Drawing a line underneath it

Focussing in on sport this week, with a couple of big matches, a few questionable decisions and a whole lot of implications for our national sporting culture.

The Liverpool-Everton derby yesterday was a memorable one. The first red card for Everton came for a tackle by Tony Hibbert, whose collision with Steven Gerrard brought the Liverpool midfielder tumbling down as he raced clear on goal. The second was given in second half injury time when Phil Neville momentarily seemed to forget he was not the goalkeeper, cynically palming away Lucas' strike from the top right-hand corner of the Everton goal.

Liverpool for their part escaped sendings off, albeit miraculously. Dirk Kuyt's flying two footed kick a la Eric Cantona aimed at Neville in the 64th minute was deemed deserving only of yellow. Even more outrageously, seconds before the final whistle Everton's unfortunate Jolean Lescott seemed to be judo-thrown by Jamie Carragher in the Liverpool box. No foul, no card this time and final whistle, 2-1 to Liverpool.

Premier League football matches now resemble unpleasant dogfights. Cheating as much as possible, accusing opponents of cheating in turn and treating match officials as contemptible is the order of the day. On various occasions in the match yesterday, the referee was pushed and intimidated by players who doubtlessly take their lead from characters such as John Terry. (In the recent Chelsea-Manchester United fixture, the England captain inexplicably avoided a massive post-match fine for grabbing the referee's arm which at the time contained a red card destined for John Obi Mikel.)

But as far away from the idea of 'sport' that football seems to be getting, such antics are not to be blamed for falling values. The real culprits are the football authorities and the sporting press. There seems to be no official willingness to bring footballers and managers to task for their deception, fakery and foul-mouthed intimidation tactics. It is commonplace for players to escape punishment for behaviour which in other sports would result in long bans and considerable financial penalties.

The press for their part largely lack integrity when it comes to constructive criticism on the way the game is conducted. Perhaps fearful of losing their jobs, acquiescent football commentators have been afraid to point out the ruthlessness of modern methods, washing their hands time and again of the frequent unpleasantness. While all of this goes on, the next generation watches, listens and takes note of the lesson: cheating is integral to sporting success.

London trains were packed even more than usual on Saturday night, as people streamed into the capital to watch England defend their title against the dangerous South Africans in the Rugby World Cup final. England, a side beleaguered and struggling with form in the build-up to the competition, had shown confidence, power and incredible intelligence to battle through to the final after initial defeat to their co-finalists in the group stages.

A competition which had shone with excitement, courage and upset sadly ended with defeat for Brian Ashton's men, with South Africa taking a 15-6 victory. The result, however, was controversial in light of some of the decisions made by match officials, and press coverage of the match so far has, in some quarters, fallen short of satisfactory.*

The cool goal kicking from Percy Montgomery, heroics from man-of-the-match Victor Matfield in the line out and unremitting pressure applied by the Springboks were all justly praised in the press. The BBC, Guardian and Sky sites, however, were notable in their thinness of coverage towards the key refereeing decisions which ultimately thwarted brave and brilliant English efforts.

The only try of the match seemed to have come just after the restart, with Matthew Tait picking up a bouncing pass in midfield and slicing through the Springbok defence. Tait, 21, offloaded in the tackle to the man brought in to replace the injured Josh Lewsy, Mark Cueto, who dramatically dived in at the corner flag for the score.

With questions over whether Cueto's foot had been in touch at the time of the try, Irish referee Alain Rolland called on the video referee to take an official second look. As the minutes ticked by in Paris, ITV replays clearly showed the offending foot over the touch line but, crucially, raised from the ground. In a decision hard to believe in a game so huge and so tightly fought, the try was disallowed by Referee Rolland and the Australian video official who had presumably seen footage similar to that broadcast all around the world.

After the match, Mark Cueto spoke about his disallowed effort: "From the front the grounding was fine, from the back you could clearly see my foot lifted up in the air before it went into touch. For me there was no question it was a try."

Cueto also commented on the curious penalties rather generously awarded to South Africa: "There was a couple of times that we got penalised for crossing [obstruction] and there were a couple of times when the South Africans did the same and didn't get penalised."

Sometimes it can be surprisingly different to watch something with your own eyes and then to read about it in the press as written by someone else. But one thing the press did get right was the fact that England can take much pride from their performance in the match, and in the tournament as whole. They have put the ghosts of failure well and truly behind them and risen to conquer some of the finest rugby teams in the world. It remains to be seen what reaction there may be, if any, to Referee Rolland’s performance.

* The Independent proves a notable exception. You can read the excellent match analysis at:

http://sport.independent.co.uk/rugby_union/world_cup_news/article3082034.ece

Moving On

Looking to South America this week, and some brave steps forward on the part of countries still struggling with the past.

The BBC reported on 11 October that a former Colombian justice minister had been sentenced to 24 years in prison for his part in the murder of presidential candidate Luis Carlos Galan in 1989. Alberto Santofimio, formerly a political rival of Galan, had been an associate of infamous narco trafficker and Medellin cartel boss, Pablo Escobar. Arrested previously in 1995 for taking drugs money, Mr Santofimio was accused of ordering the hit squad that publicly assassinated Mr Galan during a public meeting in the town of Soacha, Cundinamarca province.

In a country where speaking out against the cartels and mafia bosses often means death, Mr Galan had courageously campaigned on an anti-drugs, anti-corruption platform, promising extradition to the United States of those involved in the illicit trade. The assassination and the subsequent silence had come to symbolise the repression and fear running through Colombian public life, and the high cost of speaking out against the political underworld.

The trial was watched by Colombians in their millions, and the outcome may yet prove to be an important political milestone in a country where corruption and shady deals still rule the day. A widow and family may now claim some sense of justice, and crucially the state seems ever more willing to address long-buried sins.

The Times of 10 October reported that a Roman Catholic Priest from Argentina had been sentenced to life imprisonment for his part in kidnappings, torture and murder during the so-called ‘Dirty War.’ In the period of brutal military junta rule in the country from 1976 until 1983, it was alleged Christian Von Wernich, 69, had abused his position as chaplain to the Buenos Aires police force by extracting ‘confessions’ from government suspects before handing them over to be tortured and in some cases murdered.

Jorge Rafael Vileda’s military government took power in Argentina after the coup d’etat in 1976, brandishing extreme repression and brutality as a ‘solution’ to perceived political instability. The junta’s fear of militarised left wing and communist groups translated into the widespread and often indiscriminate kidnapping and murder of political activists, professors, students, musicians and their families and friends, with the number of murders estimated to be 30,000.

Long a source of pain for Argentineans, the Dirty War and recent history remains a national burden. Despite some successes in bringing perpetrators to trial, much controversy has surrounded the politicisation of reconciliation and uncertainty over whether to bring the military fully to account. Progress has been made however: in 2006, 24 March (the thirtieth anniversary of the coup) was declared a public holiday, the Day of Memory, Truth and Justice, where people gather to remember the dead and look to the future. And in commenting on the case of Christian Von Wernich, Jorge Bergoglio, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires praised this latest attempt to deal with the past:

“We believe the steps taken by the justice system in clarifying the facts should help renew every citizen’s effort toward reconciliation and serve as a wake-up call to put impunity, hatred and bitterness behind us.”

The Guardian reported this week on new measures proposed by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. In a move designed to boost the profile of indigenous rights, school textbooks will be changed in order to emphasize opposition to the present view that the Spanish conquest of South America was “doomed but heroic.” This news came as it was reported the president had renamed the cable car system which passes over capital city Caracas as Warairarepano, “which means big mountain in an indigenous coastal tongue.”

The same paper also reported on October 12th that former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz has endorsed President Chavez’s plan to establish a pan-regional bank, designed specifically for the purpose of serving Latin American economies. Mr Chavez argues that such an institution, now equipped with start-up capital from seven nations, would promote more regional independence and signify a move away from the previously costly loans extended by western nations.

Cuba part 4: an air of decay

Cuba. The images abound: sunshine and salsa, Castro and communism and revolution in the heart of the palm-fringed Caribbean. Perhaps more than any other country romantic preconceptions have become fixed for outsiders, and legend has come to surround this island. But it is precisely for this reason that visitors should endeavour to see the place for themselves, in order to gauge the reality and move beyond the myth.

After the breakdown of the Soviet system in 1991, Cuba entered what is known euphemistically as the Periodo Especial (Special Period), with financial support cut and political alliance dissolved. Without the support of its long-term benefactor and still the subject of US embargo, the nation found itself looking for other forms of vital foreign revenue. Opening up to tourism was the solution grudgingly formulated and Cuba, closed for many years to foreigners, once again became a world tourist destination.

Nowadays, those seeking a hassle-free beach holiday can find luxury purpose built resorts in Cuba which cater for the all-inclusive bucket-and-spade crowd. As in other parts of the Caribbean, these places have been kept carefully away from the local population and the grittiness of local life. One such resort, Cayo Coco, is located on an archipelago along the northeast coast of the island, linked to the mainland only by a causeway of some 27 miles. Consisting entirely of high class hotels, facilities and other tourist attractions, the place is totally sterile of Cuban influence, and since 2005 even has its own airport. Outsiders see neither hide nor hair of the culture in places such as these and risk no interaction with the locals. Consequently, they leave their exotic destination somewhat confused about where they have actually been.

More adventurous travellers risk visiting Cuba independently, hoping to catch a taste of a vanishing world and urged by tourist guides to ‘go now before it’s too late.’ Touching down at Jose Marti International airport, and the visitor steps immediately into a time warp. Hardly off the plane, the visitor is confronted by tobacco smoke, stifling humidity and groups of people milling around and socialising against the backdrop of garish red plastic and concrete polytechnic architecture. The airport is a vision from 1970s Africa. The hustling starts immediately as the travellers look for taxis and change dollars and euros into the convertible pesos, the obligatory currency for outsiders only available within Cuba.

People arriving in Havana for the first time may find the experience traumatic and expectations swiftly take a dive. The much touted atmosphere of grandeur, charm and decadence in reality translates into decay, dirt and shabbiness for visitor and resident alike. Buildings which must have been visions of opulence and grandeur in the thirties and forties now threaten to crumble and collapse upon their unfortunate occupants (something which in fact happens with sad regularity). The overall impression of the centro area of the city is that of a bombed-out shell. Many people sit on street corners or mill around aimlessly and only the most insensitive visitors would fail to pick up the lack of dynamism and optimism in this place.

The widespread presence of the hustlers, or jineteros (translated literally as ‘riders’) promote a skewed relationship between Cubans and visitors, with the former as unscrupulous financial opportunists and the latter as prey. The men will try to sell you things and take you places for a hefty fee, and the prostitutes who inhabit the discos and street corners seek to ensnare the foreign men with well-practiced routines.

Public transport is packed, stifling and incredibly outdated in design, yet there is no option for Cubans going about their everyday business. Taxis are prohibitively expensive and wages low, even for such venerable professions as doctors and lawyers. Motorways in the interior are largely devoid of cars and train networks have gone decades without refurbishment. The infrastructure and transport system of this country, much like the nominal leaders, seem a relic of the past, antiquated and obsolete and struggling to cope with the demands placed upon them.

Fidel for his part has never shied away from the social difficulties of his ideological social revolution. He readily admits in his radio addresses and speeches that times are hard and people must be strong. Often he refers to the sacrifices made by Jose Marti and the tyranny of the United States from which Cuba has remained free. In mitigation for hardship he offers citizens a Cuba with free healthcare, universal education and comparatively high levels of literacy, when studied against other Latin American or ‘third world‘ countries.

On the everyday level, each barrio (neighbourhood) has a Comite de la Defensa de la Revolucion (Committee for the Defence of the Revolution) in which citizens’ participation is strongly encouraged. All community affairs come under this political umbrella with the onus on the individual to work on local issues emphasizing unity and social cohesion. But what is trumpeted as grassroots revolutionary activism and the platform for citizens’ political involvement in reality equates to Big Brother. Should people fail to take active and zealous part in these ‘committees’, suspicion can be aroused and life can become much harder in terms of jobs and standing in the community.

Few Cubans will openly admit to it, but boredom and frustration can be felt in this place, particularly among the younger people. Citizens are very restricted in where they can go and need official permission to travel to other provinces if their job does not require it. This factor, coupled with the tourism apartheid in operation, means that those trying to meet outsiders or even just people from other areas of the country can find it difficult. In the face of this system of repression the tendency is to be lazy, and many Cubans in Havana and elsewhere can be seen simply idling day and night, seemingly out of work or unwilling to work.

Education of course is provided by the state and so the visitor comes across many university-trained engineers, architects and doctors. But with movement frozen, wages pitiful and a stifled economy, peoples’ aspirations have been choked of oxygen. Thus a highly trained workforce often forego the practicing of their professions in favour of hustling tourists or working hotels where dollars may be made.

Cuba asks stern questions of the traveller. What price ideology when set against basic standards of infrastructure, economic freedom and personal aspiration? What price freedom from tyranny when freedom means community informers and lack of basic goods? The stagnation and restriction in evidence leads to inevitable meditation upon the suitability of the system, and how well its leadership is serving its people. For the people of Cuba are its greatest resource, strong-willed, good humoured and hard working by nature. Cuba is more than merely a place for morbid tourist fascination, it is a place with tremendous yet latent national potential. At the time of Fidel’s passing we may feel admiration for the ideological stand to which he has devoted his life. But at the same time we must hope the people of Cuba can seize their opportunity and adapt their nation to a more open and forward looking model.

Freedom to Speak

Over the pond this week, and a collection of recent stories which raise questions over freedom of speech and intellectual right to reply.

Hitting the headlines on Monday, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, who played guest at New York’s Columbia University SIPA-World Leaders Forum. The remarkable reception given to him by University President Lee Bollinger caused great stir among news networks. Mr Bollinger pre-empted his speaker, roundly criticising him with a long list of charges. The 2,136-word prelude cited Mr Ahemedinejad’s denial of the Holocaust and alleged sponsoring of terrorism, proxy war against US troops in Iraq and malevolent nuclear ambitions.

The New York Times provided a sample of the highlights:

“Let’s, then, be clear at the beginning, Mr. President you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator”

…and…

“I am only a professor, who is also a university president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better.”

No punches having been pulled by the hosts, Mr Ahmedinejad hit back with an understandably nonplussed yet measured response:

“In Iran, tradition requires when you invite a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students enough to allow them to make their own judgment, and don’t think it’s necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of complaints to provide vaccination to the students and faculty.”

Before, during and after the address, news networks showed students angrily demonstrating against the speaker’s presence at the top US university. US tabloids also reacted with predictable fury to the visit, coming up with some truly memorable headlines. The New York Daily News’ header was, “The Evil has Landed,” whereas the Daily Post stuck more conservatively to “Madman.”

Little thought seems to have gone into the handling of the Iranian president in New York. Seeking to emphasize the importance of freedom of speech, Columbia shot themselves in the foot. Reports focused overwhelmingly not on the content of the forum, but on the frosty reception given. Certain US academics must have felt regret. Not so Mr Ahmedinejad, who must have been rubbing his hands in glee.

On the receiving end at another US institution, University of Florida student Andrew Meyer. The unfortunate 21-year old was tasered at a recent question and answer session given by former presidential candidate John Kerry.* The Daily Telegraph reported that after questioning Kerry over the controversial 2004 presidential election result, Meyer refused to relinquish the microphone after his allotted question time. He was consequently dragged to the rear of the debating hall and pinned down by several officers, managing to scream, ‘Don’t tase me, bro!’ before being zapped and taken into custody.

News networks showed the incredible scene widely, and the BBC website reported subsequently that an inquiry would be conducted into whether campus police had used the weapon appropriately given the circumstances.

The taser scene itself scene revives memories of a similarly controversial incident filmed in Russia in August 2000. Cameras captured the moment Nadya Tylik, mother of one of the victims of the Kursk submarine disaster, was apparently restrained and subdued by way of an injection in the neck. At the time, she was publicly and vocally attacking the Russian deputy Prime Minister over the slack official response.

Michael Moore, another man never afraid to speak his mind, has been in the news of late with his latest cinematic effort, Sicko, soon to be released in the UK. The documentary aims to provide a critical look at the American healthcare system by comparing it with other countries. Having already run a piece looking at Moore’s treatment of the Cuban healthcare system, Monday’s edition of the Guardian featured interviews with 16 NHS professionals who had seen the film, in order to gauge some British reaction.

Striking in the 16 interviews conducted was the number of people who considered Moore’s depiction of the NHS as one-sided and somewhat “rosy.” This from Karim Ahmed, an Accident and Emergency Registrar:

“…in terms of the health service it is obviously showing just the very best side of our NHS and the very worst parts of the US system.”

And this from Zhaleh Khaleeli, an NHS researcher:

“Moore is bringing a lot of issues to the attention of the American public that they probably would not think about much otherwise. But it doesn't translate that well over here. We're used to a bit more sophistication, we want both sides of the picture. As far as the NHS goes, you can see he is glossing over all sorts of problems.”

Could it seriously be the case that Michael Moore makes biased documentaries in order to push his left wing views? Certainly Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine would say so. Their own soon to be released documentary, Manufacturing Dissent, focuses on the tactics used by Moore, suggesting he misleads and badgers interviewees and manipulates opinion with unbalanced evidence.


*You can see the full article on Andrew Meyer and the video of the taser incident at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/18/wkerry118.xml
And you can get your “Don’t tase me, bro” T-shirts at:
http://threadpit.com/store/product.php?productid=236&item=236

Singing out and keeping shtum

Two stories this week which demonstrate agenda-making politics as one cause gets trumpeted and another is downplayed.

Negative stories dealing with Zimbabwe have been getting lots of airtime recently. Both ITV and Sky devoted the week to special reports from inside the country, focusing mainly on individuals' stories of day to day hardship and tales of torture and coercion. Shaky hidden cameras have shown us bare shelves inside supermarkets and the nervous testament of those unfortunate enough to have run foul of President Robert Mugabe's Green Bombers (his Zanu PF youth militia trained in intelligence, martial arts and 'Zimbabwean customs'). The rate of inflation is now cited as among the worst in the world, currently running close to 4000%. These days in Zimbabwe, we are told, money is not worth the paper it is printed upon.

The treatment meted out to Mugabe's leading political opponents has also been the focus of reports. Only recently, pictures of the MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai appearing beaten and battered garnered attention. Another outspoken critic of John Howard’s "grubby dictator", former Archbishop of Zimbabwe Pius Ncube, suffered a similarly public bashing it emerged this week. Pictures of a man alleged to be the Archbishop having sex with a married parishioner were taken by secret camera and aired on Zimbabwean television for several nights in a row. The planting of the camera was widely seen as a sting operation against one of Mugabe's most respected critics and resulted in the resignation of the archbishop before the Pope.

Less conspicuous in the media's glare this week was the shadowy military incursion made by Israel into Syria. According to the BBC website, and somewhat alarmingly, "Israel and Syria technically remain at war." The news that strikes had taken place was mentioned only quietly on a number of news channels and inside pages. It was confirmed by American sources that near the beginning of the month Israeli jets had entered Syrian airspace and hit military installations. BBC Newsnight discussed the both the Israeli news blackout and rumours that the material attacked, possibly nuclear in nature, was anything from North Korean to Iranian in provenance. Israeli opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu reportedly congratulated Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on the raid, saying "When a prime minister does something that is important in my view and necessary to Israel's security... I give my backing."

It seems curious that this story did not garner more widespread interest, given the current situation in the Middle East. This week French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner spoke out about the growing threat of regional instability in the shape of Iran, saying "We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war." Seemingly in response to fighting talk from the West and the threat of US backed sanctions, Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responded: "Those [countries] who assume that decaying methods such as psychological war, political propaganda and the so-called economic sanctions would work and prevent Iran's fast drive toward progress are mistaken."

It is a truth well known that Israel is habitually treated with great indulgence by Western politicians and, by extension, its media. George Galloway aside, few public figures would dare to examine, let alone criticize what in other circumstances would be considered highly controversial and belligerent intervention. History and interests will continue to rule the day when swords get drawn in the Middle East and the media will fall in line, shouting when needed or being quiet as in this case.

Zimbabwe, on the other hand, represents a soft target and risk-free subject; carte blanche for an emotional, moralistic approach from editors and reporters. Mugabe’s tyranny may indeed merit press attention and worthy calls for action, but in the final analysis, the media must be seen to handle every story with equal courage. If not, political motivations and agenda-based reporting will continue to be perceived.

Cuba part three: The Personality Cults

Looking through the Museo de la Revolucion in downtown Havana, tourist and Cubans alike are to be found marvelling at the artefacts, documents and antique weapons of Castro’s 1950s revolution.

The famous yacht Granma, used to bring 81 revolutionaries across the turbulent Caribbean from Mexico, has been repaired and placed in a kind of exhibit-greenhouse across the way from the museum. Visitors struggling with the Caribbean heat can climb onto a plinth and squint through at the old boat under the watchful gaze of deadly earnest young soldiers. Parked around the hulking and encased vessel are tanks, planes and military vehicles of the era. A bright red truck stands out from the rest, with ‘Rapid Delivery’ painted in English on the side. The relic is riddled with bullet holes, leaving the visitor to wonder what in fact the truck delivered with so much haste.

Curios aside, the enduring image of this place is undoubtedly the man photographed at every stage of the revolution. Battling up jungle mountain paths lugging weapons and equipment, perched atop the advancing tanks, through thick and thin, Fidel’s determined countenance never appears anything but imperious. He towers over his warriors in each grainy still: a forceful young man in black and white, commanding, indomitable, bullet-proof and immune to defeat.

Romanticised image and idealised courage have been tools shrewdly employed by the state, of course, in the great tradition of communist propaganda. Fidel, like Stalin and Mao before him, is well-versed in the cult of personality and has elevated his companeros to hero status. Che Guevara, forever the symbol of rebellious resistance - Hasta la Victoria Siempre! - and his loyal comrade Camilo Cienfuegos, are forever enshrined and immortalized in a thousand street names, statues and iconic black and whites.

More recently Cuba added Vilma Espin Galois to the pantheon of patriotic heroes. The recently-deceased President of the Federation of Cuban Women was wife to Raul Castro and active participant in the 1950s revolutionary battles. Her death marked another milestone in the passing of the Cuban old guard and the perpetuation of the national myth.

Every town in Cuba paid tribute to Vilma midway through June 2007. She was eulogised as the creator of the ‘revolution within the revolution’: a campaigner for women’s rights and guiding figure for rights and dignity within Cuba. Having played her own part in the uncertain actions of the 1950s, she later went on to establish the ‘Circulos Infantiles’, a national system of crèches where women could leave their children in care in order to work.

Amidst genuine sadness and international tributes, inside the country the familiar party propaganda machine could be felt moving into high gear. Emotionally charged documentaries were aired and powerful interviews with the common people of Cuba filmed to emphasize sorrowful solidarity. Granma, Cuba’s state-run newspaper, was given over almost in its entirety to obituary and testament, and on camera representatives of the nation mournfully extolled Vilma’s saintly qualities. Behind the shots could always be seen hundreds upon hundreds of grief-stricken people, filing past as one to pay tribute and lay flowers.

Moments like this demonstrate how anachronistic Cuba has survived thus far in a world of consumerism and democracy. The leaders, be they dead or fast aging, have been carefully portrayed as benign and shining role models, impossibly heroic. Duty, sacrifice and solidarity have become the binding concrete of the nation state. But as admirable as these values may be, the overall sense is of a nation stuck socially and politically in another age. As such, it is a model surely doomed to a sad demise.

Down the Garden Path

The case of missing Madeleine McCann has taken another dramatic twist with the naming of her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, as formal suspects. The development has brought shock and confusion to press and public alike and now, whatever the outcome, a price will have to be paid.

Until 6 September the human interest story of the summer, so beloved by the tabloids, was getting less and less coverage. The three-year old who went missing from the family’s holiday villa in Portugal on 3 May was the subject of an unprecedented campaign created by her parents. Massive media interest and public sympathy as a result meant hundreds of thousands of pounds donated to the Find Madeleine (Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd) fund. Car windows, local shops, national supermarkets, international airports and the mass media were enlisted at every opportunity, issuing appeals and using striking ‘Find Maddie’ posters. The new British Prime Minister and even Pope Benedict XVI publicly offered their consolation and messages of hope to the McCanns.

In many ways the story was made for the British press: small defenceless blonde child of hard-working respectable British parents goes missing in foreign location, with the shadowy suggestion of a paedophile attack. Horror and heartstrings sell papers, so we were bombarded with pictures of ‘Maddie’ and offers of thousands of pounds in reward for information.

Recent events, however, have changed the tone. The outpouring of sympathy and good will towards the McCanns is now suddenly replaced by a more circumspect approach. Kay Burley of Sky News quickly replaced her emotional and somewhat obnoxious ‘find missing Maddie’ epithet with a rather more foreboding ‘missing Madeleine McCann case.’

Since the 12-hour questioning of Kate McCann and subsequent announcement of both parents as ‘arguidos’ or formal suspects, the reaction of the media has changed from vote of sympathy to outright feeding frenzy. Massive mobs of reporters have camped outside the respective McCann residences in the resort town of Praia da Luz and the McCann’s home town of Rothley, Leicestershire. The McCanns, for their part have described the situation as “surreal, unbearable…an unending nightmare.”

To date Portuguese ‘sources’ have revealed that tests on DNA material allegedly found in the McCann hire-car have tested an 88% positive match for Madeleine. And amid repeated speculation, the BBC learned yesterday that the Portuguese police indeed got hold of a laptop belonging to Gerry McCann, and ‘a copy’ of Kate McCann’s diary. The Portuguese prosecutor based in Portimao has now handed a dossier of evidence to a judge who reportedly has 10 days to consider whether to bring a case.

The few confirmed developments have fuelled wild speculation in the press. Theories include the idea that the body was dumped by the parents after Madeleine was given an overdose of sleeping pills which killed her, accidentally or otherwise. Another postulation suggests that the Portuguese police bungled the forensic collection of the DNA material from the car, somehow cross-contaminating the vehicle from material they had collected previously. Some Portuguese newspapers have been reporting on the quality of parenting Madeleine may have received, alleging that Kate McCann seems ‘cold’ and that her diary contained passages where she described how ‘hyperactive’ her children were in the events leading up to the disappearance.

Few offices and pub conversations can have escaped the morbid fascination as we argue for and against the people in the middle of all of this. Jonathan Freedland described the widespread moral confusion in Wednesday’s Guardian:

“…the McCanns have now either suffered the cruellest fate imaginable - not only to have innocently lost their beloved daughter but also to have been publicly accused of a wicked crime - or they are guilty of the most elaborate and heinous confidence trick in history…”

It is now very hard to see anything positive coming from this case, however it may end. If the parents are found guilty, somehow our British values and trust itself will have taken a public battering. If they are found guilty unsatisfactorily, or it emerges the Portuguese police have bungled or -God forbid- framed the McCanns, how will Britain react to Portugal?

The proper job of the press, given the current situation, is to report only the facts and respect the McCanns as they approach what appears to be their most serious trial yet. We need balanced, non-hysterical reporting although what we will get may well be quite the opposite.