The same can apply to mass shootings - does exhaustive media coverage of such events help to breed more? Is the posthumous fame part of the attraction for the perpetrators?
It's a tricky one - news outlets have a duty to offer the facts, and if they don't, rumour and falsehoods will spread still further on social media.
But should the media, the printed press in particular, keep it as dry as possible? Unless it is in the best interests of the police and the authorities, should names and photographs of the perpetrators be omitted, or at least minimalised, and not splashed across front pages?
Similarly, should photographs of the victims be splashed across front pages and double-page spreads, or is it insensitive to friends and family?
A free press is essential, and I'm not remotely endorsing any type of censorship, but does sensationalist coverage, with every minute detail included, add to the problem, and even encourage copycats?
It's a tricky one - news outlets have a duty to offer the facts, and if they don't, rumour and falsehoods will spread still further on social media.
But should the media, the printed press in particular, keep it as dry as possible? Unless it is in the best interests of the police and the authorities, should names and photographs of the perpetrators be omitted, or at least minimalised, and not splashed across front pages?
Similarly, should photographs of the victims be splashed across front pages and double-page spreads, or is it insensitive to friends and family?
A free press is essential, and I'm not remotely endorsing any type of censorship, but does sensationalist coverage, with every minute detail included, add to the problem, and even encourage copycats?
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire