قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / World / How media organizations are handling the New Zealand video

How media organizations are handling the New Zealand video



On Friday, as news organizations rushed to cover the massacre of two mosques in Christchurch, they faced a dilemma: how to denounce the hate-filled attack without glorifying the alleged culprit or helping to spread his anti-Muslim message [19659002] One of the attacks appeared live on Facebook by one of the alleged shooters. New Zealand police have urged people on social media not to connect to the "extremely distressing movie". Facebook said in a note that it removed the video and Facebook account of the shooter.

However, several print organizations have chosen to post or post live streaming clips of the alleged Facebook shooter and have stumbled into a storm of protest for doing so.

A Sky Australia spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but was quoted by The Guardian as saying: "Sky News, in line with other broadcasters, has performed heavily modified movies that did not show shootings or victims . "

In the United Kingdom, several major newspapers, including The Daily Mirror, Daily Mail and The Sun have faced exciting criticisms for the shooting on air of the shooter's live streaming.

At the top of his homepage, the Daily Mail has repeatedly played mashup clips of the shooter entering a mosque and terminating it correctly while it seems to point the gun towards the door.

Thoughts

Several hours later, the Web site stopped playing the video, but left the image resting on the targeted bandit.

"In common with many other news agencies around the world, MailOnline brought for a time a brief excerpt from the beginning of the video of the Christchurch mosque assassin who showed no violence or victims," ​​he said in a press release from the Daily Mail website. "For further reflection, we decided to remove it a few hours ago."

The MailOnline also said that a link to the bandit's "manifesto" was briefly published by mistake and "quickly removed."

The Daily Mirror has also released similar clips from the shooter's livestream before removing them later.

The chief editor of the mirror Lloyd Embley later tweeted that the edited movie should not have been published. "We should not have taken it forward, it is not in line with our policy on terrorist propaganda videos," wrote Embley.

The Sun took a different turn and defended the clips he posted. A Sun spokesman pointed out that much of the footage is "readily available" on social media and that posting it on his site helps shed light on this barbaric attack and the motive & # 39; motive & # 39; behind it. "

" We recognize it the day after horrible events like these there will be sensitivities around the signaling, and we take these responsibilities seriously, "the spokesman said." We have not published any video that shows any act of actual violence , nor did we publish or link to the hate-filled manifesto. "

One of the news bulletins in Bangladesh, Channel 24, transmitted long fragments of the video, showing that the victims were shooting, the clip was also made available on its website.

Talat Mamun, Channel 24's executive director, told CNN that the outlet started the video initially, but then "stopped it because it was too creepy".

CNN is abstaining from publish the shooter's video.

"No public interest"

It is an old media dilemma: how to relate and correctly describe what happened in an obvious and noteworthy event, but to promote the objectives of the alleged author and spread propaganda.

When American journalist James Foley was executed by ISIS in 201

4 for cameras, the New York Post and the New York Daily News were heavily criticized for the graphic covers depicting Foley the moment before his beheading.

On Friday, the Post initially used a screen grab from the shooter's video while seeing a gun pointed at a mosque, but the tabloid later changed the image to one of the police replies. The Daily News included some screenshots taken from the shooter's video in a photo gallery, but none showing that the gunman took aim.

In recent years, media organizations have pledged not to repeat the names of terrorists and shooters, some even going so far as not to show their photos.

Steven Barnett, a professor of communication at the University of Westminster, said he vehemently disagrees with the publication of any part of the New Zealand shooter video.

"I understand that there are journalistic imperatives here, but it is possible to report on what happened. Journalists can watch the video and report on it," Barnett told CNN.

"For me, this is all about generating more readers and successes online. There is no conceivable public journalistic interest in challenging the desperate demands of the New Zealand authorities and continuing to publish these things. And it is evil. . "

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, director of the Reuters Institute at the University of Oxford, said that any media organization that shares images of the shooter's video helps perpetuate his message.

"It is clear that any news organization that uses images of an attack like this inadvertently will end up amplifying the message that the terrorist wants to send. So this is the price of using those images," he said. "It is clear that the people behind an attack like this want advertising, this is what they get whenever images or images of the attack are used."

Sugam Pokharel contributed to this story from New Delhi.


Source link