Madelaine Mccann: A Global Obsession - Channel 5 Tue 19:00 18 Nov

Madelaine Mccann: A Global Obsession





Tue 19:00 18 Nov


Documentary looking into the reason why the disappearance of Madeleine McCann continues to make headline news when hundreds of children go missing every year? Journalist Martin Frizell - who broke the story in the UK in 2007 - analyses the unprecedented campaign run by Madeleine's parents to keep their daughter in the public eye.

http://www.channel5.com/shows/madelaine-mccann-a-global-obsession/episodes/madelaine-mccann-a-global-obsession

It sounds interesting but I won't get too hopeful as Martin Frizell is married to Fiona Phillips!

To quote the Radio Times reviewer: "....a greedy media would later turn on the McCanns with unbridled ferocity when scrutiny, rumour and innuendo became pitiless".

Is this the Documentary Winston Smith mentioned when he joined the forum? hope so.

Just noticed they have spelt Madeleine wrong, with an A!!  I just copied and pasted it, so not me.

......no capital C in McCann either.

It didn't escape my notice but at least there isn't a dodgy apostrophe anywhere!

Considering that they can't even get the poor wee thing's name right, it hardly fills me with confidence for the rest of it.

It's hard to imagine that anyone connected to Fiona Phillips will come up with an unbiased report.

http://www.channel5.com/shows/madeleine-mccann-a-global-obsession/episodes/madelaine-mccann-a-global-obsession

The link has changed slightly.

Ha, they have corrected the spelling!

Not the second time they haven't! It's still poor old "mad Elaine".

costello wrote:Is this the Documentary Winston Smith mentioned when he joined the forum? hope so.

Yep, it's the one.  It was commissioned and made at the same time as the Haligen documentary and was supposed to be shown months ago.  Viacom's takeover of Channel 5 delayed it.

Sad to see they're still having trouble spelling 'Madeleine'.

It does strike me that these documentaries, ostensibly supporting the McCanns, actually keep reminding the viewer of the fingers once pointed at them by the media.  A sort of televisual passive aggression . . .

Viacom ... !
I've been in the "business" for many, many years. We used to call them back-stabbing vipers ...

Châtelaine wrote:Viacom ... !
I've been in the "business" for many, many years. We used to call them back-stabbing vipers ...

Still, better than Richard Desmond.

At the time [talking 20++ years ago], seeing the media giants arise, I said: with those you don't need a military coup to control a country [or a continent, or the world as for that matter].

Châtelaine wrote:At the time [talking 20++ years ago], seeing the media giants arise, I said: with those you don't need a military coup to control a country [or a continent, or the world as for that matter].

Maybe your username should have been Cassandra . . .

LOL

But, no, I go by my real identity. I am a Châtelaine :-)

Châtelaine wrote:At the time [talking 20++ years ago], seeing the media giants arise, I said: with those you don't need a military coup to control a country [or a continent, or the world as for that matter].

And that's why we must fight tooth and nail to keep the internet free and unregulated.

In my former incarnations I always had more time for Viacom than the sideswiping cannibals at News Corp/Fox and AOLTW, but ultimately there wasn't much between em. They'd sell their grandmothers for a buck, and make a film about doing it for another buck.

The mccanns don't manage to get rid of the media and of us.
If they would not have insisted on the review of the investigation, they would have felt happier now.

Here is the trailer for the programme.....

paracetamol wrote:The mccanns don't manage to get rid of the media and of us.
If they would not have insisted on the review of the investigation, they would have felt happier now.

I believe the McCanns campaigned for the review because they didn't think it would ever happen - to them, it's what they thought the parents of an 'abducted child' would do.

Enter Rebekah Brooks who, in my opinion, knew full well the extent of the McCanns' involvement and whispered in David Cameron's ear.

Be careful what you wish for . . .

Winston Smith wrote:

paracetamol wrote:The mccanns don't manage to get rid of the media and of us.
If they would not have insisted on the review of the investigation, they would have felt happier now.

I believe the McCanns campaigned for the review because they didn't think it would ever happen - to them, it's what they thought the parents of an 'abducted child' would do.

Enter Rebekah Brooks who, in my opinion, knew full well the extent of the McCanns' involvement and whispered in David Cameron's ear.

Be careful what you wish for . . .

There is a lot of logic in your post - that would tie in with the whole missing child ambassador malarkey

They asked for the impossible - not expecting to get it - and somehow, by someone - it was granted to them

Kinda playing to their hubris

There is mileage in that Winston

Tristar wrote:

Winston Smith wrote:

paracetamol wrote:The mccanns don't manage to get rid of the media and of us.
If they would not have insisted on the review of the investigation, they would have felt happier now.

I believe the McCanns campaigned for the review because they didn't think it would ever happen - to them, it's what they thought the parents of an 'abducted child' would do.

Enter Rebekah Brooks who, in my opinion, knew full well the extent of the McCanns' involvement and whispered in David Cameron's ear.

Be careful what you wish for . . .

There is a lot of logic in your post - that would tie in with the whole missing child ambassador malarkey

They asked for the impossible - not expecting to get it - and somehow, by someone - it was granted to them

Kinda playing to their hubris

There is mileage in that Winston  

After hubris comes Nemesis . . .

It's all in line with asking for the FBI after  just over two months work by the PJ and LP, that got them the dogs instead.

Iirc Gerry mentioned SY  quite early at least a year before that open letter.

The character and psychology of  the two main players at the heart of  this  affair are the key - for obvious reasons no point in expanding on this here - but once that is explained all will be clear imo.

Imagine a different couple in the same situation coming up with exactly the same story - except Mr. And Mrs Bloggs, out of work and credit cards maxed out.  Nobody would have believed them.  

I still think Blair was instrumental in fanning the flames. Imo it was just what he was looking for. Didn't work either, he will never be president of Europe.

Winston Smith wrote:

paracetamol wrote:The mccanns don't manage to get rid of the media and of us.
If they would not have insisted on the review of the investigation, they would have felt happier now.

I believe the McCanns campaigned for the review because they didn't think it would ever happen - to them, it's what they thought the parents of an 'abducted child' would do.

Enter Rebekah Brooks who, in my opinion, knew full well the extent of the McCanns' involvement and whispered in David Cameron's ear.

Be careful what you wish for . . .

Absolutely.

I also agree with Tigger about the psychology of the two main players and I also think Rebekah Brookes recognised them for what they are and played them. She was the McCanns' "friend" while there was mileage in the abduction story but it was a story with a limited shelf life. There was never going be a happy ending and, as people tired of the sightings and charity runs, Madeleine stopped selling.

Rebekah is left with this hugely explosive story about what really happened. This is business, she will not kill the story unless it massively benefits herself and/or News International. However, there is no way to publish without incurring the wrath of the McCanns' legal team - hence the need for the review and subsequent investigation.