SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Several French news organizations, including Le Monde, BFM-TV, La Croix, Europe 1, and France 24, are changing their policies relating to the broadcast and publishing of terrorist names and photographs. Le Monde's director argued that publishing the information amounted to "posthumous glorification":
Several French news organisations have said they will no longer publish photographs of people responsible for terrorist killings, to avoid bestowing "posthumous glorification".
Le Monde published an editorial after the latest attack, the murder of an elderly priest in a church near Rouen by two men claiming allegiance to Islamic State. Under the headline "Resisting the strategy of hate", Le Monde argued on Wednesday that all elements of society had to be involved in the struggle against terrorism, and that media organisations had a special role to play.
"The sites and newspapers that produce this information cannot excuse themselves from self-examination on several fronts. Since Isis terrorism first appeared, Le Monde has changed its practices several times," the newspaper said.
It first chose not to republish images from Isis propaganda documents. Then, after the attack in Nice on 14 July, when a truck drove through crowds enjoying the Bastille Day public holiday, Le Monde said it had decided to "no longer publish photographs of the perpetrators of killings, to avoid the potential effect of posthumous glorification".
France Télévisions [sic] resisted following suit, with the executive director of news saying, "we must resist this race towards self-censorship and grand declarations of intention."
There have been similar calls in the U.S. to pressure media organizations to self-censor the names and photographs of mass killers, culminating in the formation of a campaign called No Notoriety, founded by the parents of one of the victims of the 2012 Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting.
Related: Wipe the Names of Mass Killers Off the Internet
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @02:10PM
I wonder if there is an ulterior motive for this?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Dunbal on Friday July 29 2016, @02:20PM
Surely they can't be changing long-standing traditions to, I don't know, cover certain things up.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday July 29 2016, @03:01PM
I don't think they are trying to cover it up, especially if they're still announcing that somebody has ties to ISIS or something.
We can accept as a given that ordinary people do not typically try to kill as many people as possible in a suicidal gesture. So why do these guys do it? It has to be more than the 72-virgin fantasy, because about a billion people follow a religion with that idea and about 99.999% of them aren't trying to do anything remotely like that. No, I think part of the story is that they know that by doing this, they will be immortalized in the press.
As an example of the real harm that comes from naming people who do things that are stupid and violent, consider that John Hinckley shot Reagan specifically to get in the papers.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Friday July 29 2016, @04:41PM
No, I think part of the story is that they know that by doing this, they will be immortalized in the press.
Nope. The ones who suicide actually DO believe in this crazy paradise stuff. The ones who send them to do it know that the more bombs they set off, the more heads they cut off, THE GREATER THE FUNDING THEY GET. By who? Those "moderates" who put more distance between themselves and the bomb. Now I agree that cutting press exposure also reduces the publicity they get from their acts. However this is 2016. Word of terror events WILL get out. Or what's the next step - start locking down the internet? Putting people in jail for uploading videos, photos, and eyewitness accounts? In the end, what will the result be - government censorship and crackdown ON ITS OWN POPULATION because of terrorism. Well done. Whatever happened to "we won't let them change the way we live"...?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @04:54PM
cutting press exposure also reduces the publicity they get from their acts.
It reduces the publicity for the single person, but increases the publicity for the group. Now the act isn't humanized by being linked to a single crazy person; now it was performed by a group, an idea, that keeps living and growing - something that can't be captured or put on trial.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Friday July 29 2016, @06:17PM
Again. HELLO IT'S 2016. Shutting down newspapers no longer works. They are not the sole source of information. In fact, if you shut down "legitimate" news sources, all you're doing is increasing the amount of people who will get their information from "other" sources. Traditional media is in BIG trouble today. Ratings are down. People don't watch TV any more. Has everyone gone blind? No, they're all on the internet, and news is moving through other channels - reddit, liveleak, facebook, etc. Are you going to stop all that, too?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @09:57PM
France is not "shutting down newspapers."
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Friday July 29 2016, @10:52PM
Whether it is forced censorship or self-censorship the idea is the same (and go ahead and prove that the self-censorship isn't because someone in the government had a word with the publisher). And it will be counter-productive. Instead of facts you will have speculation. Speculation is impossible to control.
(Score: 3, Informative) by rts008 on Friday July 29 2016, @06:21PM
That train left the station long ago.
Have you noticed:
Department of Homeland Security
PATRIOT Act
TSA goons in the airports
trigger-happy cops and security personnel
almost everyone jumping at shadows, and expecting a terrorist behind every bush
and much, much more?
Most of the 'news media' spreads FUD as thick as politicians do, and we are constantly hearing about threats all around us, all the time.
No, too late, massive changes already happened.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @04:45PM
about a billion people follow a religion with that idea and about 99.999% of them aren't trying to do anything remotely like that.
30% of the "american" ones support the murders done by the "0.001%".
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday July 29 2016, @05:52PM
30% of the "american" ones support the murders done by the "0.001%".
Hmm, that stat smells a bit off. I wonder where you pulled it from....
More generally, Muslims mostly say that suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam are rarely or never justified, including 92% in Indonesia and 91% in Iraq. In the United States, a 2011 survey found that 86% of Muslims say that such tactics are rarely or never justified. An additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% say they are often justified in these circumstances.
[Citation Provided] [pewresearch.org]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday July 29 2016, @05:45PM
James Holmes wanted to 'blow up' or 'shoot people' to become famous. [chicagotribune.com]
Documents released by prosecutors show convicted theater shooter James Holmes wanted to 'blow up' or 'shoot people' to become famous. The documents also reveal how close he came to being placed in a psychiatric ward weeks before the shooting. (AP)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @02:59PM
What is the French for "retarded islamaloon"? This is the only information that matters.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday July 29 2016, @04:00PM
Your phrase, while hilarious (I'm going to steal it), is redundant.
"Islamic" is synonymous with both "Retarded," and "Loon."
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @11:46PM
The last killer in Munich a week ago - he was an Iranian Muslim born in Germany to Iranian immigrants. His name was David Ali Sonbody.
Believe it or not, some news organizations are calling him a right-wing killer, because he supposedly admired Anders Breivik. Yes, the media is literally trying to tell you that Muslim terrorists who kill while shouting "Allah Ackbar" are right wingers.
The BBC took it a step further. They actually chopped off the "Ali" from his name and called him "David Sonbody", until the public backlash started and they changed their minds.
Angela Merkel was caught on an open mic a few months ago telling Mark Zuckerberg to help censor "anti-immigrant" talk on Facebook. He agreed to help.
OF COURSE the media will use this to further their goals of being apologists for Muslim barbarity.