Woolwich killing: Getting the coverage right
One quick look at today's front pages will confirm the potential pitfalls of covering a terrorist attack. There are some pretty grubby examples on offer. The Daily Express' decision to plaster a photo of Kate Middleton (yep, she's still pregnant) next to the story was staggeringly misjudged.
But the worst example came from the Guardian, which is usually more restrained. Like most newspapers, it ran with an image of one of the alleged assailants, his hands covered in blood, with the headline: "You people will never be safe." He might as well write them a cheque. They did his job for him.
As Sunder Katwala pointed out last night, the decision to extract direct quotes as the top line was a mistake. It was especially damaging given the Guardian's decision to use a large photo for the front page, giving the event an extra injection of importance and relevance. It spreads the message of the terrorists and serves to lionise them in the eyes of men who might consider similar actions.
A similar responsibility lies with broadcasters. There has been a growing awareness of how repeatedly showing the photographs and home-made videos of mass shooters in the US encourages others to commit similar crimes. Recently, some outlets have tried to offer a more restrained take. That sort of approach would have been suitable here.
However, there are certain details journalists are trained to focus on and which prove impossible to avoid. There was some question yesterday whether the video of the alleged assailant was suitable to be shown. It clearly was, on the basis that the public must be informed of what is happening on its streets. Similar, it was appropriate to quote the man in the body of the copy, if not as the headline.
In actual fact, repeating his words is useful, because it shows how muddled and redundant his thinking is. Specifically, he seems unsure whether the words 'us' and 'we' refers to Britain or Afghanistan. It is not a coherent message; it is a cry of confusion.
Journalists also understandably focused on the exotic weaponry, with a machete involved in the slaying. It appears the two men tried to behead the victim. These may seem like gruesome, unnecessary details, but they are vital to the terrorists' psychological message: that the warfare of far away is now on British streets. A method of killing which would be considered unspeakably savage by most Brits was employed. It is a violent, foreign death – conducted domestically. But to avoid this information would be to do the public a disservice. They are part of understanding an event which it is in the publics' interest to understand.
Coverage must be suitable restrained and sober, especially when one of the specified aims of the terrorists is to encourage "war in London". Presumably they would have envisaged the EDL marches last night and BNP protests for Saturday as the first step in that process.
But some quarters of the internet are demanding a little too much restraint. Some have demanded, for instance, that the events be described solely as a crime. They point to the problematic use of the word terrorism and ask why the insane rambles of lunatics should be given credence by repetition from newspapers and websites.
The trouble here is that motive does matter. It matters in journalism, because it explains an event. It matters in law, as categories such as 'racially aggravated assault' demonstrate. Even the distinction between manslaughter and homicide is proof of the relevance of motive. As a society, we care about what someone was trying to do, not just what they did do.
Some on the left said Theresa May's description of the killing as an attack "on everyone in the United Kingdom" was needlessly provocative. But May was right: acts of terror are by definition attacks on the people of the country, because their stated aim is to secure political change through violence, generally by spreading fear. The comments of the alleged assailant yesterday confirmed that.
It is incumbent on the press to treat the attacks as what they are: a political event. And this fact does hinge solely on the motive of the assailant. But that does not mean we adopt the same politics as the perpetrators. For instance it would be completely wrong for any news outlet to demand condemnation of the attacks from British Muslims. British Muslims are no more responsible for the attack than anyone else. To demand extra statements from them is to vindicate the central argument of the terrorists.
A similarly responsible approach needs to be taken when covering the far-right response to the killing. It is vital that news outlets do not enflame the situation. This can be difficult for tabloids, who are used to being as provocative as possible. It is not much easier for the rest of us. There is lots of traffic for this story. The temptation to make it more lurid with colourful coverage of Islamic extremism and the far-right, to drum up the sense of crisis, is always there.
It seems unfair that no more than 200 lager lout EDL thugs should be able to control a news agenda. It is even worse than the spent force of the BNP and its village-idiot leader Nick Griffin should command column inches with their predictably irresponsible response to the killing. But at the same time the press cannot get itself into the position of becoming official censor.
We are not in the business of studiously ignoring events because of their possible effect on the public. Of course, this might take place in wartime, but at the relatively small scale of disruption we are addressing right now, it would be inappropriate and unethical.
The smaller details can torture you too. I spent quite a long time yesterday wondering whether to mention that the two men waited at the scene for half an hour before police arrived, not hurting bystanders, not showing any fear of what was to come, sympathising with women who saw the attack and making no attempt to escape. I thought mentioning this could make them sound honourable. But to censor this sort of information is paternalistic.
At this early stage of the story, almost no-one is getting it right – although I must confess I was surprised by quite how wrong many newspapers got it yesterday. Ultimately, you can't nail the final coverage. It will always be a tortuous compromise. But you can nail the approach you take and proceed responsibly: informing rather than shaping, adopting a more passive, receptive approach than the media usually does.
If you want to tell us how we're doing contact us at @Politics_co_uk on Twitter or on our Facebook page.
