The 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:

• 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.

Not sure whether anyone is interested and/or willing and/or able to read, but here is a linkspam of German newspaper and magazine reviews of The Avengers.

Once again, I am reminded that review writing says a lot about the reviewer and their need to sound clever.

Süddeutsche Zeitung

Focus

Die Welt

FAZ

Spiegel Online

Or rather: how to start a panic:

Post a link on facebook to an article about a protest against a child molester moving to the neighbourhood.

Watch the news spread online and in real life.

I was told about this at the playground with my informant proudly mentioning that she, too, posted it on facebook.

She got most of the details right from the article that I found in one of our regional tabloids: Someone accused of child molestation in a neighbouring town was first put on remand and then set free apparently because of a procedural error. The trial is to continue in the next days. He's moved to one of the streets around here and neighbours have started a protest.

I don't want to start pointing to the principle of presumption of innocence because that usually goes out of the window when people panic about the well-being of their kids and the newspaper article certainly didn't presume any innocence.

This happened in September 2009.

My research method: I searched "youropenbook.org" for my neighbourhood, found a mention of the article, searched it on the newspaper's website, realized that the mention of the funfair 'this weekend' was a bit odd because it was two weeks ago and then looked at the date.

There are two very different stories in the media here at the moment that both deal with rape and sexual assault. One is about a media person/celebrity being accused of rape; the other about a serial rapist finally caught after nineteen years of offences ranging from sexual harassment to brutal rape.

( Facts, opinions, experiences )

Fauxpax.

A false sense of peace?

In my last 'politics' post, I mentioned in the comments here another incident that had made me angry.

Since then, that anger hasn't abated and the story has stayed with me. Here's what happened:

( Marwa Sherbini )

Heard on the radio yesterday:

A song, strongly associated with the end of World War II and the post-war period, title "Hurra, wir leben noch" - (Yay, we're still alive) - used to advertise a chain of clothing stores that went into administration recently and had to close several of its outlets.

Words can be hurtful and most of us are aware that some are downright offensive and thus shouldn't be used. Context is all, so sometimes we think we can get away with something in private that we would never use in the workplace. Sometimes though, words have two meanings.

And I'm not talking about words that have been reclaimed or anything as complicated as that. No, sometimes, a word can be completely misunderstood, because, though an insult in both languages, it's disparaging in very different ways. Let's do an experiment first.

What's a bimbo for you? Try to come up with a definition or a context in which the word might be used. What kind of person do you see?

( Answers here )

The "Was he or wasn't he" controversy about Haider is still going strong. I'm more interested in the media coverage than in the actual story.

It's still all about sex for me though.

The BBCnews website has again kindly provided me with a talking point. Sex and relationship lessons are to be made compulsory in English schools and this has prompted someone to write up anecdotal memories of British sex ed which includes delightful readers comments. It's mostly funny stuff - some seems to be bordering on urban legend territory, like the story of the girl putting a condom on a banana with her mouth.

It's left me wondering though. Some commentators talk about positive experiences, but most of the sex ed memories sound like they come from a bad comedy sketch. Now I don't know whether that reflects reality or whether they just chose the most entertaining stories. In contrast my own memories are a lot less hilarious.

( Sex ed )

So, how was it for you?