Why news outlets should think before showing the New Zealand mosque shooter’s livestream
Horror drives clicks, but media organisations have a responsibility to be careful in their reporting of terrorist acts like the Christchurch mosque attacks, associate professor of Journalism at Swinburne University of Technology, Colleen Murrell, states in this article originally published in The Conversation.
Like so many times before with acts of mass violence in different parts of the world, news of shootings at two Christchurch mosques on Friday instantly ricocheted around the world via social media.
When these incidents occur, online activity follows a predictable pattern as journalists and others try to learn the name of the perpetrator and any reason behind the killings.
I can’t recall anything Barry Cassidy ever broadcast that impressed me. In fact I can’t remember anything he wrote or presented.
He’s no Beatrice Faust, Andrew Bolt or Joe Hilderbrand.
The days of entertaining, knowledgeable and inspiring journalists at the ABC is over. They prefer women with the personality of paper cups and PC policemen like Tony Jones.
You can’t stop content being shared via the internet, period. Censorship never works. Both are futile pursuits.
For all the conversation regarding civil gun violence and wartime battlefield skirmishs we rarely see the carnage.
We should.
Freedom of speach is always in lockstep with the free pursuit of unbridled access to information.
I want to view the carnage and the appliance of science in war, like an adult. Live or later.
Regarding copy-cat theory: “the copies and the cats” are already cats and copied. They are already locked and loaded and primed to be triggered into action. Viewing videos won’t change that situation.
Typically the ABC missed the salient point. This wasn’t “proliferation”, it was Facebook and YouTube acting as accessories to mass murder. It’s a black and white case for prosecution. As streaming was critical to the murderer’s plot, they enabled that, making them accessories in the same way someone is who gives a criminal gang a hideout. We look forward to seeing the handcuffed perp-walks from their respective offices. Live streaming has to be made illegal. And BTW, there is NO such thing as “the public’s right to know” – that’s a childish media fantasy.
I watched the live stream, about 5 minutes in it showed the individual entering and opening fire. Censorship is a contentious topic, I did access the video and couldn’t watch more than another minute beyond but I believe I still should have the right to view should I choose. I’m an adult and capable of making decisions. I think the issue is how do you exclude or manage minors?
I hate to take the side of YouTube and Facebook, but Mike, your analogy is flawed. It contains active informed consent. Neither of these platforms gave that to the shooter. In fact, their ToS would directly prohibit it. It was therefore uploaded against their will because every user must agree to these terms before making an account.