Explain how and why you think the 'Madeleine McCann - Robert Murat' case breached legal and social constraints, and the consequences of the breach?The question is about the media's breach of...
Explain how and why you think the 'Madeleine McCann - Robert Murat' case breached legal and social constraints, and the consequences of the breach?
The question is about the media's breach of social and legal constraints.
The British media is one of the worst in terms of making and breaking media personalities. Their yellow press is infamous for their exaggerated and unofficial reporting of mostly subjective material. In this case, Robert Murat, a one-time suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, was demonized in the press. All his personal life was spread out on papers, and everything was filtered under a biased perspective. He could not do anything right. He was called a "pervert", and "oddball", and everything that is usually normally reported without much issue was totally turned around for his sake: His own daughter, whom he lost in a custody battle became the media's reason why he may have killed Madeleine; his marriage, which like many others ended in divorce, was seen as a reason for him to become a criminal.
There was no objectivity, nor real reporting linking him to the murder: There was only opinions, vicious "testimony" and unneccesary comments which basically put this man- who is NOT a suspect anymore, as a world-wide target of hatred. That is not the job of the press. The press is supposed to be unbiased and clear. This is also slander, which breaks into the legal challenges of the case. Everything points to a scapegoat, and the media made good use of it.