![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Killing others and themselves.
May. 23rd, 2013 04:46 pmThe world has gone well and truly mad. Or I guess it was ever thus.
An old guy talked about "new, spectacular and symbolic gestures to wake up the sleep walkers and shake the anaesthetised consciousness" and then killed himself in his country's most famous church.
I don't need to tell you about Woolwich, because you've all seen the guy with the bloodied hands. Putting him on the front pages was the wrong decision I think. Yes, publishing the pictures and video seeems unavoidable, because it's out there on social media anyway and by putting it in the traditional media journalists can add some context, but don't give him front billing. Apart from the usual "Think of the children" argument, which I believe is valid here, it does send a dangerous message to those unstable enough that they want to go out in a blaze of glory. It's the same with school shootings and suicides. And let's be clear about this: These guys essentially wanted to commit suicide by cop - killing a soldier was the main message of course, but they wanted to die in a firefight.
As an aside: I'm glad they survived. I'm still angry that the two guys of our right-wing terror cell managed to kill themselves when their cover was blown.
Back to suicides and murder-suicides and terrorist suicide attacks. The WHO tells (pdf) the media what they can do to prevent suicides and still report about them. It all boils down to a couple of simple points:
I know that the above guidelines aren't exactly much help with what happened in Woolwich. With suicide bombers (who obviously don't need bombs to scare us - a meat cleaver will suffice) it's not only about trying to prevent others from imitating them, but also about how journalists help them to make their targets feel terror - and the targets aren't only the people who are killed and maimed, but of course everyone living around them. So, don't make them look powerful by giving them a platform.
Remember when there was a debate whether the Unabomber's manifesto should be published or not? This guy promised not to kill more people in exchange for publishing his views - now it doesn't even need that promise and you get a slot on primetime.
Of course, I'm not advocating NOT to report on terrorism, but please use some restraint. It all reminds me of the Gladbecker Geiselgangster Degowski and Rösner. Things have changed though - you don't need a camera team and a bunch of journalists to record a video and interview the culprits. But the German media learned from the events and have kept their distance (at least a little - school shootings and the suicide of German goalkeeper Robert Enke didn't bring out the best in them).
Don't make it look spectacular - in the sense of spectacle as attention-seeking. For some, especially those who feel powerless, that guy with bloodied hands wielding a meat cleaver might have seemed like one of the cool gangsters straight out of a Tarantino film. (Please note, that I am in no way blaming this on violent movies.)
I've got lots more thoughts about the media representation and the general trend of lone wolf duos and terrorism, but this is enough for today.
An old guy talked about "new, spectacular and symbolic gestures to wake up the sleep walkers and shake the anaesthetised consciousness" and then killed himself in his country's most famous church.
I don't need to tell you about Woolwich, because you've all seen the guy with the bloodied hands. Putting him on the front pages was the wrong decision I think. Yes, publishing the pictures and video seeems unavoidable, because it's out there on social media anyway and by putting it in the traditional media journalists can add some context, but don't give him front billing. Apart from the usual "Think of the children" argument, which I believe is valid here, it does send a dangerous message to those unstable enough that they want to go out in a blaze of glory. It's the same with school shootings and suicides. And let's be clear about this: These guys essentially wanted to commit suicide by cop - killing a soldier was the main message of course, but they wanted to die in a firefight.
As an aside: I'm glad they survived. I'm still angry that the two guys of our right-wing terror cell managed to kill themselves when their cover was blown.
Back to suicides and murder-suicides and terrorist suicide attacks. The WHO tells (pdf) the media what they can do to prevent suicides and still report about them. It all boils down to a couple of simple points:
- Take the opportunity to educate the public about suicide
- Avoid language which sensationalizes or normalizes suicide, or presents it as a solution to problems
- Avoid prominent placement and undue repetition of stories about suicide
- Avoid explicit description of the method used in a completed or attempted suicide
- Avoid providing detailed information about the site of a completed or attempted suicide
- Word headlines carefully
- Exercise caution in using photographs or video footage
- Take particular care in reporting celebrity suicides
- Show due consideration for people bereaved by suicide
- Provide information about where to seek help
- Recognize that media professionals themselves may be affected by stories about suicide
I know that the above guidelines aren't exactly much help with what happened in Woolwich. With suicide bombers (who obviously don't need bombs to scare us - a meat cleaver will suffice) it's not only about trying to prevent others from imitating them, but also about how journalists help them to make their targets feel terror - and the targets aren't only the people who are killed and maimed, but of course everyone living around them. So, don't make them look powerful by giving them a platform.
Remember when there was a debate whether the Unabomber's manifesto should be published or not? This guy promised not to kill more people in exchange for publishing his views - now it doesn't even need that promise and you get a slot on primetime.
Of course, I'm not advocating NOT to report on terrorism, but please use some restraint. It all reminds me of the Gladbecker Geiselgangster Degowski and Rösner. Things have changed though - you don't need a camera team and a bunch of journalists to record a video and interview the culprits. But the German media learned from the events and have kept their distance (at least a little - school shootings and the suicide of German goalkeeper Robert Enke didn't bring out the best in them).
Don't make it look spectacular - in the sense of spectacle as attention-seeking. For some, especially those who feel powerless, that guy with bloodied hands wielding a meat cleaver might have seemed like one of the cool gangsters straight out of a Tarantino film. (Please note, that I am in no way blaming this on violent movies.)
I've got lots more thoughts about the media representation and the general trend of lone wolf duos and terrorism, but this is enough for today.
