The front pages of a number of British newspapers today confirms a development in the press over recent years. We live in a place where editors decide that they should put a picture of a man being murdered on the front page.
To write it still staggers me, but this has been the case for over three years.
We live in a place where editors decide that they should put a picture of a man being murdered on the front page.
This is the editorial decision in a number of papers. Not to publish the cartoons from the satirical newspaper, as in other countries (and there are reasons for and against doing that); not (as the Independent did) to take one of the many powerful cartoons drawn in response to the atrocity and make that the front page picture; not (as The Guardian and Scottish paper The National did) to concentrate on the vigils in the aftermath, ordinary people gathering together defiant, showing they were not afraid. No. They put a picture of a man being murdered on the front page.
What did the terrorists want the media reaction to be? What do they want on the front pages? What images do they want shared? What video footage? Do they want the murder of innocents played on a loop on rolling news, with video stills blown up to catch all the details of murder on the front pages? Or do they want defiance? Do they want the cartoons? Do they want the ridicule? Do they want the vigils?
I think the editors got it wrong.