Following up on the previous discussion of the de-sensationalisation of terrorism in the media, I want to touch on a rather sensitive subject – naming terrorists in the media. Should terrorists be named in the media? Is it somewhat normal within the framework of free speech? Or should we disenfranchise the perpetrators and refuse them the media platform? This question usually reappears in the discussion after a terrorist attack in the West that the media widely covers.
In this situation, this blog post brings up the discussion after the Liverpool Women’s hospital bombing that happened during the Remembrance Day celebration on 14 November 2021. The name and photo of the bomber were released almost immediately after the attack, together with his home address and history of struggle with mental health. The police asked the public for help, which explains the need to release some information. However, the bomber’s immigration status and health conditions do not seem to be vital information needed for any public input. On the contrary, such information might affect the general attitude towards the immigrant population in the UK.
Different actors worldwide, both politicians and victims, find themselves in various positions regarding naming the perpetrators. Jacinda Arden has been an advocate for not calling the terrorist by his name after he attacked two mosques in Christchurch and killed 51 people. In the press, he is often referred to as the Christchurch gunman. Also, the position of not naming the perpetrator can be seen in other shocking but terrorism unrelated cases, such as the investigation in the worst case of necrophilia in British legal history that has been unravelling in 2021. The mother of one of the necrophiliac’s victims also refuses to call him by his name – she calls him “insignificant” to emphasise her attitude and the rejection of him.
One might suggest that the decision if the perpetrator to be named might be influenced by the fact whether the perpetrator survived the attack. While this approach might make sense to some, the question of basic human dignity after death remains. Should we disregard any ethical considerations regarding perpetrators in shocking crimes? Some might argue that this is precisely the reasoning that created the conditions for Guantanamo prisoners’ abuse. Where can we find the correct answer? Where is the line between showing no mercy or compassion to terrorists or necrophiliacs and not overstepping into human rights abuse territory? These questions are not easy to answer. What do you think?