In Defence Of Horrific Images

Via Guardian.co.uk

While we are still waiting for more information regarding yesterday's horrible events in Woolwich, South London, the curent locus of debate seems to be fixated on media reporting. This morning, some controversy emerged in regards to the headlines that some of the newspapers printed- especially the Sun  and the Daily Mail, who splashed terms like "Muslim" and "Islamic Fanatic" over the front page.

At the same time, ITV's choice to broadcast a clip of one of the murderers, justifying his actions also sparked a lot of anger. I won't link the video here, just because it's quite unsettling to watch. The general gist is of a bloody-handed man, holding onto blood-stained meat cleavers, stating that he butchered the victim out of revenge against Western military intervention. Despite supposedly having a "Muslim Appearance", as quoted by BBC's Nick Robinson via an undisclosed government source, the man spoke with a distinct south London accent (anyone from London will know this). He was also wearing Addidas trainers.

The Guardian's Roy Greensdale has published an interesting piece justifying why newspapers and TV networks were right to publish the photos and videos.  It's a difficult call, and even an average student journalist like myself can see the harmful implications that might arise from the decisions to publish. Indeed, you only had to go on Twitter last night to see how the photos and videos conjured up an environment of horror and suspicion in the midst of this crisis. In a situation where TV news and mainstream newspapers were the primary news sources, I would certainly see the case of disclosing the information until calm had been restored.

The only problem, is that we don't live in such simple times. Journalists know it, and so did yesterday's killers. Greensdale and others have noted the narcissistic element of these attacks- the men wanted to be caught, they wanted to be plastered online and they wanted their message to be heard. Yes, the media did allow them the opportunity, but not without precedent. After all, the murderer's video wasn't filmed on a BBC news camera, and it wasn't recorded by a Fleet Street journalist. It was filmed on smart phones, by civilians.

This of course, meant that the flow of information couldn't be linear. The mainstream media were one step behind citizens on the ground, who, unbound by any mandatory journalistic ethics, were free to publish the videos online. In fact it's quite telling that one of the key eye-witnesses was an individual who wasn't shy of voicing the gruesome details- including the moment when he saw the victim get beheaded. It was likely that at some point, the video would have been released online regardless of whether news agencies collectively agreed not to publish the sensitive material. Copies would have been made, it would have gone viral, and the press would have to justify why they didn't get there first. Of course, there is a selfish motive- the media are in a precarious position in terms of financial stability and public reputation, particularly in facing an armies of bloggers and citizen journalists.

More importantly, is probably the balance of harms argument- would it be more damaging to publish rather than hide? I think that's a contentious question, but it might be worth revisiting the brilliant C4 drama series, Black Mirror ( I absolutely love BM, brilliant show).  The first episode of series 1 concerns a fictional story regarding the kidnap of a princess, and the blackmailing of a Prime Minister. Using Youtube, Facebook and Twitter, the kidnapper makes his rather crass ransom demands public- so that despite all UK news agencies initially agreeing not to publish the sensitive video, they nor the government, can actually control who sees the sensitive material. It's a great programme, and available on 4OD.

With this in mind, it could be argued that in the context of the current media landscape, it was much better for legitimate news organisations, with fact-checking sources and regulatory frameworks, to verify and contextualise the video rather than citizens. Not because citizen journalists are bad (on the contrary), but because when voices of authority are absent, such information can be appropriated by different groups with far more sinister agendas. Even though some groups did take advantage of the situation yesterday, I'd imagine it would be far worse if this video was left to circulate the net freely.