Raoul Moat and the Rothbury media circus

THE MANHUNT for Raoul Moat gripped the nation this time last week as, with little else to report on, the 24-hour news channels went into overdrive.

Sky News and the BBC News Channel analysed every single emerging aspect of Northumbria Police's attempts to apprehend a man who had killed one and severely injured two others.

The level of coverage has drawn criticism from Martin Robbins on his blog post, titled Seven Questions for the Media.

In response, the excellent FleetStreetBlues blog has provided answers to each point, concluding that "the implication that journalists were too intrusive, too inquisitive and too obstructive to police is just inaccurate".

Personally, I thought the level of coverage was largely acceptable. This was a major news story - it involved one-tenth of the total police force in England and an RAF Tornado.

The nature of the manhunt, with details of locations, vehicles and letters, slowly seeping out, also suited a 24-hour news platform.

The climax to the case was utterly compelling viewing, and even though the ending was somewhat unedifying, it was also predictable.

However, my issue with the media on this case is not that the coverage was there but how it was conducted. Many of my gripes relate to the age-old problem of inaccuracy.

As a north east lad, I suppose I am at an advantage in that I know how to pronounce Ponteland (not 'Pontyland'), where Northumbria Police has its HQ. Or Seaton Delaval (not 'Seaton De-la-val'), where Moat allegedly held up a fish and chip shop.

Additionally, news presenters and reporters will presumably now be aware that the 'o' in Rothbury is pronounced like the one in hot, and not as in go.

These mispronunciations may seem a little persnickety on my part but place names are absolute basics of reporting and the continued errors were rather embarrassing.

Surely it was not too much to ask somebody local if they were getting the name of their town right.

Unfortunately, the inaccuracy did not just end with reporters getting a little tongue-tied and the geography of north east England was pulled apart at its seams.

At one stage, the BBC News Channel reported that Wrekenton was part of Newcastle even though it is south of Gateshead. The same channel also moved the border of North Tyneside so that it included the A1/A69 roundabout where PC David Rathband was shot.

Sky were no better, highlighting Birtley on a map as being to the west of Newcastle when again it is to the south of Gateshead, near Chester-le-Street.

But the big individual prize for inaccurate reporting goes to Sky's Kay Burley.

Burley repeatedly told us she was in Rothbury, "25 miles to the north east of Newcastle upon Tyne", even though that location would mean she was standing in the middle of the North Sea.

For the record, Rothbury is north-north-west of Newcastle. Again, the media fell foul of some fundamental inaccuracies - was it really too much work to ask?

Of course, Burley is not a particularly well-liked figure, her reputation having suffered further after the General Election when she was embroiled in an unseemly spat with an interviewee protesting in favour of proportional representation.

Burley was cleared this week by Ofcom of having breached impartiality rules but she provided plenty of ammunition for her detractors from her spell in Rothbury.

She veered from the completely inane - "If Moat is on the move, he could be absolutely anywhere, couldn't he?" - to the overly-dramatic, asking one resident, "Have you got enough food in to just sit this out? It could take hours."

Worst of all, as matters came to a head last Friday, she cut to an advertisement break with an unforgivably tactless line. "It's tense, it's dramatic, and it's live here on Sky" - it was as if she were introducing a top-of-the-table Premier League clash.

Little wonder that the satirical online newspaper The Daily Mash felt quite comfortable suggesting Burley should be taken down by taken down by armed police.

Elements of the media clearly attempted to create their own narrative, causing some harassment to the residents of Rothbury - probably more than the situation itself.

A low-point was reached by the BBC on Friday evening shortly after news broke of Moat having been located near the river in Rothbury and a police cordon was set up.

The cordon caused one woman, Paula, to become rather distressed as her elderly mother was effectively trapped inside her house.

She willingly gave a short, emotional interview but, as he broke off to speak to her mother on her mobile phone, the interviewer asked her to put the call on Speakerphone before taking the phone off her and doing it himself.

Attempts to script a narrative about anxiety among the Rothbury people had gone on all week but Paula's reaction was an exception.

As events between Moat and the police came to a head on Friday, the broadcasters ramped up the fear factor once more. One such exchange on Sky:
Interviewer: "This must be quite surreal for you."
Resident: "Yes", followed by a long pause.
Interviewer: "Are you frightened?"
Resident: "No, there's plenty of police about."

There was a similar interview on the radio with a resident whose house has been used by police to gain access to the area where the stand-off with Moat happened:
Interviewer: "So they screamed at you to go back in?"
Woman: "No, they just asked quite normally."
Interviewer: "And they (the police) rushed through your house?"
Woman: "No, they walked through very carefully."

The story was surely dramatic enough without the media needing to put words in the mouths of Rothbury residents.

At least the media adhered properly to the blackouts requested by the police on matters such as the hostage situation in the opening days - for that, they deserve credit.

Reporters were also right to ask questions of the police about their lack of response to the warning from Durham Prison, the length of time over which the investigation took place, and the use of Taser guns.

These were legitimate enquiries and it would be a strange world if journalists were not seeking answers to them, even though it is likely they will have to wait for the reports from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

Until then, idle speculation and misguided commentaries are likely to be the order of the coming weeks, the worst of which makes Moat out to be the victim in this saga.

Several sick Facebook groups have already sprung up with thousands of members, many ready to acclaim Moat as some kind of anti-hero. Particular credit is given to Moat for his maiming of a police officer for life.

Moat's attention-seeking 'woe is me' attitude was evident in his 49-page letter and, at times, the media encouraged the idea that he was a victim of society.

Unfortunately, the brain-dead idiots of this world have picked up on this and made him a martyr with flowers left at the Rothbury riverside and outside his front door in the west of Newcastle.

Of course, some of the cretinous oxygen-wasters would have supported him anyway but the media must take some of the blame for him becoming such a cause célèbre in death.

Moat was a violent man, and a killer, for whom no sympathy should be reserved. He may have defied the police for over a week but he failed to terrorise the residents of Rothbury.

These are the only current known facts of this depressing (though fascinating) case - and they are enough of a story without the need for additional narratives.