PsychologyInSeattle
patreon
The Public Psychology of Madeleine McCann (Chap 4 - Wrap Up)
🕑 Added 2025-12-25 12:00:11 +0000 UTCHumberto takes a focused deep dive into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and he and Dr Kirk unpack the public psychology behind the case, the reactions, and the myths that still surround it. December 25, 2025
00:00 Public reaction & conspiracies
12:25 Making a difference
18:38 Ethical reporting & media libel
29:27 Police errors & mob mentality
49:34 Allocating bets
1:00:25 A new round of investigations
Become a member: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOUZWV1DRtHtpP2H48S7iiw/join
Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/PsychologyInSeattle
Email: https://www.psychologyinseattle.com/contact
Website: https://www.psychologyinseattle.com
Merch: https://psychologyinseattle-shop.fourthwall.com/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/psychologyinseattle/
Facebook Official Page: https://www.facebook.com/PsychologyInSeattle/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@kirk.honda
The Psychology In Seattle Podcast ®
Trigger Warning: This episode may include topics such as assault, trauma, and discrimination. If necessary, listeners are encouraged to refrain from listening and care for their safety and well-being.
Disclaimer: The content provided is for educational, informational, and entertainment purposes only. Nothing here constitutes personal or professional consultation, therapy, diagnosis, or creates a counselor-client relationship. Topics discussed may generate differing points of view. If you participate (by being a guest, submitting a question, or commenting) you must do so with the knowledge that we cannot control reactions or responses from others, which may not agree with you or feel unfair. Your participation on this site is at your own risk, accepting full responsibility for any liability or harm that may result. Anything you write here may be used for discussion or endorsement of the podcast. Opinions and views expressed by the host and guest hosts are personal views. Although, we take precautions and fact check, they should not be considered facts and the opinions may change. Opinions posted by participants (such as comments) are not those of the hosts. Readers should not rely on any information found here and should perform due diligence before taking any action. For a more extensive description of factors for you to consider, please see www.psychologyinseattle.com
Comments
Emily
100% agree. It is purposeful manipulation of the consumer, and that is morally wrong.
DuckHouse
There are several problems with blaming the consumer for predatory media practices. The cost of buying a newspaper never covered the cost of making it. Advertisements are the primary revenue for media companies. So if a handful of mindful citizens refused to buy newspapers with sensational, misleading headlines, that wouldn't have enough influence to drive change. Back when newspapers were still an important source of news, people in general would still be buying them out of necessity. It takes advertisers boycotting media outlets to affect their bottom line. Media companies have whole departments dedicated to figuring out how to grab our attention. They understand that our brains are constantly scanning for any hint danger. We are compelled to pay attention to things that are terrible and possibly dangerous. A child has gone missing? When? How? Why? We need the answers in order to soothe our anxiety with the reassurance that *our* child won't go missing [insert ad here]. The the logic and reason parts of our brain are impaired when we are stressed and afraid. Today more than ever, we are inundated with sensationalized information that is designed to 1) Grab our attention, 2) Elicit an emotional response, and 3) Sell us something. The act of purchasing something, or just thinking about purchasing something, even just a cup of coffee, feeds the brain's reward system and soothes the stress that was induced by the media which is funded by the companies who want to sell us stuff.
Femma
The BBC in the UK is supposed to be impartial as it’s funded by a TV license fee. Both sides (left and right) argue that it’s not!
