To agree with this Guardian article about the London attack?

[Medeci]

And I NEVER agree with the Guardian
ISIS must be thrilled with all the dramatic media coverage.

Nope. Bad news sells newspapers, after all, sadly.

This idea has all the intellectual merit of a toddler slapping his hands over his eyes and believing that what he can't see doesn't exist...

Do we really want to be like China where the Tiannamenn Square massacre never officially happened?

interesting article BILL

I don't think events need to be suppressed, and it's absolutely fine to call it a terrorist crime. But it doesn't need to be over sensationalised. It didn't need the Scottish and Welsh parliaments to be closed out of respect. How many stabbings and shootings are there in London every week? It's not like a terrorist crime is somehow different or more special than any other crime. It was just some bloke with odd ideas, that killed some people. It happens quite frequently and doesn't really merit the wall to wall sensationalised media coverage that it got.

I completely agree with the piece in the guardian, and yes, I have read it.

Idefix no problem, it must have been horrible to be there as well and I agree these things shouldn't be down played

Having said that up until a few minutes ago the BBC News website had a large picture of this week's bad guy in prominent position for most the day and I don't think he should be allowed that kind of status - apparently lessons learned over Thomas Hamilton's picture at the time of Dunblane weren't that learned after all

BillSykesDog,
In reference to germany you are talking out of your seat!
These attacks were fully covered in the German press. I was in Nurnburg the day of the Berlin attacks over Xmas and I can assure you it and others were fully reported. Terrorism, religion and social issues are openly discussed. The British gutter press just seems to pretend there is a cover up to make a new story.

I get the distinct feeling that several posters saying 'agree' haven't read the article especially those fixating on the 'Irresponsible media sensationalism' aspect.

The writer is ignorant to the point of dangerous and clearly knows nothing of how this country is kept relatively safe (eg how hard it is to get a gun here - can you imagine if we had the ridiculously easy access USA has in this instance?!, the speed and efficacy of the reaction, the speed with which possible co-conspirators were located/investigated/arrested)

We're already on a severe terror threat level, the govt and security services responded entirely appropriately.

Or does this fool think appearances of indifference are more important than actually protecting people?

Also no, will never agree with censorship it simply leads to misinformation, rumour mongering and prejudice plus would increase mistrust in the media and govt.

The media must be responsible in their reporting which the press in particular are not always, there's a lack of balance which I have been aware of since my teens.

I am also from a military family and have lived in close proximity to attacks by the IRA.

But even as a potential victim I think it's very wrong that the British press then and now massively downplayed the prejudice experienced by Catholics in Northern Ireland (and by Irish generally in the uk) and the attacks perpetuated by unionist terrorists and I'm sad to say some appalling behaviour by some less than honourable British soldiers.

Reporting both sides is not the same as condoning or supporting terrorism. But instead leads to greater understanding of the issues, dilutes prejudice, and stops terrorists from being able to claim the ignorance of their targets as a reason to attack them.

Badger I agree. I remember the BBC dubbing over his voice. What a let down when I first heard it!

But yes, I agree. We shouldn't give them a platform.

I'm not certain even now that this man's primary motive was terrorism. He has a history of violence, including two convictions for slashing/stabbing people in the face. Presumably more may still come to light. He only became a Muslim much later.

I personally wonder whether this isn't a man who loves violence, who found a noble sounding excuse, which would gain him maximum notoriety, rather than a normal person subverted by religion and committed to a cause.

ISIS claimed it. Why wouldn't they? It gives the impression they have a wider reach than they actually have. This isn't the same as the carefully planned terrorist attacks the IRA perpetrated.

The situation is horrible and the devastation for the families is undeniable, but I agree with those who feel that overly frantic reporting gives a skewed picture, and stokes fear and racism.

I would like to see reporting doing this:

Instead of 'lone wolf', use ignorant idiot. Lone wolf is far too Boys Own Adventure and romantic.
Instead of 'lost his life', use murdered, killed or died. Hate euphemisms.

I have huge problems with 'evil' too. I think it buys into the whole religious battling against the devil, and would prefer people referred to acts as wicked which seems to me far more anchored in reality. People carry out these actions and wicked applies to common or garden badness perpetrated by ordinary humans. I am explaining badly, I know.

DH does not agree with me, btw; he sees no real difference between the two words.

Um, engineer, where did I mention the Berlin attacks? Although, now you mention it, when the lorry used was found to be registered to a Pole the German police rushed that news straight out there. When they realised it wasn't him that committed the attacks they were rather less keen to reveal details about who had.

HuffPo isn't the British gutter press either. I don't know who you mix with or who you speak to in Germany but I imagine it's not the entire population and you're probably not getting a cross section of views.

It was just some bloke with odd ideas, that killed some people. It happens quite frequently and doesn't really merit the wall to wall sensationalised media coverage that it got

So your saying it doesnt matter what peoples motives are because they kill?

Society needs to know what peoples motives are! From Harold Shipman to the Wests to ISIS Its really important!

Bloke with odd ideas that killed some people! Go tell that to the ladies poor children she was just some person!

His odd ideas are in tune with Saudi Arabia, a rich country pumping extremism round the world.

If you want to down play this silly man with silly ideas you cut off and down play the connection to extremism. Which many muslim countries like Pakistan are desperately battling every single day in all ways.

There's a balance though surely? I don't agree that instances like this shouldn't be reported nor linked to ISIS but equally the constant sensationalist reporting that ensued was almost too much. I do think it adds fuel to the fire, on both sides. You only have to look at the tweet demonising the Muslim lady who was clearly in shock to see the ramifications. Or perhaps that would happen anyway, unfortunately.

So your saying it doesnt matter what peoples motives are because they kill

I didn't say that at all. I was saying a terrorist killing shouldn't be more important than any other killing. Also, as far as I aware his motives are currently unknown.

BillSykesDog,
I spend a lot of time in germany and have family and friends there. I was waiting the news unfolding in Germany, in no way was the Polish registration ever played up! I guess you got that from another "reputable" source!
The fact is even in the regions where the bulk of refugees have been sent there simply isn't the sort of issues around media coverage you describe.
Maybe if you put your newspaper with sports special down and actually spent some time in other countries and with new people then you'd be more of a rounded character!

""What about if they just banned the name and info / photo of the terrorist? Would that be possible/ would that help""

But they're asking for people who knew him, or came into contact with him regularly, particularly when worshipping, to contact the Police.

If it wasn't made clear who did it, then others would claim responsibility, which may make it easier for them to recruit others.

The pattern and journey that leads to extremist acts, is important. It's another way of preventing them.

The Police have fought to get articles about ramming into pedestrians, taken off the internet, there are some still up.

I want to know what is happening in my country and why, as do many others.

I don't care if "he didn't even have access to a gun", that Woman going to pick her children up from school, could have been anyone of us (or Grandchildren).

One of my local Uni's (Edge Hill) had pupils involved. We've got the Grand National, meetings starting soon.It doesn't do any harm to be reminded to be vigilant.

These types of attackers may not kill large numbers, but they're bloody scary and I want to be informed when the strike.

I personally wonder whether this isn't a man who loves violence, who found a noble sounding excuse, which would gain him maximum notoriety, rather than a normal person subverted by religion and committed to a cause.
LostSight yes, agree with this, and the rest of your post. Anyone can hire a car and get hold of knives.
So far the police don't seem to have found anything to link this man with ISIS or radical Islam.

Just to add, if the News reports weren't thorough. We'd be handing UKIP, more seats.

But there's still others being held and computer data found. So this attack does have a reason.

If there's still arrests to be made and considering they've been in three cities, then we won't have information yet.

engineer, they did. They released that the driver was Polish. The press then went to the depot in Poland and his cousin (who owned the truck company) and his wife had to defend him to say that he couldn't possibly have done it to the press because the police had released his details as the driver without revealing he was dead giving the impression he'd done it. It was hours until they confirmed him dead and that the person arrested was a refugee (who also turned out not to be the right man in the end).

I'm not going to respond to all the unpleasant rubbish because apart from being spectacularly wide of the mark, you clearly didn't actually follow the news on the story and are just resorting to personal insults to deflect from that.

Incidentally how do you explain the police denials of the mass sexual assaults in Cologne on NYE when they claimed nothing had happened? Then subsequently admitted hundreds of women had been assaulted by North African migrants? I suppose that never happened either? I imagine that you were probably outside the cathedral at that exact time and didn't see a thing so nothing could possibly have happened.

I agree with Bill.The article is too close to asking for censorship and suppression.
It's nonsensical to believe that violent radicals would suddenly opt for peaceful means if they knew their attacks weren't going to appear in the media.
It's not the publicity that creates unease. It's the random nature of the violence that chimes with a lot of our latent fears. In fact a lot of random, violent attacks are reported in the press, not just those connected to suspected terrorism.

Censoring news never works. At best, it just breeds conspiracy theory; at worst, it creates civil breakdown.

It's interesting to note how the suppression of facts affected civil society in the USSR. It's pretty clear that in some cases, particularly the suppression of information relating to active serial killers, that the suppression meant it took longer for killers to be caught and victims were far more vulnerable than they should have been, so the fatalities were higher.

A British example of this would be the reporting of the Yorkshire Ripper as being a killer of "prostitutes." The thinking behind that was to avoid escalating the already present panic, but, in reality, Sutcliffe killed some women who definitely were not prostitutes and is thought by some to have killed some men as well. It is now thought that this "prostitute" angle may have inadvertently meant some victims may have thought they were safer than they actually were.

I think it is worth wondering how the Westminster events would have been processed at the time by the people concerned if the authorities had suppressed information about Islamist inspired terrorism. Just imagine that we didn't know.

The bridge incident would probably have been processed by pedestrians as a man in an out of control car. That information is then delivered to emergency responders, who then go to respond to a situation where the context is incorrect. You would be expecting a victim rather than a perpetrator, and getting the context wrong is dangerous.

It seems to me that, even in this climate, initial security at the Palace of Westminster didn't immediately realise the crashed car held an armed individual who was ready to stab police in an attack. Otherwise, he would have never got to the point where he was able to stab the unarmed PC.

I do not believe in the suppression of news or information and never have. I also get a bit itchy when people call for the suppression of images. It's not until you see certain things that you realise what actually happened and what it means. My DM worked for years on research into certain genocides and it wasn't until I saw the images that I realised the reality behind the statistics because all of a sudden, you've something you can understand on a very real level. It brings it home to you.

BillSykesDog
The German reporting was in no way as you describe! The British reporters may have tracked down the transport company but it didnt reciever wide coverage in the German press. Cologne was a case of the police being caught off guard by public disorder, yes it involved a lot of immigrants but don't make it out to be a daily occurrence or typical event.

I agree with BillSykesDog, this is far more significant.