It's been a hectic month, and the Media Scrum crew haven't had time to have a proper moan about anything this week. Instead, we'll just leave this message for those in the cheap seats, who still don't understand why we sometimes have to name the Christchurch terrorist:
It's surprisingly easy to write the vast majority of the stories about the appalling attack on the two mosques without ever mentioning the name of the motherfucker responsible for it. A focus on the stories of the victims and survivors, as well as the rapid-fire legislation on gun control coming down the line, and we can help ensure that the fame that the dangerous fool wants is denied as much as possible. We don't have to make a big deal out of it, we just don't need to name him.
That said, it is still very important that we name the motherfucker in any and all court stories over the next few months, for two distinct reasons.
The first is that justice must be seen to be done - especially in this case, above all other cases - and there can be no ambiguity about the legal moves at all. Leaving out the name creates wriggle room for harmful and idiotic conspiracy theories, and none of us need that shit right now. It must always be absolutely clear who is facing the full weight of the law.
The second reason is that every story that is told about this case becomes a statement of historical record, and while the archiving of digital news stories is woefully inadequate these days, some stories will survive for years and decades to come. And they will become crucial as the entire event is analysed and studied, to understand how this terrible tragedy occurred, and how we stopped it ever happening again.
It might give you all the feels to deny the killer the fame he wants, but if we're ever going to learn anything from this shit, we need to name the one responsible for it for the record.
We're sorry, but history doesn't give a fuck about your feelings.
Love,
Media Scrum
Posts
