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
Related Stories
The news media has long been accused of turning mass shooters into celebrities. As the nation endures an ongoing stream of mass shootings, criminologists, police and even the FBI are turning to virus epidemiology and behavioral psychology to understand what sets off mass shooters and figure out whether, as with the flu, the spread can be interrupted. Now Michael S. Rosenwald writes at The Washington Post that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence wants to wipe mass killers off the internet with a browser plug-in that replaces the names and pictures of mass shooters in news stories with the names and pictures of their victims.
"The fact is, notoriety serves as a reward for these killers and as a call-to-action for others who would seek to do similar harm in the name of infamy," says Dan Gross. Researchers says mass shooters intensely study their forbears. They often reference each other in their online ramblings and attempt to honor — or surpass — them in their own rampages. Until the news media agrees to stop naming mass shooters, their notoriety will continue to spread, particularly to disturbed people susceptible to those images. "The media also has a role to refrain from memorializing monsters by splashing the names and faces of shooters all over television, newspapers, and the Internet," says Gross.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @02:05PM
Some daesh
(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.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Friday July 29 2016, @02:28PM
This certainly sounds like a noble goal, but I'm sure there will always be someone willing to report the information. And there will be plenty of people who want to know the information who certainly aren't trying to glorify the killers. As long as there's freedom the names will be put out there for those who want to know. The only way to really achieve this is to take away the freedom of your competition and your audience. Of course, in many jurisdictions, freedom can be taken away for a goal that is perceived as noble. So in the end, this sounds vaguely threatening to me - are they going to try to merely lead by example, or are they ultimately going to call for the suppression of their competition that doesn't agree?
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @02:54PM
> As long as there's freedom the names will be put out there for those who want to know.
Which is totally irrelevant.
This isn't about censoring facts. It is about denying people fame. News coverage is publicity. Its notoriety. Its promotion. These people deserve none of that. The press is waking up to the fact that in the process of reporting the news, they've been doing much more than just reporting. These people's names are of practically no value at all in terms of reporting. The public learns nothing about them from their names. Facts about their backgrounds are 1000x more newsworthy than their names. So the public loses practically nothing by their omission, but the killers themselves lose nearly everything. Their identities will continue to be footnotes in the history books, nothing more.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday July 29 2016, @03:03PM
This isn't about censoring facts. It is about denying people fame. News coverage is publicity. Its notoriety. Its promotion. These people deserve none of that.
My point is that you can't actually deny other people fame. You can avoid giving them coverage yourselves, but you can't stop others from doing it.
The press is waking up to the fact that in the process of reporting the news, they've been doing much more than just reporting. These people's names are of practically no value at all in terms of reporting. The public learns nothing about them from their names. Facts about their backgrounds are 1000x more newsworthy than their names. So the public loses practically nothing by their omission, but the killers themselves lose nearly everything. Their identities will continue to be footnotes in the history books, nothing more.
Okay, so NBC chooses not to report the terrorist's name, but ABC still does it. What has been accomplished? Is the killer's identity now a footnote in the history books? Did NBC achieve their goal? Is their goal to simply not be a part of giving the terrorist fame, or is their goal to completely prevent the terrorist becoming famous? If the second, how is NBC going to accomplish that - are they going to lobby for ABC not to be allowed to report it?
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @03:07PM
> My point is that you can't actually deny other people fame
Fame is not binary. Its incremental. The less fame people give you, the less famous you are.
You are stuck in that classic geek failure mode of believing that if something is not perfect, then it is useless.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday July 29 2016, @03:13PM
You are stuck in that classic geek failure mode of believing that if something is not perfect, then it is useless.
I didn't say anything was useless. I asked if the goal was to "simply not be a part of giving the terrorist fame, or is their goal to completely prevent the terrorist becoming famous?" and "If the second, how [are they] going to accomplish that - are they going to lobby for [others] not to be allowed to report it?" It sounds like your answer is "the goal simply to not be a part of giving the terrorist fame." If so, then that takes care of the concerns I raised. But when people discuss this issue they are usually pretty vague about the wording, leading to the possibility that at least some people would favor the use of force to stop others from reporting the names of killers.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @03:41PM
> or is their goal to completely prevent the terrorist becoming famous?
Binary. You keep doing it. Only you think binary is their goal. Probably because you want to complain about censorship since that's an easy binary complaint to make, much easier than understanding how human society actually works. Life is analog.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday July 29 2016, @04:38PM
Only you think binary is their goal.
No I don't - are you reading my posts?
Probably because you want to complain about censorship since that's an easy binary complaint to make, much easier than understanding how human society actually works.
I have no problem with self-censorship and am passionately opposed to government censorship. It has nothing to do with anything being an easy complaint. It has everything to do with trying to highlight a line that for some reason people don't always observe.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @06:01PM
classic geek failure mode
Nice generalization.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @10:02PM
'classic' : of a class (+ other bits of stuff)
Yes, a nicely chosen equivalent of 'generalisation', that is just what he meant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @04:08PM
This. Whenever you deny someone publicity/notoriety for their dastardly deed it seems like it has to be a step in the right direction. Even if it's only a few newspapers that sign on initially, this is a good thing.
I remember being very frustrated by the Bush administration calling for a "War on Terror" after 9/11. By declaring war on Al-Qaeda it immediately legitimized them as a state-level actor. Wars are between countries. If instead, we had sent all the same troops after them, but called it a police action to catch international criminals, my gut tells me that Al-Qaeda would have had a lot more trouble recruiting.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @04:33PM
Today it's someone who does a dastardly act. Tomorrow it will be regular criminal's. And from there it will go to anyone who disagrees with the 'common' consensus.
While I agree with you that the situation should have been treated as law enforcement rather than war, censorship though even in the name of 'good' is still censorship and it's only good because you fall on the correct side of it.
I oppose this action by the newspapers simply because I seem to be some of the few who has enough foresight to imagine one day that the argument will be 'people wouldn't have such shocking and disturbing views if we just don't allow them to speak'.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday July 29 2016, @05:00PM
It's not "censorship".
It's refusing to do the job of the terrorists.
ISIS is just a bunch of loonies on pickup trucks, who are incapable of taking a town 30km from their "capital" because it's not filled with Sunni.
But they are really really good at propaganda, and using the media and the internet, to recruit weak no-life boys who have a sense of oppression from the European country where they've lived their entire life in a dead-end crumbling neighborhood.
Join ISIS, you'll be someone! The Presidents of the world will talk about your deeds and repeat your name! The 24/7 channels will show your pictures in a loop that will only be broken when another ISIS member kills more than you! Even if we don't know you, and you just feel like killing your asshole boss, go gruesome and pledge for us, and you'll teach his family a lesson!
I've been saying that for a few years now. The West is stupid. We empower the middle-east rednecks (apologies to the working rednecks) to kick us.
We need to stop talking about their "conquests", stop reporting every fucking time one of them threatens anything, cut off their phones and Internet access, threaten google and the other Internet providers who provide platforms for propaganda (they're immune because they half-ass suppressing videos after they're told, which is too late. their algorithms could do a lot of pre-sorting).
Refusing to transmit the enemy's propaganda is not censorship.
Censorship would be avoiding talking about the people who die here or there, or why. The innocent should be named. Our fallen sons and daughters can be named. We don't need to name the other side's soldiers, or use our tax-funded infrastructure to let them recruit.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @06:08PM
It is censorship. Specifically, self-censorship. This term has existed for a while now; get over it.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday July 29 2016, @06:30PM
Under the broadest definition of self-censorship, it might be.
Otherwise, it's called journalism: sorting information based on the actual value to the target, rather than ratings.
Haven't seen much of that on most media outlets recently.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday July 29 2016, @03:10PM
Yep. The Cat's outta the bag. Europeans are pissed that their treasonous officials are making them eat shit sandwiches and then "get used to it."
Are you wondering why European officials are destroying Europe by allowing in hordes of filthy murderous unskilled Islamic savages? Does this not make any sense to you? Sure, on one level it's something about supporting some kind of welfare net for the aging or driving wages down.
But, my friends, I'm afraid it's more sinister than that. Europe is being deliberately weakened, thanks to U.S. puppets like Hollande, Merkel (remember how her phone was tapped by the NSA? To ensure compliance), and the whole wretched hive of scum and villany in Brussels.
Europe, and later the EU, was bolstered as a "buffer zone" between the West and Russia during the cold war and so they said that it was good for Europe to be as united an prosperous as possible. However, within the last 10-20 years, Europe got to be so powerful that it started to present a threat to U.S. Financial Hegemony, and we couldn't have that. We, with some help from our buddies the Jews (who are experts in infiltrating and compromising entire societies, and Merkel has Jewish ancestry) put into action a plan to weaken the Leviathan we helped create.
It is no coincidence that Saddam announced that he wanted to sell oil in Euros, and look what happened to him. And Gadaffi, for other but similar reasons.
But yes, back to the original point, press censorship sucks ass!
(Score: 1) by jdavidb on Friday July 29 2016, @03:18PM
Yep. The Cat's outta the bag. Europeans are pissed that their treasonous officials are making them eat shit sandwiches and then "get used to it."
Just FYI for anyone reading, that is definitely not where I was going with my post that he is replying to.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @05:56PM
The Jews are behind it all?
Oh come on man that is just lazy. You can do better than that.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday July 29 2016, @04:00PM
Freedom of speech is also the freedom to keep your mouth shut, if you want to.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @03:51PM
They will continue to publish photos. However those photos will either be mug shots, ids, or other legal identifications. No longer the everyday life or propaganda pictures.
This was clarified in a talk with Renee Montagne. http://www.npr.org/2016/07/29/487884826/in-france-journalists-debate-whether-to-publish-photos-of-terrorists [npr.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 29 2016, @09:07PM
Thanks for the info!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Friday July 29 2016, @04:43PM
The most ethical thing a journalist can do is fully report what has occured, not to selectively report so to influence others. Journalists are supposed to report the story not be part of it. Hiding this info will only reinforce the right-wing view that most media outlets would prefer not to tie these crimes a certain group even if there is a clear case to make such a connection.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Troll) by Dunbal on Friday July 29 2016, @04:46PM
This is the same pattern from the liberals. When faced with the complete failure of their policies and unwilling to realize that saying "nice kitty" to the hungry tiger hasn't prevented it from attacking them, they revert to their typical defensive behavior pattern: IGNORE IT AND IT WILL JUST GO AWAY.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SecurityGuy on Friday July 29 2016, @05:11PM
I don't think it's anything like "ignore it and it'll go away." It's more like there really is a copycat effect, so maybe we shouldn't play into it. It's also that people are really terrible at judging relative risk, so the average .usian is afraid of terrorists, which are horribly unlikely to kill them, but not concerned about drunk drivers, cancer, or heart disease, which are much more likely to kill them.
If the news media is going to wake up and realize they're doing us a disservice by reporting what they do, the way they do, then great.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @06:35PM
I don't even want to know what people would do about drunk drivers if they became scared of them. More thug officers setting up DUI checkpoints? All new cars have to have proprietary [gnu.org] breathalysers? Who knows what nonsense people would come up with. I'm not sure I'd like widespread fear about cancer or heart disease, either.
The fact is, fear leads to bad policy and reductions in freedom. Keep a cool head.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @05:16PM
hmmm ... we should then also not mention the two atomic bombs, the first and second world war, that famous photopicture of the soldier getting shot in spain and maybe also let's forget all that "arbeit macht frei" old testament religion eradication attempt?
rather we should inform ALOT about what innocent lives were impacted by this completely useless act of craziness. i mean, we got heartthrob and emotions with all that "big brother" TV stuff, so it is assumed, the media could do some real emotional damage to would be copy-cats?
you know, maybe somebody will overhaul the classification of crazies and then we need some pictures of them?
maybe we need to remember that allowing a foreign country (usa) with no shared borders to bomb the shit out of your neighborhood (middle east) will set off all kind of angry and volatile wasps that are going to sting you and not the far far away bomb hurdling country.
anyways, at least now we know why nothing much is known about antic societies, like the pyramid buildings: french news medias non-coverage.
the only good side is, that you can now forget about france being not safe and go about your regular/normal business because media has harry potter like magically disappeared the threat with the wave of the magic pen and printing press...
anyways, it doubt paradise needs to rely on human made media to keep track of the admitted heros.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday July 29 2016, @05:45PM
Put the media in the hands of the government. Tightly control what is and is not allowed to be reported on.
Yeah, I am sure nothing will go wrong with that.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday July 29 2016, @08:15PM
What's happening isn't that. According to the article, a psychoanalyst who is also a professor—not the government—asked news organisations to stop reporting attackers' names. Several have decided to do so.