19 April 2007 – What a pity the Daily Mirror (18 April 07) made the same mistake as other papers at the time of the Dunblane tragedy – running a front page in which a huge image of the deranged Virginia killer Cho Seung-Hui dominated tiny pictures of 22 of his victims.
Of course we all want to know who he is and what he looks like but, as with the front page pictures of Thomas Hamilton encircled by thumbnails of the children he shot dead, our curiosity has been rewarded with an image that has its priorities wrong. It is those who were wrongfully killed into whose eyes we should be staring, not the eyes of their executioner. To give prominence to the killer is to extend his power beyond the actual events.
People who are driven to achieve notoriety by taking the lives of others – whether it is a Mark Chapman, who killed John Lennon, or the ‘human bombs’ prepared to lose their own lives while wiping out hundreds of people they do not know – may deserve pity, prayers or perdition but not publicity. Publicity provides the life blood that ensures someone else will try to top the latest atrocity. And it traps us all into prurient fascination and fear which will eventually convince us that the current mental health reforms – apprehending those who do not take their medication, and detaining those with severe personality disorders whether or not they commit crimes – is all for the best, and to hell with human rights.
Sure tell us ‘whodunnit’, show us what he looks like, and explain what may have caused this breakdown in humanity, but don’t lionise mass killers, however inadvertently. A small picture is all that is necessary.
Some years ago, after the publicity surrounding Dunblane massacre which spawned copycat behaviour in several countries, one popular paper in the former Soviet Union chose to run a small black rectangle instead of the photo of a mass killer. Other papers in Latvia, I am told, followed suit. This was a novel response – refusing to supply the offender with the attention he sought.
It is a lesson worth pondering since, indubitably, there is now someone, somewhere out there who now has it in mind to create even greater mayhem and make it into the history books.
The Mirror will not be to blame, but its sub-editors might care to consider the alternatives next time.
Most newspapers reject the notion that they influence their readers’ behaviour – except when they are talking to potential advertisers. Here is one small way they can make life safer and more positive, by refusing to turn disturbed criminals into pin-ups and concentrating their efforts on nailing those whose ineptitude allowed the Virginia killer to stalk and kill despite evidence of his poor mental state.
The media has long conceded the wisdom of not publicising bomb scares, or information in the early stages of a kidnap. The BBC and other major broadcasters acknowledge that the existence of tapes depicting the executions of hostages is sufficient evidence to inform the public what has happened, without risking trauma to viewers or their staff by broadcasting the images. There is a difference between censorship and restraint.
It remains to be seen what consequences might flow from broadcasting Cho Seung-Hui’s dreadful video with its echoes of ‘Taxi Driver’ and the last testaments of ‘human bombers’ before they wipe out innocent lives. No doubt his image will enter the annals as yet another ‘icon of evil’; no doubt it will return to haunt us.
Mike Jempson
Director, MediaWise
(Bulletin No 136)