IF you agree with this article, you are not powerless...Please retweet it and post it wherever you can...It's time to embarrass the news networks....
The Media's coverage of #NYPD shootings in New York are also relevant to this article.
The perpetrator of the Sydney Siege, like most terrorists, had two aims.
- ONE: Publicity
- TWO: Having a demand met (In the Sydney siege, the perpetrator apparently wished to speak to the Australian Prime Minister.)
Most Western governments have learnt that agreeing to the demands of hostage takers or terrorists will only encourage more hostage taking or terrorism. Accordingly, most of them have a policy of not negotiating with hostage takers or terrorists.
See my link to the reasons why hostage takers demands ought never to be met.
http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/02/ban-ransoms-to-hostage-takers.html
The truth is that the terrorists and hostage takers mostly know when they are dealing with a government which won't meet their demands. They know that they will eventually face an armed attempt to free the hostages which is likely to end in their deaths. But still they continue. Why?
Publicity. It's the big prize. You can't have terror if you can't terrorize.
PUBLICITY for TERRORISTS - OUR GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING
Publicity for terrorists is not automatic however. It's a gift we in the West seem content to give to the terrorists and school shooters etc. This is despite the fact that publicity is a gift which keeps on giving. The more publicity we grant to terrorists, the more terrorism it encourages and creates.
The solution
The solution is simple. We need a strategy to deny those who commit these acts the oxygen of publicity. Without oxygen, their acts become pointless and their cause will slowly die. How do we do this?
Media self-regulation?
I have on this blog, written an article appealing to the media to review the way they cover school shootings. It is almost impossible to deny their role in most of these copy cat events. See my blog on this aspect. I doubt that the initiative to solve the problem by self-regulation will come from the ranks of the news media.
http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-medias-role-in-mass-killings-school.html
The Media KNOW they are co-conspirators
The media, especially the international television news networks, feed off this type of coverage, and worse, they do so knowing full-well that by giving these monsters coverage, they are not only playing into the hands of those whose deeds they cover now, but they are encouraging the next perpetrators to boot.
Look at CNN's detailed coverage of the recent #NYPD killer. Why was his name mentioned or any attention given to him at all. We don't need to know who he is or why he did it. The publicity we give this man encourages the next one. There is no shortage of disturbed or desperate people with a cause or gripe, and who would love to go out in a blaze of CNN glory!
I find the glorification of all killers and terrorists by the media to be a shocking disgrace. Yet, we permit these "reporters" to swan about and cover everything but the real cause....the MEDIA itself!
Why do they do it?
Some of us can't tear ourselves away from this type of coverage. We've become addicted to reality television. Presumably, if one network decided not to turn up at the Sydney Siege to cover it live, they fear they will lose viewers to the other networks who will turn up.
LEGAL PROHIBITION
I believe the Western Leaders need to meet to agree upon a law to be promoted and promulgated in their respective countries.
The Law would have some or all of the following provisions for the states involved:
- No live or recorded pictures, or images of any terrorist event, siege, school shooting, or hostage situation (prohibited events) or their aftermath may be taken by any news media within the borders of the state. Doing so would amount to a criminal offence with heavy jail terms.
- Broadcasting of any live or recorded images of any such events from any media organisation located or broadcasting within the state would also be a criminal offence, irrespective of whether the coverage emanated from a local country or from another country.
- Permitted would be a simple announcement such as: "We have a report that an unidentified armed man has taken ten hostages in a café in downtown Sydney. The police are at the scene and have cordoned off the area. We will update this report every thirty minutes, or less if there are any developments."
- Publishing the identity of the perpetrator (s) their backgrounds or any details regarding their demands or their causes would be illegal. Thus the background history's of school shooters, their web pages, their videos diaries, notes etc. would all be illegal material, prohibited from broadcast.
- The authorities would be permitted to reveal any of the above information only if it was in the public interest or a matter of public safety to do so. E.g. for public assistance in capturing co-conspirators, or, for public assistance in a man-hunt etc., the names of the those sought could be released and published.
- After these events have been resolved or have ended, the police news conference may not name the perpetrator nor can they mention the cause, unless it is in the public interest to do mention either or both. Eg. if someone took hostages to draw attention of authorities to the failure of a town council to deal with polluted water etc., the police could mention the reason for the hostage taking but not necessarily the name of the taker.
- Nothing in these rules would prohibit the media from publishing any prohibited information necessary to expose or reasonably intended to expose any police or state cover-up or any other illegal act by the state.
- Rules as to how information relating to these incidents, could be released into the public domain in the fullness of time without mentioning the names of the perpetrators or their causes, e.g. in an annual published law enforcement report or review would also be necessary. This would allow for academics to study the critical information relating to these events, and to allow for investigative journalists to pour through the information to see whether the lack of media coverage allowed for mistakes by authorities to be covered up etc.
Law would have to protect, not violate rights
Whether the rules I have just come up with are fit for purpose or not can be debated. Perhaps better rules could be suggested by others. I welcome any constructive suggestions below.
The aim of the law I propose must be to deny the perpetrators of such events as much publicity as possible without preventing the fact of what has happened from being reported at all. Also, the law must not prevent investigative reporting into how the authorities are dealing, or failing to deal with these events. Nor must it prevent the information arising from these events which could be necessary for the study of these events by academics or anyone else. The studying of trends etc. by specialists often yields information necessary to understand and to further prevent such atrocities.
The law would have to strike a balance between the public's right to be informed, the media's right to free speech, and the need to deny terrorists, school shooters, etc. the publicity they crave and which if given, only encourages the next event.
NOT SO DIFFICULT, SURELY?
I realise that the wording of a law designed to achieve the above aims might be a challenge, but surely it can't be that difficult.
Consider the network coverage of the Sydney Siege. Most of the time, the reporters have nothing sensible to say, and they simply repeat themselves over and over again, interspersing these with comments which are often inane.
These events are too similar to qualify as breaking news...Surely?
These events all follow a similar pattern. Hours of inane speculation, few facts, very little information. News conferences where very little is said. And finally, after the event is over, a more detailed news conference. What such TV reports lack in content they make up for with Sensation.
Let's take the way bomb blasts from Pakistan, Afghanistan or elsewhere are reported. Often news events are interrupted, a "BREAKING NEWS" label is displayed, and we are provided with images of the aftermath. Crowds of people, ambulances, blood stains, wailing, and rubble. The pictures of one blast's aftermath exactly the same as the previous one.
Why show it then. Can't be news surely? Surely Bomb blasts from that part of the world are routine, not news?
Or do we need to show the aftermath because we know the terrorists responsible (save for the suicide bomber of course) are sitting at home rubbing their hands in glee, waiting to see their handiwork on international display.
Why can't we just replace such coverage with a two minute announcement at the end of the news ...delivered in a bored tone? "And there's been another bomb blast in Karachi, Pakistan today. We'll update this report with the number injured or killed in later report." No pictures.
Would we be poorer without sensational rolling media coverage?
If we did not have to view this sort of coverage, would any of us be the poorer? I mean, really worse off? No we would not. A short news report read by a reporter would serve our right to know equally as well, and it would do so without adding to the hysteria and sensation, and thus without serving the purposes of the perpetrator.
For example, if there were no television coverage, and no media were permitted to print pictures of the victims being forced to hold their hands for two hours at a time against the windows of the café during the Sydney Seige, the odds are that they would not have been required to do so. It was done for effect!
When one of the television reporters mentioned how he could see a woman with her hands up in tears, my anger was not directed at the hostage taker. It was at the reporter, his network and the other networks who were showing the pictures.
Did we need to know the motive for the #NYPD shootings? More to the point, did we need to know anything about the shooter. No. There is no doubt in my mind that if the shooter was simply referred to as a shooter or gunman, (disturbed gunman if applicable) and if the motive was not broadcast, everyone would be safer. I realise the present motive touches a sore point amongst certain communities, but if we agree that these shootings are an aberration, not a solution, then we must treat these shootings as such.
Ultimately, the shooters, whether they are terrorists, school shooters, a lone disturbed person with a cause, they all have the same wish, PUBLICITY. Ultimately, it matters not whether the perpetrator does it for Allah, for his revenge on the part of his community, or because he wishes to punish people for all the wrongs done, his motive is irrelevant and death follows all the same.
Don't announce the motive. Don't give the guy a rousing #CNN blow by blow documentary or send-off which grants him his 15 MINUTES OF CELEBRITY... I can almost promise you, if you stop the coverage of these things, the violence will decrease considerably. Continue the coverage as we do now...and I guarantee you, that like the school shootings the texas shootings etc etc...the COPYCAT killers will pop up for their moment in the sun.
Quite how we go about denying these monsters the oxygen of publicity can be a matter of debate. My suggestions may or may not be part of an ultimate solution.
see exactly the same views and similar suggestions I discovered after writing my article....
What Mass Killers Want—And How to Stop Them
Rampage shooters crave the spotlight, and we should do everything possible to deprive them of it.
Nov. 8, 2013 7:32 p.m. ET
& a similar article by
ANSEL HERZ
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/does-media-coverage-of-school-shootings-lead-to-more-school-shootings/Content?oid=20329038
What is not up for debate is that until the news networks, especially the television news, change the way they provide publicity to hostage takers, terrorists and school shooters and the like, these events will continue.
On the other hand, if the coverage were to be limited to the bare minimum, as I suggest, that it would frustrate the terrorists no end. There would be no point to a lone wolf attack if he knew in advance his sacrifice would be meaningless because of the lack of coverage for his cause and because he knew in advance his demands, if any, would not be met.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/scholarly/JMME2.htm - this article contains research proving the links of which I speak....
http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/news-orgs-should-deny-mass-killers-the-attention-they-crave/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/josephgrenny/2012/12/13/the-media-is-an-accomplice-in-public-shootings-a-call-for-a-stephen-king-law/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kimann-schultz/open-letter-to-media_b_5396659.html
CLASS ACTION
There is of course one other way to make the media pay for their role in the crimes. Wait for the right case. Do a class action and take them down for millions in damages.
As a lawyer, I believe the relative delictual links would be easy to prove. What's more, I can just imagine how easily a jury will accept the common sense link if the right copy-cat case is picked. Forseeability...Causation would be very easy to prove.
Nor could the media hide behind press freedom or the freedom of expression as a Justification ground. Because they would not be able to convince any court that they could not fulfil their function equally as well without naming the killer, quoting from his web site, or doing a full expose on his life.
For example, the second texas shooting. Remember how the reporters fell over each other, all in apparently blissful ignorance of the blood dripping from their hands, as the mentioned in sensational style that this was the second such event. ..... They asked all manner of INANE questions, but the most important one was NEVER asked.
Where did texas soldier number two get the idea to do what he did from? We all know the answer to that.
SO, DON'T BLAME THE TERRORISTS, BLAME THE MEDIA,, and BLAME OUR LEADERS! The change can only come from them!
Siegfried Walther 2014
See also: MH 370 & AF 447. You heard it here first, and correctly!
Now a Free eBook you can download at iBooks, Smashwords, Kobo.....
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/526079
http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/12/mh370-af447-experts-confirm-views-first.html
PS..no Perth Siege that I know of exists...yet...no thanks to the media. But we all know their coverage has whetted the appetite of some lone wolf or organisation for more........
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/517863
No comments:
Post a Comment