![[personal profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
American media, can we talk?
May. 24th, 2017 04:52 pmThis is not the first time the UK has been around the block with terrorist bombings. (You might want to look up what those lovely lads the IRA used to get up to with funding from Irish Americans.) It's not even the first time in recent history. In fact, there was a spot of it about 10 years back you might recall. I do. I was in London for it*.
London in particular, and the UK in general, aren't about to wet their pants and crawl under the bed to hide because something went boom. You're talking about a country that still occasionally finds unexploded bombs from WWII - a war in which they were, as the East End puts it with equal parts pride and defiance 'bombed by professionals!' They're actually quite good at handling the aftermath. They keep their heads.
You, on the other hand, dear American media, get very excited about this stuff. You start showing the clips of bloodied victims, shaken witnesses, and distraught relatives on loop. Then you start showing the bomber - which is probably the last thing you should do, because fuck people who kill kids. They don't deserve fame, not even a second of it. You never ask yourselves whether you are in fact doing exactly what a terrorist would want, or stop to think that you're playing right into their hands. (Other people have pointed this out, so it's not just me.) But that's not the worst way you're helping would-be terrorists.
No, it's something far more serious, and far more disturbing. You see, since you have the patience of the average toddler and a desperate need to fill your 24-7 news cycle, you do stupid stuff like leak investigation materials and then get 'expert analysis'. Kind of like you're doing right now with the blood and soot smeared bomb parts from Manchester. (No, I'm not linking it.)
The 'expert analysis' is the real problem. You leaked photos in the wake of 7/7 also. I remember looking at them. As an engineering student, I critiqued some of what I saw. But here's the difference. I did it privately, to people I trust aren't looking to blow people up. You are doing it publicly. You're identifying 'ways to make failure less likely'. You're pointing out ways in which bombs can be made more reliable and more lethal. Basically, you're making it easier for would-be bombers to find tips, pointers, and how-tos. Do you see the problem here?
*I have the world's best timing for taking sick days. My 7/7 consisted of telling freaked out friends and relatives that other than an atrocious cold, I was perfectly fine.
London in particular, and the UK in general, aren't about to wet their pants and crawl under the bed to hide because something went boom. You're talking about a country that still occasionally finds unexploded bombs from WWII - a war in which they were, as the East End puts it with equal parts pride and defiance 'bombed by professionals!' They're actually quite good at handling the aftermath. They keep their heads.
You, on the other hand, dear American media, get very excited about this stuff. You start showing the clips of bloodied victims, shaken witnesses, and distraught relatives on loop. Then you start showing the bomber - which is probably the last thing you should do, because fuck people who kill kids. They don't deserve fame, not even a second of it. You never ask yourselves whether you are in fact doing exactly what a terrorist would want, or stop to think that you're playing right into their hands. (Other people have pointed this out, so it's not just me.) But that's not the worst way you're helping would-be terrorists.
No, it's something far more serious, and far more disturbing. You see, since you have the patience of the average toddler and a desperate need to fill your 24-7 news cycle, you do stupid stuff like leak investigation materials and then get 'expert analysis'. Kind of like you're doing right now with the blood and soot smeared bomb parts from Manchester. (No, I'm not linking it.)
The 'expert analysis' is the real problem. You leaked photos in the wake of 7/7 also. I remember looking at them. As an engineering student, I critiqued some of what I saw. But here's the difference. I did it privately, to people I trust aren't looking to blow people up. You are doing it publicly. You're identifying 'ways to make failure less likely'. You're pointing out ways in which bombs can be made more reliable and more lethal. Basically, you're making it easier for would-be bombers to find tips, pointers, and how-tos. Do you see the problem here?
*I have the world's best timing for taking sick days. My 7/7 consisted of telling freaked out friends and relatives that other than an atrocious cold, I was perfectly fine.
