New Zealand shootings.

drlodge

Mr Goo wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

At this point there’s not much to discuss.

It’s quite clear what issues are at play in this and I don’t think anyone is new to those issues.

I take issue with a lot of the reporting on it but that’s not new - same for all terrorist attacks.

I've always felt they should report them as murders rather than terrorist attacks and refer to the perpetrators as murderers and criminals rather than terrorists.

I agree. It seems that when this kind of crime is perpetrated by 'labelled' criminals it is called a terrorist attack. But when they have no religious or political connection they are mass murderers ie; the numerous attacks on schools in USA.
It's a difficult one to get to grips with because I guess everyone wants to label something so they can understand it.

There's a clear distinction between terrorism and murder, its down to intent.

shirley_basso

I don't think it's a case of "understanding". It's a case of deliberately instilling unconscious bias and driving one's own agenda.

drlodge

Shirley Basso wrote:

I don't think it's a case of "understanding". It's a case of deliberately instilling unconscious bias and driving one's own agenda.

How do you instil unconscious bias?

Pross

drlodge wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

At this point there’s not much to discuss.

It’s quite clear what issues are at play in this and I don’t think anyone is new to those issues.

I take issue with a lot of the reporting on it but that’s not new - same for all terrorist attacks.

I've always felt they should report them as murders rather than terrorist attacks and refer to the perpetrators as murderers and criminals rather than terrorists.

I agree. It seems that when this kind of crime is perpetrated by 'labelled' criminals it is called a terrorist attack. But when they have no religious or political connection they are mass murderers ie; the numerous attacks on schools in USA.
It's a difficult one to get to grips with because I guess everyone wants to label something so they can understand it.

There's a clear distinction between terrorism and murder, its down to intent.

Yes, but that's the point I (and I assume the others) are making. They want the intent to be talked about as that is the whole purpose of their action so take that away by just reporting it as murder, don't give them a platform.

bianchimoon

If you do that for 'terrorists' what do you do about the woman who 'murders' her partner after years of abuse?
Humans are curious for a reason, if you don't report facts you end up with the sort of stuff that's on 4chan or Qanon, personally I can't see how can not report it. Think of the governments in certain countries that would happily not have trials or use secret courts, regardless of who the murderer is, we are an open country with free speech and open courts of law. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Pross

bianchimoon wrote:

If you do that for 'terrorists' what do you do about the woman who 'murders' her partner after years of abuse?
Humans are curious for a reason, if you don't report facts you end up with the sort of stuff that's on 4chan or Qanon, personally I can't see how can not report it. Think of the governments in certain countries that would happily not have trials or use secret courts, regardless of who the murderer is, we are an open country with free speech and open courts of law. I wouldn't have it any other way.

You report the likely motive but just along the lines of 'the murders are understood to have been motivated by religious hatred / racism' etc. so slightly different to being a white supremacist terrorist or Islamic terrorist, make it more about the perpetrators rather than the cause they claim to represent.

bianchimoon

Pross wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

If you do that for 'terrorists' what do you do about the woman who 'murders' her partner after years of abuse?
Humans are curious for a reason, if you don't report facts you end up with the sort of stuff that's on 4chan or Qanon, personally I can't see how can not report it. Think of the governments in certain countries that would happily not have trials or use secret courts, regardless of who the murderer is, we are an open country with free speech and open courts of law. I wouldn't have it any other way.

You report the likely motive but just along the lines of 'the murders are understood to have been motivated by religious hatred / racism' etc. so slightly different to being a white supremacist terrorist or Islamic terrorist, make it more about the perpetrators rather than the cause they claim to represent.

Yup fair enough, I see your point.

rick_chasey

bianchimoon wrote:

If you do that for 'terrorists' what do you do about the woman who 'murders' her partner after years of abuse?
Humans are curious for a reason, if you don't report facts you end up with the sort of stuff that's on 4chan or Qanon, personally I can't see how can not report it. Think of the governments in certain countries that would happily not have trials or use secret courts, regardless of who the murderer is, we are an open country with free speech and open courts of law. I wouldn't have it any other way.

No-one said not report it.

It's *how* you report it.

bianchimoon

Rick Chasey wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

If you do that for 'terrorists' what do you do about the woman who 'murders' her partner after years of abuse?
Humans are curious for a reason, if you don't report facts you end up with the sort of stuff that's on 4chan or Qanon, personally I can't see how can not report it. Think of the governments in certain countries that would happily not have trials or use secret courts, regardless of who the murderer is, we are an open country with free speech and open courts of law. I wouldn't have it any other way.

No-one said not report it.

It's *how* you report it.

I didn't say "not report it" I said "if you don't report facts"
Ok I did say that later, but I meant as in the first line
I'd better get my facts right

DeVlaeminck

Pross wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

If you do that for 'terrorists' what do you do about the woman who 'murders' her partner after years of abuse?
Humans are curious for a reason, if you don't report facts you end up with the sort of stuff that's on 4chan or Qanon, personally I can't see how can not report it. Think of the governments in certain countries that would happily not have trials or use secret courts, regardless of who the murderer is, we are an open country with free speech and open courts of law. I wouldn't have it any other way.

You report the likely motive but just along the lines of 'the murders are understood to have been motivated by religious hatred / racism' etc. so slightly different to being a white supremacist terrorist or Islamic terrorist, make it more about the perpetrators rather than the cause they claim to represent.

No I think in an open democracy you have a full and frank discussion about the issues of the day - that is what the media should be for - if that means discussing the motivations for terrorist attacks then they should be discussed. That is different to allowing say today's terrorist in New Zealand a platform to espouse his ideology or giving Al Qaeda party political broadcasts. We have laws against hate speech which are quite strict really which should be able to keep public debate within reasonable boundaries. The idea that certain information can't be trusted with the masses doesn't fit with western democracy.

shirley_basso

But the press is creating viewpoints by reporting one man as a terrorist and another as a murderer (or freedom fighter!)

bianchimoon

Shirley Basso wrote:

But the press is creating viewpoints by reporting one man as a terrorist and another as a murderer (or freedom fighter!)

Isn't that the price of a free press, that they are allowed OpEd pieces?

DeVlaeminck

Shirley Basso wrote:

But the press is creating viewpoints by reporting one man as a terrorist and another as a murderer (or freedom fighter!)

Well one person's impartial reporting is another's bias. There are issues about ownership and journalistic freedom which I would like to be addressed but I don't see effectively censoring what can be discussed as a solution.

In this instance I googled today's event and the first three sources CNN, BBC and The Guardian all describe it as terror.

mr_goo

drlodge wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

At this point there’s not much to discuss.

It’s quite clear what issues are at play in this and I don’t think anyone is new to those issues.

I take issue with a lot of the reporting on it but that’s not new - same for all terrorist attacks.

I've always felt they should report them as murders rather than terrorist attacks and refer to the perpetrators as murderers and criminals rather than terrorists.

I agree. It seems that when this kind of crime is perpetrated by 'labelled' criminals it is called a terrorist attack. But when they have no religious or political connection they are mass murderers ie; the numerous attacks on schools in USA.
It's a difficult one to get to grips with because I guess everyone wants to label something so they can understand it.

There's a clear distinction between terrorism and murder, its down to intent.

Both are intent/premeditated. However terrorism is normally driven by ideology, whereas murder is triggered or driven by personal motivation. Obviously this is not clear cut and there is a cross over. Therefore I guess we can assume that the event in NZ was an act of terrorism.

If if Thomas Mair the murderer of Jo Cox had gone on a rampage and killed a couple more innocents then I guess it would have been classed as an act of terror. He was driven by a hate of leftwing liberalism.

All said and done we are all splitting hairs on this thread. Doesn't matter how you label it, 49 people lost their lives.

surrey_commuter

Pross wrote:

drlodge wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

At this point there’s not much to discuss.

It’s quite clear what issues are at play in this and I don’t think anyone is new to those issues.

I take issue with a lot of the reporting on it but that’s not new - same for all terrorist attacks.

I've always felt they should report them as murders rather than terrorist attacks and refer to the perpetrators as murderers and criminals rather than terrorists.

I agree. It seems that when this kind of crime is perpetrated by 'labelled' criminals it is called a terrorist attack. But when they have no religious or political connection they are mass murderers ie; the numerous attacks on schools in USA.
It's a difficult one to get to grips with because I guess everyone wants to label something so they can understand it.

There's a clear distinction between terrorism and murder, its down to intent.

Yes, but that's the point I (and I assume the others) are making. They want the intent to be talked about as that is the whole purpose of their action so take that away by just reporting it as murder, don't give them a platform.

he seems to have been pretty explicit about encouraging Muslims to stay our of Europe which seems to be a pretty good definition of terrorism.

Whilst the idea of starving him of publicity has it's attraction it does seem inherently wrong to dictate to the media what they can report.

Maybe if it was reported as an act of Christian terrorism?

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Whilst the idea of starving him of publicity has it's attraction it does seem inherently wrong to dictate to the media what they can report.

It's not about dictating to the media what they can report, it's just helpful for them to understand that what they broadcast has an impact on the actions of other people.

shirley_basso

They didn't lose them. They were murdered in cold blood by one man's ideology.

bianchimoon

I'm getting lost as to why people who would normally be shouting for peoples rights think that the free press should follow some different rules/behaviours to cater for a minority of sick individuals who may or may not be swayed by what they've read in a newspaper, to the detriment of the majority who can see these acts for what they are.

rick_chasey

bianchimoon wrote:

I'm getting lost as to why people who would normally be shouting for peoples rights think that the free press should follow some different rules/behaviours to cater for a minority of sick individuals who may or may not be swayed by what they've read in a newspaper, to the detriment of the majority who can see these acts for what they are.

Why don't you ask what guidelines they think the press ought to follow rather than assuming and getting angry at that same strawman argument.

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Whilst the idea of starving him of publicity has it's attraction it does seem inherently wrong to dictate to the media what they can report.

It's not about dictating to the media what they can report, it's just helpful for them to understand that what they broadcast has an impact on the actions of other people.

I totally get your argument but my belief in free speech is stronger.

Should Farage's refugee poster and references to 70 million Turks heading our way not have been reported?

Yaxley-Lennon is a more obvious media whore but should the media be encouraged to starve him of publicity?

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

I'm getting lost as to why people who would normally be shouting for peoples rights think that the free press should follow some different rules/behaviours to cater for a minority of sick individuals who may or may not be swayed by what they've read in a newspaper, to the detriment of the majority who can see these acts for what they are.

Why don't you ask what guidelines they think the press ought to follow rather than assuming and getting angry at that same strawman argument.

why not answer your own question?

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Whilst the idea of starving him of publicity has it's attraction it does seem inherently wrong to dictate to the media what they can report.

It's not about dictating to the media what they can report, it's just helpful for them to understand that what they broadcast has an impact on the actions of other people.

I totally get your argument but my belief in free speech is stronger.

Should Farage's refugee poster and references to 70 million Turks heading our way not have been reported?

Yaxley-Lennon is a more obvious media whore but should the media be encouraged to starve him of publicity?

Where do you draw the line re the FPV video the shooter uploaded?

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

I'm getting lost as to why people who would normally be shouting for peoples rights think that the free press should follow some different rules/behaviours to cater for a minority of sick individuals who may or may not be swayed by what they've read in a newspaper, to the detriment of the majority who can see these acts for what they are.

Why don't you ask what guidelines they think the press ought to follow rather than assuming and getting angry at that same strawman argument.

why not answer your own question?

Give a man a fish....

bianchimoon

Rick Chasey wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

I'm getting lost as to why people who would normally be shouting for peoples rights think that the free press should follow some different rules/behaviours to cater for a minority of sick individuals who may or may not be swayed by what they've read in a newspaper, to the detriment of the majority who can see these acts for what they are.

Why don't you ask what guidelines they think the press ought to follow rather than assuming and getting angry at that same strawman argument.

A) I'm not getting angry. I'm not here to ask questions you want me to ask C). Lighten up

bianchimoon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

I'm getting lost as to why people who would normally be shouting for peoples rights think that the free press should follow some different rules/behaviours to cater for a minority of sick individuals who may or may not be swayed by what they've read in a newspaper, to the detriment of the majority who can see these acts for what they are.

Why don't you ask what guidelines they think the press ought to follow rather than assuming and getting angry at that same strawman argument.

why not answer your own question?

Give a man a fish....

Comments like that are neither funny, clever or worthy of your education

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Whilst the idea of starving him of publicity has it's attraction it does seem inherently wrong to dictate to the media what they can report.

It's not about dictating to the media what they can report, it's just helpful for them to understand that what they broadcast has an impact on the actions of other people.

I totally get your argument but my belief in free speech is stronger.

Should Farage's refugee poster and references to 70 million Turks heading our way not have been reported?

Yaxley-Lennon is a more obvious media whore but should the media be encouraged to starve him of publicity?

I was meaning in the period immediately after a horrific attack.

Park Dietz, Forensic Psychologist - “We’ve had 20 years of mass murders throughout which I have repeatedly told CNN and our other media, if you don’t want to propagate more mass murders, don’t start the story with sirens blaring. Don’t have photographs of the killer. Don’t make this 24/7 coverage. Do everything you can not to make the body count the lead story, not to make the killer some kind of anti-hero. Do localize the story to the affected community and make it as boring as possible in every other market. Because every time we have intense saturation coverage of a mass murder, we expect to see one or two more within a week.”

shirley_basso

bianchimoon wrote:

I'm getting lost as to why people who would normally be shouting for peoples rights think that the free press should follow some different rules/behaviours to cater for a minority of sick individuals who may or may not be swayed by what they've read in a newspaper, to the detriment of the majority who can see these acts for what they are.

The worrying this is that you over (under?)estimate what the majority think. Look how divided so many countries are and while this type of reporting may not drive everyone to go out and arm themselves, it does drive underlying sentiment.

Also good quote KG. "Wall to wall coverage is what they would have wanted."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47583393

rjsterry

Think this might be pertinent to this bit of the thread.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of ... -massacre/

bianchimoon

rjsterry wrote:

Think this might be pertinent to this bit of the thread.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of ... -massacre/

Help me out, in the context of what this thread has descended to, is that Bellingcat report allowed? is it helping terrorism? or is it purely everyday opinion journalism?

Pross

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pross wrote:

drlodge wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

At this point there’s not much to discuss.

It’s quite clear what issues are at play in this and I don’t think anyone is new to those issues.

I take issue with a lot of the reporting on it but that’s not new - same for all terrorist attacks.

I've always felt they should report them as murders rather than terrorist attacks and refer to the perpetrators as murderers and criminals rather than terrorists.

I agree. It seems that when this kind of crime is perpetrated by 'labelled' criminals it is called a terrorist attack. But when they have no religious or political connection they are mass murderers ie; the numerous attacks on schools in USA.
It's a difficult one to get to grips with because I guess everyone wants to label something so they can understand it.

There's a clear distinction between terrorism and murder, its down to intent.

Yes, but that's the point I (and I assume the others) are making. They want the intent to be talked about as that is the whole purpose of their action so take that away by just reporting it as murder, don't give them a platform.

he seems to have been pretty explicit about encouraging Muslims to stay our of Europe which seems to be a pretty good definition of terrorism.

Whilst the idea of starving him of publicity has it's attraction it does seem inherently wrong to dictate to the media what they can report.

Maybe if it was reported as an act of Christian terrorism?

I'm not talking about this case in particular rather terrorism in general. Just refer to anyone who kills as a murderer / mass murderer irrespective of the cause they try to use to justifying the killing. Whilst the murders being terrorism related may affect the tariff (in the UK at least) they would still be tried for murder so just label them for what they are is all I'm suggesting.