There has been much
debate as to whether media outlets were right to publish graphic images and
video footage of the horrific scenes from Woolwich.
The brutal killing
of British soldier, Drummer Lee Rigby, 25, on the streets of the capital was
shocking enough, but the fact that we were able to watch a video of the alleged perpetrator
telling us why he did it, with a meat cleaver in his blood-soaked hands, rammed
home the reality of what happened.
According to MediaGuardian, Ed Campbell, the news editor
for ITV News, was the first journalist to speak to the man who filmed the footage.
The witness showed him what he had filmed on his
BlackBerry shortly after the attack. Campbell jumped into a taxi with the
film-maker and raced back to the ITN newsroom at Gray's Inn Road in central
London, about 11 miles away through dense traffic.
The pair are believed to have arrived back in the office
shortly before 6pm, as reports that the incident was a terrorist attack began
to gain traction. The footage was "ingested" into the ITV News
production system by 6.04pm and 26 minutes later aired on its evening news
bulletin, strengthening the perception of the incident as a possible terrorist
attack.
The decision to broadcast was taken by senior ITV News
executives who weighed the "editorial, taste and legal" implications.
An ITV News spokesman said: "We carefully considered showing this
footage ahead of broadcast and made the decision to do so on a public interest
basis as the material is integral to understanding the horrific incident that
took place.
“It was editorially justified to show such footage in the aftermath of such
a shocking attack, and we prefaced it on ITV News at 6.30pm and News at Ten
with appropriate warnings to make viewers aware in advance of the graphic
images about to be shown."
But were they
right? Did they step over the lines of taste and decency in broadcasting it in
their early evening bulletin? After all, many parents would have been watching
with their children, no doubt leading to some difficult conversations from
inquisitive kids.
At the time of
writing 800 complaints have been made about the airing of the footage. And it
split broadcasting chiefs too, as the BBC ran it after ITV but Sky refused on
the grounds of taste and decency and the fact that it could provide a potential
platform for terrorists.
Although I am sure if
Sky had obtained the recording first, they would have run with it.
For the record, I
believe the decision to broadcast was the right one, one hundred per cent.
Judgement calls are
made every second of every day in newsrooms, often under intense pressure and sometimes
with seconds, rather than minutes, to spare.
And, as you can see
from above, it was in this environment that news chiefs at ITN took the bold
decision to lead with the incredible recording.
Yes it is graphic
and yes by broadcasting it the media can be accused of giving people who commit
such acts the oxygen of publicity.
However, I would
argue that they didn’t have a choice - they simply HAD to broadcast it.
Making sense of
tragedies, disasters and other newsworthy events is what reporting is all about.
The alleged attacker provided some amazing insight into why he is believed to
have done what he did. It offered up reasons behind the attack, however graphic
it helps us to begin to understand why it happened.
So, it follows that
newspapers also had to publish the graphic images too and put the video online.
This is a view supported by leading media commentator Roy Greenslade.
The images were quickly
shared across the globe through a variety of platforms including YouTube,
Twitter accounts, Facebook pages, reddit and Tumblr.
South London rapper
Boya Dee’s live tweeting of the unfolding events went viral and proved vital in
piecing together exactly what happened in the minutes and hours that followed.
It shows how new
technology and good old-fashioned journalism are able to combine with
extraordinary results. However, having a smartphone and recording an event does
not in itself make us all reporters now.
Rather, it makes us
better eye-witnesses. Being a good journalist is something else entirely.















