Real world violence and media responsibility
The terrible events surrounding the death of photojournalist James Foley force us ask serious questions about the way violent events are depicted in the media, writes Raymond Snoddy.
There have been many barbaric beheadings by Muslim extremists before – but just possibly the tragic death of James Foley might change the way the media, and social media in particular, deal with such events.
Foley is not the first American journalist to die in such a horrible way. Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal should also be remembered.
It is the combination of four factors coming together that might, and should, make a difference.
American + journalist will get the attention of the social media – all American owned – in a way that few other deaths would.
There is the additional emotional twist of complexity that Foley’s murderer almost certainly spoke with a London accent and, we can safely assume, was a second-generation immigrant and therefore UK born and probably with above average educational achievements.
The fourth piece of the jigsaw that changes how the media should respond is the fact that the murder was, as far as anyone can tell, carried out on behalf of ISIS – the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
This is no shadowy terrorist organisation sending a random suicide bomber from the hills, something notoriously difficult to combat, but an army holding territory and trying to establish a fundamentalist Caliphate. Their activities have caused horror among moderate Muslims in Syria and Iraq and even as far afield as the scarcely liberal Saudi Arabia.
It is a potent cocktail that demands action and the argument that the social media is an unmediated forum and therefore immune from responsibility does not wash on this occasion.
Arguments about how much freedom of expression liberal democracies should give to those dedicated to their destruction are as old as the hills.
Equally traditional are the arguments between those who believe full horror should be shown so that the full threat posed can be appreciated and counter-arguments that to do so desensitises through repetition.
In the case of James Foley, who can stand as a representative for the dozens, possibly hundreds of nameless, voiceless Iraqi minorities who have similarly been butchered, the issue is very clear.
The media should do nothing to help such people instil fear, or encourage other witless young people to join such a contemptible and ultimately futile cause.
In media terms this is primarily a social media problem. Established television channels have well-established rules about how gruesome their pictures can be and at what time of day they can be shown.
There has been some evidence of “mission creep” in recent years in the direction of showing more explicit images, possibly in reaction to what is openly available to anyone with the Internet.
If the Internet shows everything unvarnished, then, the argument goes, there is a danger of the traditional media being marginalised, sanitised with viewers going to the internet to get the “real” story.
Although there will always be disputes about where the line should be drawn between portraying the world as it is, and bringing gore into viewers’ living rooms, traditional broadcasters and newspapers usually behave in a reasonable way.
But what is to be done about the Internet when, at least at the outset, anything goes?
With hundreds and often thousands of tweets being posted a second, prior supervision, or censorship, is simply impossible, never mind desirable.
Dick Costolo, chief executive of Twitter, has moved quickly to provide reassurance on the Foley issue. Naturally he did it in a tweet.
“We have been and are actively suspending accounts as we discover them related to this graphic imagery. Thank you,” Costolo wrote.
In fact there is evidence that ISIS, experts at online propaganda, have already been forced by such Twitter suspensions away from the mainstream and onto more obscure Islamic sites.
That, of course, does not deal with the problem of recruitment propaganda but at least it’s a start.
YouTube notes that it has clear policies prohibiting violent content, or content intended to incite violence, and promises to terminate any account registered by a designated Foreign Terrorist Organisation.
Twitter, YouTube and Facebook have to provide more of their voluminous revenues to taking down material that comes straight from medieval times and is the enemy of all the freedoms and choices that the modern world stands for.
As has already been noted, the great social media engines have shown themselves to be very efficient at taking down material in copyright disputes and the new “right to be forgotten” rules – i.e. anything that could potentially cost them money.
They should all be equally committed to making life difficult for jihadists everywhere, even though there will be an endless game of cat and mouse as new accounts are opened to replace those that have been closed.
But, again, at least the effort should be made.
Consumers of media have responsibilities too – a duty of restraint, refusing to give way to curiosity and just have a peep because it’s there, and certainly there should be no re-tweeting or forwarding.
When there are rumours about famous pop stars indulging in unacceptable sexual practices or juicy affairs then the Internet can fill the sizeable hole left by the closure of the News of the World.
When it comes to such violence as a beheading then no-one should provide encouragement by opening such communications and never re-tweet or pass them on.
One nice suggestion has already been made – that the gruesome Foley pictures should be replaced by a picture of James Foley the photo-journalist alive and well, as a memorial.
On the policy front, British newspapers might consider launching a campaign to revoke the passports of those who have gone to fight for ISIS.
Tailor-made for the Daily Mail surely?
Then they could all continue to enjoy their Caliphate.
Not that the British murderer of James Foley is likely to return to the UK any time soon.