the volume of feedback posted world wide about the case. If so you will have little option but to conclude that a significant proportion of people who have not heard the evidence are willing to believe that he should be strung up. Or burned with acid, as one contributor in this thread has suggested.

Well thart is indeed true - there are plenty of people out there willing to ignore the fact that he was found not guilty, but how is that the fault of the media? At least the fact that he was found NG was widely reported.

It seems that the media thought it was the wrong verdict. So where is their evidence? And where are the people who are so willing to believe he must be a monster getting their guidance from? Could it possibly be the characterisation of the defendant by the media? Or the whimsical treatment of the defense's position  "Man found not guilty of rape" would have been entirely accurate. But where's the drama value in that?

Kevin-W posted:

winkyincanada posted:

 What is the relevance of stating his nationality or financial status?

I don't know about Canada, but here in Blighty, (except in special circumstances) defendents' nationality, age, occupation, etc is revealed at trials. As part of the democratic process, journalists are permitted to report on trials in Crown Courts and proceedings at magistrates' courts. It is not as if the hacks were digging up anything that wasn't on the record. What is the problem here?

The problem is that, in this case, publishing this information may have been intended more to stir up our prejudices than to provide any meaningful information.

My reading of the various news accounts of this trial does show consistent sensationalism:  older caddish Saudi millionaire violates 18-year old English rose, and somehow gets away with it.  

Two facts jump out at me: 1) this trial was not entirely in the public eye, as the judge allowed the defense to present 20 minutes of evidence in private, and 2) the jury took only 30 minutes to reach a non-guilty verdict.  For a charge as serious as rape, that is an extraordinarily quick decision!

I can think of only two possible reasons why this could have happened. Either the 20 minutes was extremely convincing, or the trial was rigged.  Odds would seem to favor the former.

Hook

PS - This guy does appear to be a first-class jerk. Most married men don't hire private tables at high-end strip clubs for £1000 per night, nor do they take young working women back to their flats.  But these are not crimes.

Harry posted:

Do a documentary, or maybe put it on Blue Peter. How is a proud dad news?  

It isn't - but as one of only seven UK astronauts, the fact that Mr Peake is a dad is another aspect to a great human interest story for UK readers. The fact that you are not interested in him or his dadhood is neither here nor there. Lots of people are. If George Clooney, or someone else in the public eye, was a proud dad, that would be news as well. Editors are (and always have been) interested in what their readers will want to read, that is what informs their decisions. There is nothing, on the whole, wrong with that. If you are not interested, don't read their papers, mags or websites. That's your choice and all power to you. But stop pretending you are a superior being.

Hook posted:

My reading of the various news accounts of this trial does show consistent sensationalism:  older caddish Saudi millionaire violates 18-year old English rose, and somehow gets away with it.  

Two facts jump out at me: 1) this trial was not entirely in the public eye, as the judge allowed the defense to present 20 minutes of evidence in private, and 2) the jury took only 30 minutes to reach a non-guilty verdict.  For a charge as serious as rape, that is an extraordinarily quick decision!

I can think of only two possible reasons why this could have happened. Either the 20 minutes was extremely convincing, or the trial was rigged.  Odds would seem to favor the former.

Hook

PS - This guy does appear to be a first-class jerk. Most married men don't hire private tables at high-end strip clubs for £1000 per night, nor do they take young working women back to their flats.  But these are not crimes.

Hook, one of the things the UK press, probably the most vibrant in the world, has always been good at is skewing hypocrisy, and pulling up the rich and the powerful. This has been the case since the late 1600s. Of course, the British press is itself often massively hypocritical.

Saudia Arabia is one of the most puritanical countries on earth, but of course its godawful ruling elite (all male of course) has always been massively hypocritical and priapic, particularly when abroad, where it feels its power and wealth gives it protection. The British media has long enjoyed exposing these double standards, and well, why not? I see nowt wrong with it.

The person in question committed no crime, he was found NG, but there is a certain kind of salacious enjoyment to be had from reporting his extracurricular activities.

winkyincanada posted:

The problem is that, in this case, publishing this information may have been intended more to stir up our prejudices than to provide any meaningful information.

Winky, I refer you to my post immediately above.

Harry posted:

It seems that the media thought it was the wrong verdict. So where is their evidence? And where are the people who are so willing to believe he must be a monster getting their guidance from? Could it possibly be the characterisation of the defendant by the media? Or the whimsical treatment of the defense's position  "Man found not guilty of rape" would have been entirely accurate. But where's the drama value in that?

That is your interpretation. Which is your right. But to suggest that a verdict was incorrect is in fact contempt of court, an extremely serious offence. None of the media reports of this case I've read, in both the tabloid and more reputable media, have said that. In fact, they have all, in various ways, reported that this individual was... found not guilty of rape.

You may not like the way the fact was reported, but it seems to me that your real issue is that you see yourself as somehow above the salacious interests of the bloke in the street - which is fair enough, but that does not entitle you to adopt a self-righteous, priggish or superior tone.

Kevin-W posted:

Harry posted:

It seems that the media thought it was the wrong verdict. So where is their evidence? And where are the people who are so willing to believe he must be a monster getting their guidance from? Could it possibly be the characterisation of the defendant by the media? Or the whimsical treatment of the defense's position  "Man found not guilty of rape" would have been entirely accurate. But where's the drama value in that?

That is your interpretation. Which is your right. But to suggest that a verdict was incorrect is in fact contempt of court, an extremely serious offence. None of the media reports of this case I've read, in both the tabloid and more reputable media, have said that. In fact, they have all, in various ways, reported that this individual was... found not guilty of rape.

You may not like the way the fact was reported, but it seems to me that your real issue is that you see yourself as somehow above the salacious interests of the bloke in the street - which is fair enough, but that does not entitle you to adopt a self-righteous, priggish or superior tone.

I think the reality of newspaper reporting sits in both of your arguments.  I on occasion mention an article in a newspaper to my daughter, and she rolls her eyes as if trying to tolerate a simpleton and she retorts " of course you believe everything they write in the newspapers is true and factual?"  Why does she take this attitude because she did her academic work based on science, which involved tests, proof  and always establishing ones source.  When she writes a paper on a thesis in her topic connected with psychology and sleep she cannot just report the facts in a manner that would attract the reader, she has to verify every information she gives in the paper.  When she reads headlines in papers eg Cure for Dementia! (I have seen this headline more then once in Newspapers..) she has nothing but contempt for journalists who are obviously trying to create an interpretation for the readers in order to buy the newspaper, while the truth is there is no final cure for dementia. (as yet) .

I have worked in the law, including criminal law, and the papers are notorious for getting facts out of context in order to make the story more exciting so that the prospective buyer is enticed to buying the paper; its a stage once removed from the page 3 syndrome of the Sun newspaper! 

Romi, I completely agree with you, the British press' reporting of science and science/medical issues is pretty woeful (and, in the case of stuff like MMR, occasionally downright dangerous).

However this is a country whose mainstream population (as well as its elites) sadly seems to hold scientific endeavour and science in low esteem. And, to play devil's advocate for a moment, scientific research is not usually subject to the very tight deadlines that newspaper hacks are...

I think our Press is a pretty accurate reflection of our society. After all, we buy the newspapers.  Yes, we want a bit news but I think there's also a variety of other needs in there too, including a bit of massaging of our own prejudices.    There are headlines and articles which occasionally make my blood boil but also many pieces that I find interesting and informative e.g. more insightful and knowledgable analysis of foreign affairs than we would ever gain from 'official' sources . And then there is investigative journalism. Yes, sometimes there will be a whiff of entrapment but time and again pieces expose scandals that would otherwise remain hidden (MPs' expenses?).  And that's a mark of a functioning democracy with a free Press.  So, yes, at times I dislike what some of the Press does but does any other country have a better one?   

MDS posted:

I think our Press is a pretty accurate reflection of our society. After all, we buy the newspapers.  Yes, we want a bit news but I think there's also a variety of other needs in there too, including a bit of massaging of our own prejudices.    There are headlines and articles which occasionally make my blood boil but also many pieces that I find interesting and informative e.g. more insightful and knowledgable analysis of foreign affairs than we would ever gain from 'official' sources . And then there is investigative journalism. Yes, sometimes there will be a whiff of entrapment but time and again pieces expose scandals that would otherwise remain hidden (MPs' expenses?).  And that's a mark of a functioning democracy with a free Press.  So, yes, at times I dislike what some of the Press does but does any other country have a better one?   

In the above context I agree with you entirely.  Not so long ago the Soviet Union (including all Soviet occupied eastern European countries) operated on a daily propaganda that suited the regime and to drive the point home their Russian daily newspaper was called Pravda which means ironically in English = Truth.  One insider told me that to sustain the system based on lies was far more important to the Soviet regime then the whole of the Vietnam war.  A newspaper based on free press and democracy simply did not exist within the Eastern Block  and in this context and I fully support the free press.  What I call into question is the editor's responsibility to allow intelligent and accurate news where perception  of the news released is not intentionally exaggerated, false or misleading in regards to the UK.