Unfortunately, we have run out of time - but what a great debate. Thanks for all the interesting thoughts and contributions.
I feel like I’ve learned a great deal. Look forward to talking again at the same next time next week.
A reader in London, who wishes to remain anonymous, applauds the Le Monde initiative, and feels that the British media should follow in kind, highlighting the killing of Lee Rigby in Woolwich as an example of when British newspapers - including, in his view, the Guardian - gave the attackers exactly what they wanted.
I wonder if there should be some kind of Ipso guidelines on this? Just as there are strict reporting instructions on suicides, so perhaps there should be a much clearer template for reporting on terrorist attacks and the impact they have.
And following on from Yasir’s comment below, the Guardian’s own style guide entry for terrorism is worth quoting at length, here.
A terrorist act is directed against victims chosen either randomly or as symbols of what is being opposed (eg workers in the World Trade Centre, tourists in Bali, Spanish commuters). It is designed to create a state of terror in the minds of a particular group of people or the public as a whole for political or social ends. Although most terrorist acts are violent, you can be a terrorist without being overtly violent (eg poisoning a water supply or gassing people on the underground).
Does having a good cause make a difference? The UN says no: “Criminal acts calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public are in any circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”
Whatever one’s political sympathies, suicide bombers, the 9/11 attackers and most paramilitary groups can all reasonably be regarded as terrorists (or at least groups some of whose members perpetrate terrorist acts).
Nonetheless we need to be very careful about using the term: it is still a subjective judgment – one person’s terrorist may be another person’s freedom fighter, and there are former “terrorists” holding elected office in many parts of the world. Some critics suggest that, for the Guardian, all terrorists are militants – unless their victims are British. Others may point to what they regard as “state terrorism”. Often, alternatives such as militants, radicals, separatists, etc, may be more appropriate and less controversial, but this is a difficult area: references to the “resistance”, for example, imply more sympathy to a cause than calling such fighters “insurgents”. The most important thing is that, in news reporting, we are not seen – because of the language we use – to be taking sides.
The BBC have their own guidance for reporting on terrorism.
The word “terrorist” itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as “bomber”, “attacker”, “gunman”, “kidnapper”, “insurgent”, and “militant”. We should not adopt other people’s language as our own; our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.
Updated
Being a journalist on social media at the time of an attack
I’ve been one of several journalists running some of the Guardian’s main twitter accounts during a couple of the recent attacks, and it is a real test of how you phrase your reporting. You also end up doing it in an atmosphere of intense speculation and under intense scrutiny.
As an example, with the Reutlingen stabbing, as the news was just breaking I sent a tweet out about it, and described it as an “incident”. Someone picked up one that and said it was “telling” that the Guardian had only used the word “incident” rather than calling the attack out for what it was. But at the time, I had literally only seen two paragraphs of agency copy describing what Bild was reporting had happened. In that situation it is right for a news organisation to exercise caution – I couldn’t be sure how many victims there were and if there were fatalities. You sometimes get reports that there has been a bomb and one person has been killed. It’s inaccurate to call that a murder if the only person who dies is the bomber.
And all the time you’ve got people @-messaging you that you are doing it wrong, or serving an agenda, or displaying bias. With one tweet about the Iranian background of one of the recent attackers, the replies criticised the Guardian for being racist to even mention it, and other people criticised the Guardian for trying to suppress information that he was an ISIS fighter.
It is right, of course, that people scrutinise what we do, and that we report accurately. But that doesn’t always mean reporting what people want to hear. If a police chief in a press conference says “There is no evidence yet this was linked to Islamic terrorism” and we report that verbatim on Twitter, I can guarantee the replies to a tweet like that will be a mass of people saying “Guardian, why are you deliberately downplaying this. It is obviously Islamic terrorism” when all we are doing in that instant is reporting what is said, not analysing.
The constant barrage of messages back criticising what you’ve written does have an impact. I sometimes press the tweet button with a heavy heart knowing that simply stating a headline is going to unleash a wave of critics. You are trying to tell an uncertain story as succinctly as possible in a limited amount of characters, but you know that every word choice is loaded with meaning for certain sections of the audience.
And it is difficult to report calmly in these situations. I know we aren’t the most popular profession on social media, but journalists are only human. The point of terrorism is to make you think that it could happen to you. While I’m busy reporting on a mass shooting in Munich I can’t help but think that I’ve got a trip there booked for October for my wedding anniversary. When I’m looking at the aftermath of an attack like in Nice, I can’t help but think that only a few weeks ago I was at the fanzones for Euro2016 that could easily have made a similar target to that Bastille Day crowd.
And as my colleague Elena Cresci pointed out earlier - you end up having to watch a lot of footage that in all honesty you’d rather not see, while trying to pick out the background details from Google StreetVIew to verify that the footage is from where it claims to be. You don’t want to be the reporter who makes a mistake, but that means re-watching and re-watching scenes of graphic violence.
I’ve mixed feelings about the French media plans not to show pictures of terrorists. I can see the logic, but I feel it is logic rooted in a time before social media. Major media companies deliberately not publishing material they have that will still be freely available on social media only plays into a narrative of media conspiracy that would benefit many different types of extremists.
Here’s a view from Yusuf, a reader in south London, who thinks the very usage of the word “terrorism” has become part of the problem.
The media should stop using the term all together. The words “terror” and “terrorism” have become so abused and overused as terms that they only obscure the truth. Instead their use tells the reader more about the worldview and biases of the media outlet and author rather than the event and its causes.
These acts are criminal acts and should be treated as crimes rather than set apart from all other criminal behaviour. Treating them as crimes could allow us to be less sensationalist and to approach them with the same analytical rigour as other crimes. Instead of putting their perpetrators on a pedestal they can then be treated as criminals. Criminals and the crimes they commit have a number of complex causes and motivating factors. These become obscured when we begin using words like terrorism.
Interesting views against plans in France to no longer publish photographs of people responsible for terrorist killings, to avoid bestowing “posthumous glorification”.
I'm surprised by the idea that the perpetrators shouldn't be shown after the event, it's a form on censorship. The attack has happened, people were killed and injured,people caused it. It's happened, it needs to be documented and reported accurately. With social media, online news etc, I doubt hiding photos would be effective anyway.
Does naming and shaming other violent criminals glorify them? Should we not be shown paedophiles, murderers etc.
This is a reality in 2016, and I think we need to report it rather than deny it.
Social media has changed everything about how we report on shootings and terror attacks.
In the two and a half years I’ve been working on the Guardian’s social team, there have been so many attacks. I’ve now got a system for following the news as it breaks on social media. First, come the alerts. Tweets from the scene, often local media. Then start the hashtags, as people clamour for more information. I usually have tabs open for those, but it’s the police and official sources you need to follow to get the best idea of what’s happening. At some point there will be some effort to bring positivity to the scene, difficult as that is – that’s partly why I think variants of #porteouverte and hashtags offering safety to people stranded after an attack trend every time. People want to make some sort of positive difference when they feel helpless in the face of something so awful.
Two things happen every time: one, there is usually graphic and violent imagery. The day of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, I was one of the first people in the newsroom to find that video of one of the attackers shooting a police officer in the head. I still think about that police officer all the time.
The second thing that happens is mass misinformation, whether from people with good intentions trying to figure out what’s going on or mischief-makers after retweets. There are a few variants – some play into long-running hoaxes blaming attacks on specific public individuals. There’s another repeating trend where people tweet about fake siblings caught up in the terror.
In the chaos, it’s my job to filter out what’s true and what’s not. It’s also my job to watch things no one should ever have to watch. I sometimes feel the mass availability of footage and pictures of violence on social media encourages news outlets to push the boundaries a little more. And I often worry it makes matters worse.
A view from Jerry, reader in Dublin:
The media should stop pandering to the lowest denominator. There is a duty on the media to inform the public, and a major part of that is by educating. That means they need to start looking past the sensational headlines.
We need to look at how their reporting impacts on vulnerable people, and possibly end up pushing some people towards these terrorist groups. By constantly painting a ‘them versus us’ situation between Islam and western countries young, vulnerable Muslims in western countries are caught in the middle.
Do you agree that there is a Euro-centric bias in Britain?
Would be keen for views on the way we report in Britain. Do we focus too much on events in Europe? Interesting comment in relation to this below.
I agree with Jeremy Corbyn's view that there is often a Euro-centric/Western bias in the media's coverage of terrorism. If the story being covered is 100% factual then by all means it should be covered. Such stories however should be treated sensitively for all concerned without biases which could lead to inciting hatred towards certain individuals or communities which have no involvement in terrorism or neither belong to any terrorist organisations.
'The sensational coverage of the Nice attacker was appalling'
Graham, in Cheshire, writes:
The move by certain sections of the French media is in the right direction. I believe that posthumous notoriety is part of the motivation for individuals involved in terror attacks. If all reporting were made anonymous, that motivation would be greatly reduced. There is a risk that the public would feel that crucial information is being withheld from them but I believe this could be overcome by careful reporting standards; it’s possible to report on the circumstances and background to terrorist attacks without giving names or photos of the individuals involved.
I felt that the sensational coverage of the Nice attacker was appalling. Many UK newspapers published front page photos of this murderous criminal as if he was a B-list celebrity on holiday on the beach, I found this completely gratuitous and distasteful.
Updated
Lots of interesting views in the comments on this subject. A few are shared below:
I agree with the move to not publish their identities as it just gives them the status they wanted and can encourage copycats but more importantly I think more thought should be paid to the relatives of the victims. DM insists on publishing pictures of victims and relatives hearing the news etc it's so distasteful and unnecessary. The level of detail is also unnecessary, not only is it distasteful and fear inducing it also give potential terrorists more ideas about how to carry out attacks.
In ways that don't stigmatise cross-sections of society. The specific crime committed (that is reported on) is obviously horrendous. The person who has committed the crime has done something 'monstrous', but they are not a 'monster'.
Dehumanisation via media conditioning is one of the most effective (and destructive) ways to induce a sort of societal sociopathy.
A person must pay the legal price for their misdemeanour, but by elevating their notoriety, we provide a quick route to fame for disenfranchised and marginalised people who act out. Stigmatisation of mental health dysfunction is also very unhelpful. We need to be imploring the humanity in even the most broken people in society. Rebuke the crime, not the person.
Dehumanisation via media conditioning has a part to play in the escalation of various types of hate crime and ironically the escalation of further attacks. Hyperbolic reporting on IS has added all kinds of oxygen to a sub-denominational movement which bears no relation to the core of the Muslim faith.
This is actually a difficult question: on the one hand I want to know what is happening overall and on the the other hand I really don't want to know. In the first place the element of sensation should be removed, and naturally any "glow" that the perpetrators receive from finding themselves on mass media should also be stifled.
Why not start by publishing articles with no photographs, neither of the victims, nor of the perpetrators or even the scene itself. And in addition all video should be legally banned from the various websites. The names of the victims and perpetrators should not be published but their backgrounds and biographies should still be included.
However, let us be honest with ourselves, as valid as the above question is, the real question is what are we doing about it? Listening to Hollande tell us that this will be a long war - as Obama all ready promised years ago - is becoming intolerable, and makes me wonder what we would consider to be winning this war?
And here’s a view from John, a reader in Yorkshire. His view that the facts of a terror attack should be recounted in as matter-of-fact a way as possible. But is the level of image and fact control suggested really possible in the online and social media age?
It’s necessary to recognise that terror attacks hold a grisly fascination for readers – the same sort of instinct behind sensational Hollywood films. The death and outrage exerts a powerful draw. That’s also how terror works. Every horrific incident is a colossal advert for the power and success of ISIS, drawing in more young people who want to die for that level of glamour. It’s a dialogue between media and the terrorists that has to be curtailed.
Sure, you can’t just ignore events like Nice or 9/11, but you can minimise their impact. Show no images (who wants to see a video of the horror?) and name no names. Reduce the news to mere facts and relate it to the margins of the news feed. We don’t need to know who the perpetrators were. They should be invisible.
It’s also necessary to step out of the hysteria of escalation. Nice caused a storm, but then attacks in Germany and more in France stirs the media into a frenzy so that any attack anywhere has the shadow of ISIS behind it. This is what they want. Don’t give it to them.
A few early views from our form, which remains open for comment.
Stephen, in France, says:
There should be no mention of the names and no pictures of the perpetrators. One suspects that many of these people are motivated by deep feelings of alienation and disenfranchisement. The few days of notoriety they gain by having their pictures and personal life examined minutely in the world’s media is perhaps their greatest incentive.
Heloise, from France but living in Cambridge, England, says:
I think it is crucial to not add to the overwhelming sense of panic and urgency when there is an ongoing attack. Being French, I have had the occasion to follow live reports of the many attacks over the past year and a half, and I have often felt indignant. I guess this has more to do with the TV than with newspapers: journalists should not divulge too much when operations are ongoing, they should not hinder the progress of police forces.
The media should be a guidance, and not a sensationalist fearmonger. Equal coverage should be given to all terrorist attacks: victims of terrorism are the same everywhere and we should not let ourselves forget any of them. Why should we publish portraits of French victims and not Iraqi or Syrian ones? Because there are more of them? Because terrorism is their daily life? All the more reason to stand by them, then.
Updated
Interesting view from Guardian twitter poll this morning on Le Mond and La Croix plans to stop publishing photographs of terrorists – 81% agreed with this move.
Do you think other media should follow & stop publishing images of terrorists to avoid "posthumous glorification”?
— Guardian news (@guardiannews) July 28, 2016
A round-up of views on Twitter
There’s been a lot in the news lately about various terrorist attacks. Here are some views on how they’ve been reported.
There is no major media coverage of this act of terrorism. Waiting for All Lives Matter to say something.https://t.co/4KQuxLXdMM
— Aparna Nancherla (@aparnapkin) July 20, 2016
Man loses his job & then his mind. Should media be referring to his rampage as terrorism? Vote and RT! #PrayForJapan
— Shuja Rabbani (@ShujaRabbani) July 26, 2016
I do think the media need to take a long hard look at themselves and how their reporting of terrorism is making things even worse
— Rachel (@OpenMindMH) July 27, 2016
Vincent Browne: Terrorism works only with the complicity of the media and its sensational reporting https://t.co/AUTCbX1CNK
— Colm O'Gorman (@Colmogorman) July 28, 2016
Welcome to the debate
In recent weeks the world has seen a number of horrific terrorist attacks – but what do you think about how they’ve been reported?
It’s a topic that often prompts debate, with arguments over the nature and breadth of coverage on offer. Jeremy Corbyn, for example, criticised the British media around the time of the Paris attacks, arguing adequate media attention was not given to terrorism in Beirut and Ankara. He accused news organisations of Euro-centric bias.
There’s also been debates over what should and shouldn’t be included by the press. Several French news organisations have just said that they will no longer publish photos of people responsible for terrorist killings to avoid avoid bestowing “posthumous glorification”. In an editorial after the murder of an elderly priest in a church near Rouen by two men claiming allegiance to Islamic State, Le Monde argued that all elements of society had to be involved in the struggle against terrorism, and that media organisations had a special role to play.
Then there’s the nature of coverage: research conducted by Michael Jetter, a professor at the School of Economics and Finance at Universidad EAFIT in Medellín, Colombia, found that sensationalist media coverage of terrorism results in more similar acts.
Many have argued that news organisations are often quick to call all attacks terrorism, whether it’s been proven or not, encouraging fear and inciting hatred. Others feel the opposite and that we’re too reluctant to use this word.
So what’s your view on this? Do you think that the media is selective in what terrorist acts it gives attention to? Is the tone of coverage always right? What should and shouldn’t be included? Should they show photos of terrorists? Are some organisations too sensationalist? Join us from 12pm-2pm today to discuss.
Want to contribute but lacking a commenting account? You can share your views in the form below.
Updated
If you restrict reporting by the Press and television news organisations, you simply create a bigger market for rumour, fantasy and supposition in social media. Twitter and Facebook users will post what they like, faster than anyone can take it down. See how well that super-injunction worked recently in the case of adultery by a member of a celebrity couple; you know, the one where everyone knows who it but can't say.
Do we want a world of reporting or a world of innuendo?