Woolwich

There was a brutal attack in Woolwich less than 24 hours ago.  Within hours of its occurring the British media was full of footage of a body lying in the street and a man with a cleaver in his bloodied hands.  As for as I can see, every major news outlet (television, internet and papers) in this country carried these, specifically before the 9pm watershed.  You would have had to be far away from things, or have taken a conscious decision and effort to have avoided them.  You don't need to buy a paper to see the front page of someone reading it opposite you on the train, bus or tube.

The media did not have to do this.  Their editors took a conscious decision to do so.  I've scanned European newspaper outlets.  Most copied our press.  Two definitely did not: the quality publications  Libération and Süddeutsche Zeitung.  It's not because they don't think the story is important: the latter (which the Guardian teams up with on European reporting) carried a full video report.  Click on the link.  Even if you don't understand it, you won't see images of the body, the alleged attacker, bloodied hands or a meat cleaver.  You'll see images such as the one above of flowers left near the scene.

This isn't accidental: La Libération expressly says it chose not to broadcast the video:

If you want an example of an English language report that gets the facts of the story over in a way our press failed to, the UAE's leading paper (The National) manages it quite well here.  It really, really is not that tricky: in fact the press used to do this for decades rather well.

[Postscript: I'm told Sky News deliberately did not broadcast the video.  Credit to them for that.  They are still carrying plenty of images of the man with the bloodied hands, however.]

[Further postscript 8pm on 23 May: Libération is now carrying the video having previously made the decision not to.  How depressing this race to the bottom is.  It was not last night, or this morning at the time of writing.] 

What Was Wrong with the Reporting

Lacking Respect

The first very obvious fact is the complete lack of respect for the victim, his family, his friends and his colleagues.  That was a real body lying in the street.  Someone got up yesterday morning, whose life was unexpectedly ended in the most hideous way imaginable.  It is entirely possible, and in fact extremely likely that people who knew him saw these images before receiving the personal news.

If someone you loved had been murdered in this way, would you repeatedly want to see the alleged perpetrator standing there, on every news channel, and in every paper, with blood on his hands and the weapon in his hands?  We cannot for one moment imagine what that must feel like.  It is basic human decency not to project these images.

Creating Terror

There was a heated discussion about whether the attack constitutes terrorism.  Looking at the broad legal definition set out in the Terrorism Act 2000, it would seem to.  My natural understanding of terrorism, however, is a bit different to that one.  To me, it's a politically motivated act, the effect of which is to make ordinary people in a society feel threatened, frightened and upset: to feel scared or terrorised going about their ordinary lives, if you like.  That's very subjective and hard to measure, but it's something I felt for example riding on the tube just after 7/7.  I was personally scared and upset because of what had happened.

If reports are accurate, the alleged attackers waited round and encouraged people to film them on their smartphones.  Everyone has one nowadays.  The man with the cleaver stated his political reasons for the murder, as he brandished the weapon and a man's body lay behind him on the street.  This was uploaded onto the ITV News website, picked up by media everywhere, and broadcast into homes across the country.  His aim was to get his message across and to terrorise ordinary people had been achieved.  The isolated, horrific killing of one man, had just become an act of terrorism for me personally, thanks to our media.

The terror extends specifically to children.  These images were broadcast well before 9pm.  Any child going into a newspaper to buy sweets today will be confronted by shelves full of an image of a man holding a meat cleaver in his bloodied hands. 

Prejudicing Justice

The chances of finding members of a jury who did not see the video footage are very slight.  You may belong to the mob justice group who feel that such people should be gunned down without trial.  I don't, and think that maintaining the checks and balances that the criminal justice system in a civilised society provides is more important than ever in the face of such attacks.  Further, if you feel that "hanging isn't good enough" for such people, how would you feel if people who do these things are actually acquitted because the execution of justice has been so badly prejudiced by reporting?  I'd be pretty darn sick and am sure you would too.

Applying a Filter

Where is news reporting heading?  The closest I've come to terrorism is my best friend at school's father, Colonel Coe, who was murdered by the IRA outside their house in Germany.  He was shot repeatedly in his car.  We had been there 30 minutes before dropping another friend off.  I didn't need to see images of the inside of his car to understand what had happened.  I didn't want to see the images.  I'm sure his family didn't want them to be broadcast across the country.  I didn't need to see the insides of dead horses across the road at the time of the Hyde Park bombing.  I didn't need to see the interiors of the 7/7 tube to understand the story.  Even as short a time ago as 7/7, little of this happened, fortunately.

Once we have crossed this bridge and established this precedent, it's hard to see it going back.  Will it be just terrorist attacks that are reported in this way, or will it extend to all news stories?  "Teenager killed in a car accident" - yes, let's show her decapitated body - never mind her grieving family, people just need to see this because we can show it.  There's been condemnation of the reporting in this instance, but each time we inevitably become a little more immune to the images of violence and tragedy.

Of course in the "internet age" people do take videos and upload them.  They can be accessed for people keen on seeking them out.   This is different to before and it is inevitable.  It's not inevitable that news sites with massive reach choose to promote them, however.  I don't know that there isn't a much more graphic video of the attackers actually hacking into the body that isn't out there somewhere, via a smartphone.  There very likely are several of them.  In this case, ITV News might have chosen not to put it on its website and make sure it was seen everywhere.  Next time they might.

There's an interesting point about "well the image is out there, so why don't we show it too, if everyone else is?".  Le Monde and Le Figaro are the rivals of Libération.  They carried the images.  Libération did not.  I know whose editorial team I now respect more. 

A Final Thought

Last night I was walking my dog through our historic Suffolk village.  The most exciting thing that happens here is a leaf walking off a tree, a bit like in that crap Hofmeister beer advert, if you remember it.  My mind was full of the horror of what I'd read and seen.  Terrible things have happened for centuries: awful brutality and occurrences.  People here would have been immune to them: protected and completely oblivious for better or worse in their quiet lives.

Now we have 24 hour rolling commentary, news blogs, and comment on Twitter.  I tweeted (yes, the irony), something to the effect of asking whether these developments were bringing us any benefit.  I'm really not sure they are.  Yes, I can switch off.  Perhaps I should.  


My thoughts should be with the family, friends and colleagues of the victim.  They now will be.