In response to Fandango’s Who Won the Week posts, I have been looking at my own newsfeeds.
Do you remember Sarah Everard?
She’s the woman who was abducted and murdered in south London, at the start of March. It sparked protests akin to Black Lives Matter, all at a time when the UK was locked down again. I wrote about it at the time.
Well, I wanted to talk indirectly about this case. More directly, it is how it has been reported by the media.
It has been known for some time that this murder was committed by an off-duty policeman. He even pleaded guilty, so it was a fast trial.
That someone can do this to another person, I’m basically already thinking that this guy is as bad as bad can be. It doesn’t really get any worse.
But his trial has come around, and just the way it was reported by the media left me angry that somebody, some editor, has sat down and decided how this case should be reported, so as to make it as sensational as possible. That kind-of calculating element was what angered me.
First we learned how he tricked her to get into his car. He basically faked an arrest. Pulled out his warrant card, read her her rights. Her “offence” was supposed to have been lockdown-related.
All while telling us this, the journalist was saying and then he did this, and then he did this, and so on. And each time, the audience is supposed to say oooh. Just titilating us jucier and jucier details each time.
It turns out that this guy once guarded politicians. I guess that was supposed to shock us, to know that he had at one stage had a position of some responsibility. Oooh!
I don’t know. Maybe this is just me, but I don’t like that somebody is sitting there in a studio, calculating how to drip-feed this information to me, evoking gradually worse feelings toward this guy. It seemed like they were trying to sensationalise the whole, sad affair.
Just to give a sense of closure, the guy pleaded guilty and got a full life term. I mean, how could it have been anything else?