‘Bad’ mothers and the ‘Medea’ news frame

**Lamplighter** Sun Jan 08, 2012 10:04 am

Taken from Myths, with thanks. LL

http://eprints.utas.edu.au/9197/2/9197.pdf

An abstract as the whole thing is very long:

Framing the news:
‘bad’ mothers and the ‘Medea’ news frame
Nicola Goc
Abstract
Since three-year-old Madeleine McCann went missing from a Portuguese resort in May 2007, the world’s news services have carried parallel news discourses about this event: one focusing on the search for the child and hypothesising about the identity of the “evil” predator who allegedly kidnapped her; and the other focusing on the “bad” parents who left their children home alone. Since Madeleine’s disappearance there have been many twists and turns in the police investigation, and even more twists and turns in the ongoing news coverage, with both feeding into a strident public discourse which positions the event within conflicting moral frames. The dominant frame centres on the behaviour of the McCanns, and in particular on the mother, Kate. The media framing of the event adopts a style reminiscent of that used in the predigital era, in speculation about Lindy Chamberlain’s role in the disappearance of her daughter Azaria in outback Australia in 1980. Kate McCann has become the central figure in the public discourse about the missing toddler. She has been judged as either guilty or innocent of her child’s disappearance, and depicted in ways which suggest she is a “bad” mother. This paper maps the news coverage and public discourse on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and draws parallels with the 1980 disappearance of Azaria Chamberlain in outback Australia. In doing so, it uncovers a recurrent and disturbing meta-narrative that places both mothers in a deviant “Medea” frame.

**Sabot** Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:45 pm

The whole article is a good read. Thanks, LL.

But I have to say that I have my doubts about Patsy Ramsey, although not enough to outright accuse her. Just some odd things that are open to speculation. And since she is now dead, I don't feel as though I am doing her any harm by wondering.

Lindy Chamberlaine is obviously innocent. And I have no doubts whatsoever about The McCanns.

Bad Mothers? Usually only those who don't think they are. The rest of us just do our best, and sometimes wish that we had done some things differently, presuming that this would have been possible.

**bb1** Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:53 pm

The Ramseys were completely exonerated, Sabot - sadly too late for Mrs Ramsey, who had died of cancer by that time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey

Letter from District Attorney: Ramsey family deemed innocent
On July 9, 2008, the Boulder District Attorney's office announced that as a result of newly developed DNA sampling and testing techniques, the Ramsey family members are no longer considered suspects in the case.[17][18] In light of the new DNA evidence, Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy gave a letter[1] to John Ramsey the same day, officially apologizing to the Ramsey family:

This new scientific evidence convinces us...to state that we do not consider your immediate family, including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime.
... The match of Male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. There is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenét was wearing at the time of her murder. ... To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry. No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion, especially when public officials have not had sufficient evidence to initiate a trial in a court of law. ... We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered. ... I am aware that there will be those who will choose to continue to differ with our conclusion. But DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find and we rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes. I am very comfortable that our conclusion that this evidence has vindicated your family is based firmly on all of the evidence."

============

It was yet another botched media circus; all that rubbish about snow, without a word of truth in it.

The basement window that might as well not have been there, for all the use it was...

And the usual freak show of deviants making the most of the chance to dribble about child abuse in public without being arrested.

**Sabot** Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:05 pm

Sadly, I don't place much reliance on DNA, Bonny. Either in proving Guilt or Innocence.
Unless it is specific. And even then it could be debatable. I place it somewhere in the realms of Cadaver Dogs. I even said on The Mirror Forum that I didn't trust DNA, and was loudly shouted down.

But there was no actual proof of anything in this Case. I hope one day that they find out who this DNA belongs to.

Sponsored content

‘Bad’ mothers and the ‘Medea’ news frame

‘Bad’ mothers and the ‘Medea’ news frame

Re: ‘Bad’ mothers and the ‘Medea’ news frame

Re: ‘Bad’ mothers and the ‘Medea’ news frame

Re: ‘Bad’ mothers and the ‘Medea’ news frame

Re: ‘Bad’ mothers and the ‘Medea’ news frame