Some of my colleagues think that it's really gross that the Herald, who we work with, have taken photos of Mark Lundy today after he got out of jail yesterday.
Now, the photos aren't anything particularly special - he's sitting in the passenger seat of a car, all you can really see is his face, that funny little beard he's got, some sunglasses and his latte coloured hoodie. It tells you nothing and it shows you almost nothing.
And I suspect the reason it shows you almost nothing is because there are very heavy suppression orders about where he lives at the moment. So anything that identifies the town outside of the car, I would imagine, cannot be published.
So they're a little bit limited in what they can show you.
But even though there's almost nothing to see in these photos, boy, are we clicking on this particular story. It was, when I last checked, the most read and most viewed story on the Herald - so people are interested.
And shouldn't the media be reporting and taking photos of things that we're interested in? I would say yes.
Now, I can understand why people are grossed out by this. I suspect a lot of that comes down to the fact that there is significant doubt amongst some people as to Lundy's guilt - just as there was doubt with David Bain, just as there was doubt with Scott Watson.
And so the feeling is, if you think he hasn't done it, then you feel gross about the fact that he keeps on being harassed after serving his time.
But remember, until he proves otherwise, he is a man who was convicted of murdering his wife and daughter, and his trial and his behaviour around that gripped the nation and frankly turned him into one of the most famous - or infamous - people in the country.
So he is a legitimate news story
And it's not really a question of whether the Herald should have taken those photos, it's actually just a question of where you were going to see that photo first. Because you were going to see it somewhere.
If it wasn't on the Herald, it would be on some other news outlet, or just someone popping down to the local coffee shop, seeing Mark Lundy there, taking a photo of him, and putting it on social media.
Cause we all know what he looks like, and clearly we're all interested in him - and it was going to happen sooner or later, wasn't it?
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show HERE - where this article was sourced.
7 comments:
When he explains how brain tissue from the Mrs got on his shirt is when he might be left alone.
Well - you never know. It could have been put there by someone. Remember Arthur Allan Thomas and the planted cartridge shells.
When will the police explain how the murders took place at 3 a.m. and the victims had stomachs full of recently eaten food ?
When will the police explain the unidentified male DNA found under the fingernails on Christine and Amber ?
There were so many things wrong, wrong, wrong about the Lundy cases. In the first trial there was the crazy scenario which had him leaving Petone at about 5.30pm and being back there by 8.30pm. Impossible to make that return trip in three hours. Also at that point in August 2000 there were major roadworks causing delays at Paekakriki.
Second trial. There was zero evidence of his car being on the road in the hours after midnight. Plus there was zero evidence of his car being on the road in the first trial crackpot scenario. Here’s a thought. For any so-called super fast return trip would you risk a breakdown, flat tyre etc, traffic stop, collision, anything?
Clocks. If you check out the Bain case, Watson case, Lundy case, all three were based on absolute misreading of the clocks. For another case where bozo detectives got it utterly wrong read up on the Scott Guy murder story.
Or the Scott Watson frame-up.
The two masted ketch that they were delivered to, not Scott Watson's single masted little vessel.
Often these high profile cases were managed by senior cops due to retire. Sort of swansong grand finale results. Needed.
Post a Comment