3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 9, 2024 19:39:21 GMT
And what were Gadd's serious issues and why are people so keen to lay blame at his door? He was the victim of two traumatic crimes around the same time, The show was about his mental health / trauma issues too. That was the point I thought: why he delayed going to the police, listened obsessively to her messages, plastered a wall with stuff about her at the end while friends look concerned, thought of her during sex etc. and now years layer is still re-enacting it. |
|
|
|
Post by sph on May 9, 2024 20:57:59 GMT
I may have misunderstood you - I interpreted your earlier post, along with some opinions of others discussing the show, as an assumption that perhaps he had prior issues which led him to bring the situation on himself, which I think would be unfair.
Well anyway, I watched the interview and I'm now more confused than ever. She may or may not be a stalker, but she does not come across as someone unbalanced or mentally ill. She was fairly set in her facts and theories about what has happened, seems to be pretty well educated and well spoken.
So, if she is a stalker, she's also a very good liar.
|
|
4,156 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by kathryn on May 10, 2024 14:45:04 GMT
There are different kinds of mental illness, and you definitely can’t always tell from a brief interview with someone whether they have one or not. That is why professional diagnoses are necessary and specific assessment tools exist for different disorders.
A great many people who engage in stalking behaviour come across as perfectly reasonable - it’s one of the reasons why it has been historically hard to prosecute people and why the burden of gathering evidence falls on the victim. Typically the police have them in for a chat and they say ‘oh I only did it once or twice, I must have misread the signals, officer. I thought they might be interested after they bought me a drink that one time. Yes, I sent flowers - I thought they would be appreciated. Oh I am sorry to have taken up police time, yes of course I won’t contact them again’, and if the victim hasn’t documented thousands of emails, texts, tweets, and phone calls, and taken pictures of them hanging around their every night, there is no prospect of prosecution.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 16, 2024 21:09:56 GMT
Radio 4's The Media Show tonight was on the ethics / responsibilities of Baby Reindeer and UK vs streaming codes of conduct (yes, as suspected, lower standards for streamers).
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on May 17, 2024 11:15:55 GMT
I may have misunderstood you - I interpreted your earlier post, along with some opinions of others discussing the show, as an assumption that perhaps he had prior issues which led him to bring the situation on himself, which I think would be unfair. Well anyway, I watched the interview and I'm now more confused than ever. She may or may not be a stalker, but she does not come across as someone unbalanced or mentally ill. She was fairly set in her facts and theories about what has happened, seems to be pretty well educated and well spoken. So, if she is a stalker, she's also a very good liar. I thought it was all very ‘researched’ and rehearsed; so that she never got surprised or spooked by a question and stayed in control. I’m not sure why Morgan goes out of his way to be a desenting voice; calling out Meghan & Harry, calling out Gadd. Just because he specialises in creating trauma rather than suffering it, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. |
|
|
|
Post by sph on May 17, 2024 11:30:59 GMT
But then why is everyone so intent on excusing the actions of a stalker who allegedly did things that were ruining someone's life? And pinning so much of the blame on Gadd? He seems to shoulder enough of that himself.
If a male stalker was interviewed like this would people be using sympathetic terms like "vulnerable person" to describe him?
I just find it so jarring that something like this can happen to someone and the stalker is received by the public as something between a victim and a sort of comedy icon.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 17, 2024 16:19:37 GMT
But then why is everyone so intent on excusing the actions of a stalker who allegedly did things that were ruining someone's life? And pinning so much of the blame on Gadd? He seems to shoulder enough of that himself. If a male stalker was interviewed like this would people be using sympathetic terms like "vulnerable person" to describe him? I just find it so jarring that something like this can happen to someone and the stalker is received by the public as something between a victim and a sort of comedy icon. I don't think most of those concerned about the show are doing so because they defend the stalker's actions (or alleged actions). Instead it's about the ethics of this kind of show and, as discussed in yesterday's Media Show, the honesty and potential for defamation given that the subject, quickly identified by viewers, wasn't taken to court or imprisoned for what Netflix/Gadd described in their publicity as a 'true story'. And it was that 'true story' aspect and the praise being heaped on the show for its 'honesty' that got me, like so many others, watching (fwiw I've been the victim of stalkers, which is partly why I watched and partly why some things didn't ring true - like the failure to report attacks which police would have taken action on, and it now appears may not have happened). I'm conscious too that we are living in a world where show fandoms have actually bullied people into suicide through social media, so when a show's fans, as here, quickly identified, or believe they identified, two characters and started sending them threats, that's a problem, and it's something the broadcaster should have anticipated and taken steps to avoid. |
|
|
|
Post by justfran on Jun 9, 2024 8:42:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by marob on Jun 9, 2024 9:33:06 GMT
I need to get my act together and watch this to see what the fuss is about, before it gets edited or vanishes or whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Jun 12, 2024 20:25:25 GMT
It seems to me that the truth will be buried in the grey area somewhere in the middle of their recollections. One has a confidence that Netflix would have done their due diligence on a story with the potential for such legal action, but the current legal action would suggest otherwise.
|
|
19,773 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jun 18, 2024 11:08:30 GMT
I haven’t seen the show but just watched a video on YouTube where a U.S. lawyer who commentates on showbiz/pop culture lawsuits goes through the lawsuit in some detail.
Seems fairly clear that Netflix presented the story as true when there are elements that could have easily been checked and can be easily proven as not true.
Even if she doesn’t win the lawsuit on every count I can’t see how those fundamental false statements presented as truth aren’t defamation. She’s going to be a very rich woman as a result of this and I suspect the show will have to be taken down so I need to watch it before that happens.
The youtube channel is called Emily D Baker if you want to watch it. She discusses the Alex Baldwin case in the same episode.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 18, 2024 13:04:32 GMT
Even if she doesn’t win the lawsuit on every count I can’t see how those fundamental false statements presented as truth aren’t defamation. She’s going to be a very rich woman as a result of this and I suspect the show will have to be taken down so I need to watch it before that happens. Netflix maybe calculate that, in an attention economy, there's no such thing as bad publicity and the show was a huge ratings hit, increasing with the controversy. I would have thought a UK broadcaster would have done more homework first, and/or removed the show from its network once a controversy began (ITV did this recently with a crime series when allegations emerged around the lead actor in the week of broadcast) |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 19, 2024 8:36:43 GMT
There's a piece in Deadline today discussing it, and how to avoid it happening again: "Tom Jennings is co-founder of U.S.-based docs house 1895 Films, which has produced Apollo: Missions to the Moon and In Their Own Words. At Monte-Carlo, he spoke about broadcaster and streamer desire to lean in to true stories and to badge work accordingly.
“There’s this great pressure from network executives and streamers to say: ‘This is a true story, based on actual facts.’ They want that label at the top. I suggested once: ‘Most of what you’re about to see is 100% true.’ They didn’t like it, they wanted: ‘This is a true story.’”
“I think one of the reasons why they want that to be there is that reality has a special vibe,” added Chiara Avesani, a Director and Journalist at Italian pubcaster RAI and who was on the Monte-Carlo panel. “When you feel that you’re watching something that really happened, it’s more electrifying.”
|
|
19,773 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jun 19, 2024 11:18:52 GMT
I don’t think I draw much distinction between “this is a true story” and “this is based on a true story” when choosing to watch something. The second one is just as compelling to me, and safer legally presumably.
|
|
|
|
Post by marob on Jun 19, 2024 13:24:32 GMT
Do people even want “real life” or do they just want a good story? Off the top of my head, some of the biggest shows of recent years have been Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, Bridgerton, Squid Game…
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 19, 2024 20:55:25 GMT
Do people even want “real life” or do they just want a good story? Off the top of my head, some of the biggest shows of recent years have been Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, Bridgerton, Squid Game… Tiger King was a massive hit and must only have cost a tiny fraction of the typical Netflix, Disney or HBO ratings grabber. Biopics have been a big genre for a while, recent events like the Versace or Dahmer murder series, or the seemingly endless mining of the behind the scenes backstories of 20thc stars or TV personalities. One can imagine Baby Reindeer being pitched as like a male Fleabag but with the Tiger King 'true story' element. |
|
