SMH
April 21, 2012
OPINION
THE QUESTION
Media circus ... At the epicentre, self confessed mass murderer and right-wing extremist Anders Behring Breivik. Photo: AFP
THE LIBERTARIAN JAMES PATERSON
The government certainly shouldn’t. If we value the principle of freedom of speech then it should not be illegal to air Breivik’s trial. But that principle says nothing about what private media companies should do.
The media - like everybody - has a moral duty to exercise restraint, particularly when it comes to relaying views as disgusting as Breivik’s. It is understandable that many people would not want to see Breivik granted a platform for his views. Ultimately, whether to cover Breivik’s trial is an editorial judgement to be made by individual news outlets.
Yet it is not clear what would be gained if the media did decide to collectively suppress the broadcast of his trial.
Repellent beliefs flourish in the dark. Censoring the trial could suggest that Breivik’s opinions are more powerful and persuasive than they actually are - at least in the minds of his deranged supporters. If governments feel the need to suppress his views, then in the minds of some this will be evidence of their validity.
Conversely, having his views out in the open presents the community with an opportunity to rebut and reject them. There will be no better time to convey our disgust and repudiation of his views to the community at large than during the trial.
What about those who are sympathetic to his agenda? Won’t this encourage and embolden them? We cannot pretend that his views are not shared in fascist circles. To his fellow neo-Nazis, Breivik is a martyr already.
Banning his trial from being broadcast is not going to change that. What broadcasting his trial might achieve is to draw them out into the open.
Breivik’s ideas already exist. They already have traction among some people in Europe. That’s a profoundly scary thing. But there is no law powerful enough to change the minds of people.
There are many myths about the impact of immigration in Europe. Some of them - like bogus predictions that native-born Europeans will be in the minority in a matter of years - are relatively easy to disprove. Others, like deeply held but irrational xenophobia, are harder.
Either way, racism needs to be tackled head on and dealt with, not suppressed. The first step is refuting it in the public arena. The broadcast of Breivik’s trial should be seen as an opportunity to do that.
James Paterson is the editor of the Institute of Public Affairs Review.
THE PSYCHIATRIST TANVEER AHMED
Anders Breivik’s actions as a mass murderer could hardly be more despicable, particularly the combination of a mindless massacre with a cold-eyed homicidal brutality.
The irony, however, is not just that Breivik’s hatred of Islam should lead to the sort of terrorist act many had taken to be Islamic, but also that nothing so resembles Breivik’s mindset as that of an Islamist jihadist.
Both view themselves as political soldiers but are driven not so much by political ideology as by a desperate and perverted search for identity, a search shaped by a sense of cultural paranoia and a claustrophobic victimhood.
Islamists want to resurrect an ‘‘authentic’’ Islam that never existed and Breivik similarly wants to establish a mythical, authentically Christian Europe.
Perhaps the most important similarity between Breivik and jihadists is that both despise the idea of an open, liberal society, shaped by debate, dialogue and the clash of diverse values and beliefs.
Over the past 10 years, the response to Islamic jihadism in the West has been shaped by a sense of fear and panic that has made it far easier for authorities to erode free speech.
For this reason it is critical that Breivik’s views are allowed to be aired, so that they may be challenged. While others are not advocating violence, his fears about a Muslim takeover of Europe, commonly encapsulated in the notion of ‘‘Eurabia’’, are widely held.
Technology is allowing media organisations to question Breivik’s comments: The Guardian and Dagbladet are correcting plainly incorrect assertions by Breivik immediately after they are uttered.
The limits of the coverage should be when he actively espouses violence, just as this is one of the limits on our free speech laws with regard to vilifcation. There should also be every effort to limit any glorification, saturation coverage and extended detail about the mechanics of the killings. Much like suicide coverage, it is at these edges that newsworthy coverage can potentially lead to further incitement or copycat actions.
Yes, his views may cause offence to Muslims or other groups. Yes, they may cause hurt to the victims’ families. But the free contestation of ideas is the greater value in our open societies, Norway included. In such an arrangement, nobody has a right to avoid offence, and we should be grateful for such a deprivation.
Dr Tanveer Ahmed, a psychiatrist and Herald columnist, is on the Australian Multicultural Council.
THE FAMILY MEMBER ADRIAN KISTAN
I DON’T believe there needs to be any media censorship of the coverage of the Breivik trial. Having said that, it is important that these matters be covered with sensitivity to the victims’ families and those affected by such tragic events. These things do not need to be sensationalised. There needs to be a balance between giving the details of what has happened and not giving too much exposure to the accused perpetrator.
In some ways good open coverage of such events gives many people some comfort in trying to understand why someone would do such a thing. When our father was killed in the Port Arthur shooting, we were at a loss to understand what would possess someone to do such a thing. We were longing for answers and insight into what was going on in Martin Bryant’s thinking, what was driving him to cause such damage and take human life in such a horrific way. At the time the coverage was confronting but it did give us some insight into what went on for this individual.
Nothing will ever excuse such an act, but to know a bit more of the sadistic life Bryant led, meant our outlook on things changed. Ultimately we found our comfort and hope through our strong Christian faith which enabled us to forgive. Our attention focused on the shared journey with others also affected by this tragedy and we encouraged one another, not to remain as victims, but to move ahead.
In coverage of the Breivik trial, we will see some inspiring stories of good triumphing over evil and it’s these that need to be highlighted as a counterbalance to the misguided, disturbing and sad accounts of Breivik The story that needs to be told in all this is how those who survived and those who have lost loved ones are able to pick themselves up through the pain and devastation and are able to find hope and the determination to continue.
The media has its role in how it assists people deal with such tragic events through the manner in which it reports them. The question is not whether Breivik should be censored, rather how will the media report on the positive stories that emerge from such events.
Adrian Kistan’s father was a victim of the Port Arthur massacre.
THE LAWYER DAMIAN SPRUCE
THE primary argument against reproducing Breivik's stunts and statements in the media is that it is bad journalism. A newspaper that simply printed word for word a politician's press conference would be rightly criticised for uncritical coverage. But this is what the media is doing when it prints a picture of Breivik's raised fist in far right salute: it is carrying out his job for him, conveying his message, unedited and without analysis, to the public.
Part of the job of the media is to cut through the spin and refuse to be a mere conduit for a political agenda.
From the beginning, global media exposure has been central to Breivik's strategy. He has used mass murder to gain levels of attention that could not be bought with millions of dollars in an advertising budget. The role he envisages for the world's media are as dupes to his program and many journalists are rightly uncomfortable with it. In focusing the world's attention on his ideology, on his motivations and emotions he is excluding the concerns of victims and voices in support of democracy and multiculturalism. This is not freedom of speech, it is a denial of that freedom to those who we need to hear from most: people speaking on behalf of the 77 victims, and more broadly from those speaking for democratic values.
Breivik has achieved more in his media strategy than he could have hoped for. The resulting images and words have spread his xenophobic ideas around the world. Though most will unite in condemnation of them, some will listen to his arguments for racial and cultural purity, and they will embolden those neo-fascist movements and xenophobic parties that lurk in society's fringes.
Murder trials focus on the accused and leave little room for victims to be heard. But there is nothing inherent in a fair trial which requires the accused person to have media exposure around the world. To properly and fairly report on his case, the media should avoid falling into the trap of reproducing Breivik's propaganda, which simply serves to further his cause.
Damian Spruce was an adviser to the NSW Attorney-General and is a candidate for Labor's City of Sydney election.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-question/should-the-media-censor-anders-behring-breivik-20120420-1xcnu.html#ixzz1sct1gSa0
Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog"
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc .
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị .
conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
21042012
___________
CSVN là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là đồng lõa với TỘI ÁC
No comments:
Post a Comment