Public interest or ratings?

**Ms Piggy** · 14th July 2009, 18:24

I had emailed this letter to the DomPost today but they cannot publish it while the trial is still being conducted. Anyhoo, I need to vent somewhere so you're the fortunate recipients!

To Whom it May Concern:

Am I only one of a few who change the channel whenever I hear that any details of the 'Sophie Elliott' murder are about to be reported on? I find it revolting, disturbing and I am seriously concerned that some parts of the media appear to be okay about publishing graphic details of this case including exactly how Ms Elliott was injured by her assailant, the details of their sex life and then an almost blow by blow account from the perpetrator himself of what he did to her. Is it in the "public interest" to have this amount of detail? I think not! Therefore, I would like to know why the media feel it's acceptable to air this case in such detail during the 6pm news? Is it the sort of information we want our children to be exposed to? Or my own sensitivities? In general it is my opinion that TV news reporting has become more unnecessarily visually graphic, we see bodies of the injured, close ups of the grieving and a general invasion of people's privacy and dignity all in the name of "public interest".

Yours sincerely, Ms Piggy

**Blackshear** · 14th July 2009, 18:28

I quite agree. It's as if it's a race to provide the viewers with as much graphical shock material as possible, as if it will make them look like the good kid who made the playground safer.

I like eating my fucking pasta with meatballs, my T-bone steak and choritzos, goddamnit!

**sunhuntin** · 14th July 2009, 20:34

im getting sick to death of the smug motherfucker. seems almost pleased with himself for taking the life of beautiful young girl, and then subjecting her mother to what amounts to heresay. he should NOT be allowed to talk about her life before they got together, and her sex life has nothing whatsoever to do with the case. if it does, why hasnt his been called into question, cos i bet hes done a lot worse in bed than sophie ever did.

**Winter** · 14th July 2009, 20:43

I whole heartily agree.

**Usarka** · 14th July 2009, 20:43

Bad news sucks arse.

**Pussy** · 14th July 2009, 20:46

I'd quite happily watch the public hanging of that soft-cock Wetherston on telly....

**ajturbo** · 14th July 2009, 20:56

today, i made a point of watching... just to see why i was turning off....

now i have been around the a while now and have seen and done and heard lots of things in my time... some nice, some not so nice.......

but even i do NOT need to see this... sure i have to option of turning off the telly, or not reading the paper...

but i still think that this sort of thing is not looking good for NZ... how can the judge allow it?

the guy is a looser, he is on the hot seat smiling and even laughing at one point.... he has admitted that he did it.... book him and tell him what the year is that he will be free......
manslaughter/murder....= the same thing, he KILLED the girl, it was NOT in self defense, it was self gratification.... she will not laugh at me again ....

why waste my tax $$$$ .. just give the judge some time to think how long he will be butt raped.....

**Naki Rat** · 14th July 2009, 21:05

Originally Posted by Blackshear

I quite agree. It's as if it's a race to provide the viewers with as much graphical shock material as possible, as if it will make them look like the good kid who made the playground safer.

I like eating my fucking pasta with meatballs, my T-bone steak and choritzos, goddamnit!

It's appealing to the same deadshits who watch reality TV. Just catering for the lowest common denominator and there's plenty of those as the population keeps dumbing down

**topher** · 14th July 2009, 21:20

It's all just a great big electronic magazine designed to sell advertising. The appeal is felt most by those numbnuts and dead fannies who watch reality TV and read Women's Day. Stop revelling in someone else's life. Get your own. Shit, if you're on this forum you've got a bike. Get out and enjoy it.

**rickstv** · 14th July 2009, 21:21

I can't even stand to look at the prick. I change channels and he's on there as well. SHIT I don't think he realises what he's done. This is what they should do to him

Rick.

**peasea** · 14th July 2009, 21:30

Originally Posted by Ms Piggy

I had emailed this letter to the DomPost today but they cannot publish it while the trial is still being conducted. Anyhoo, I need to vent somewhere so you're the fortunate recipients!

To Whom it May Concern:

Am I only one of a few who change the channel whenever I hear that any details of the 'Sophie Elliott' murder are about to be reported on? I find it revolting, disturbing and I am seriously concerned that some parts of the media appear to be okay about publishing graphic details of this case including exactly how Ms Elliott was injured by her assailant, the details of their sex life and then an almost blow by blow account from the perpetrator himself of what he did to her. Is it in the "public interest" to have this amount of detail? I think not! Therefore, I would like to know why the media feel it's acceptable to air this case in such detail during the 6pm news? Is it the sort of information we want our children to be exposed to? Or my own sensitivities? In general it is my opinion that TV news reporting has become more unnecessarily visually graphic, we see bodies of the injured, close ups of the grieving and a general invasion of people's privacy and dignity all in the name of "public interest".

Yours sincerely, Ms Piggy

It's called 'gutter journalism'. No, we don't need the details and you make a valid point when you suggest a channel change. Perhaps you could go the whole hog and switch the bloody thing right off.

Chat to the other half, listen to some Mantovani, stare into each other's eyes and.....stab each other a couple of hundred times to relieve the boredom.

Television is crap. Get a DVD like 'Meet the Feebles' for dinner-time entertainment.

**sil3nt** · 14th July 2009, 21:33

I can't believe we are wasting money putting this fucktard through the court system.

How the hell can anyone sit there so calmly after doing something like that to someone. Every time he opens his mouth he just seems to talk about how fkn smart he thinks he is.

He needs the slowest and most painful death ever.

**Headbanger** · 14th July 2009, 21:38

Seriously, The Judge needs to put a stop to this crap, Tell that piece of shit to stfu, and tell him some truths.

Weatherston said he had been frustrated by Elliott having a trust at Otago University named in her honour while he was incarcerated for killing her.

Weatherston said Elliott had a "contrived legacy" and there had been a "misrepresentation of her character".

"In my view she is an attempted murderer," Weatherston said.

**Ms Piggy** · 14th July 2009, 21:51

Originally Posted by Usarka

Bad news sucks arse.

Yep it does and it sucks arse way more when I have to hear/see violence with graphic detail in the name of journalism!

**riffer** · 14th July 2009, 21:51

Taking this back to the topic originally posted...

Cathy - are you seriously suggesting that children should be watching the news?

At the end of the day, it happened, they're allowed to report it, and they will sensationalise it as much as possible in order to get the ratings. Commercial reality unfortunately.

Our kids don't watch the news for a damn good reason. It isn't G rated.

But reality often isn't.

Thread: Public interest or ratings?

Thread Tools

Public interest or ratings?

Shoot the prick.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions