Watching the news

Like lots of other people, I imagine, we eat our evening meal in front of the news. Usually Channel 4+1, by the time the children are settled and we’ve slumped onto the sofa with a plate of something which can be mechanically shovelled into our mouths with a minimum of thought.

Actually, I get most of my news from Twitter these days, and annoy my husband senseless, beating Jon Snow or Krishnan Guru-Murthy to the punchline like a heckler who’s seen the gig before. Or talking over them and laying out instead the narrative I’ve woven together from all I’ve read over the day. Or chipping in when guests are being interviewed, demolishing their arguments with a deadly parry and counter-thrust of my own version of events.

I think, on balance, he’d rather watch it in peace. but I feel compelled to explain, challenge, elucidate. Because, of course, I have my own agenda, just as the news editors do. “The News” is no more a concept capable of comprehensive coverage than “The Weather”. There’s a choice, all the time, of what to tell and how to tell it; shaping a hierarchy in our heads of which events are the most important and worthy of attention.

I saw the horrific events in Woolwich unfold on Wednesday on Twitter, keeping the radio in the kitchen turned off as it became apparent that this wasn’t something I could handle explaining to my children, who are only seven, five and two. Long before official confirmation, a version of events was becoming rapidly accepted as true; and shortly thereafter mainstream media outlets were linking to and embedding within their reports the graphic images and footage of the attackers.

That they were being shown, in full, without (in many cases) prior warning of their nature, is something I feel deeply uncomfortable with. Along with a deep sense of horror and sadness at the murder itself, I’ve struggled with this ever since. I don’t want to see such things, and I certainly don’t want any children to see them, but that in itself isn’t necessarily a good reason for them not to be seen. There are too many places in the world where there is scant consideration for such sensibilities. Were, then, the news outlets wrong? Is it censorship not to show, but only to describe? There must have been horrific images of other crimes edited out for broadcast or print since time immemorial. Why this; why now?

A man has been murdered in the most appalling of circumstances; a family has to learn of devastating loss and grief in the midst of blanket coverage – in unprecedented detail – of his death. In my opinion, stories should always be told, but there is no need to see the aftermath to comprehend the horror entailed in hearing that someone has been beheaded and his body hacked with machetes. Furthermore, if the story of what happened in Woolwich is correct, then the attackers surely have achieved their aim of maximum publicity by having their words and actions broadcast around the world, as well as fuelling anger, debate and unrest closer to home.

In the welter of tweets about Woolwich, I saw one linking to an article about another apparently racially motivated machete attack, this time in Birmingham, the victim an elderly Muslim man. Perhaps I missed it, but I don’t think it was widely reported. I think I would have found the Woolwich coverage disturbing in any circumstances, but the contrast in the way the two murders were covered in the media leaves me deeply uneasy. Many factors make the attack in Woolwich horrifying and grotesque beyond measure. To brutally murder a stranger and then deliberately create a stage from which to reach a maximum audience is incomprehensible. But breaking all previously existing codes about what is deemed acceptable to be shown creates a subliminal message that this is something which is uniquely evil; reinforcing an idea that this is ground-breaking too in what it means for us as a country – and that is a message which worries me just as much as the terror the killers sought to cause.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Watching the news

  1. I was out Wed afternoon. I saw an oblique reference to Woolwich in one tweet. I turned to the TV unaware as to what to expect.
    It saddens me how the media choose to report or not to report. It was very interesting reading the telegraphs account of the woman who confronted the men – compared to the same in the guardian. The former was, in my view, inflammatory in its language. Critical detail emphasised by the telegraph which in the guardian she clearly said she didn’t see. The expensive review of the media seems to have done little for their ethics. Depressing.

  2. Absolutely excellent post. I was appalled and literally sickened by seeing the footage; by showing that so widely, we surely played straight into their hands?

  3. I’ve only heard one other person mention the Birmingham murder, it feels almost like it’s in some way ‘wrong’ to mention it, which is crazy because it does highlight the way the media shows different stories in this country. It’s an awful and shocking thing to have happened and I’ve tried to stay away from the footage, but there is also that pandoras box bit in the back of my head that makes me want to click on the footage on the news websites. I wish they didn’t have it there as an option.

  4. This is essentially how I felt on reading about the horrible attack in Woolwich and then learning about the similar crime and they difference in the way the two were reported.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s