Journalistic Standards for Crime Reporting: The Latest ‘Terrorist’ Shooting in Australia

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

The website GumshoeNews.com has been in existence for about two years. It was founded by Dee McLachlan. The word ‘gumshoe’ means a private investigator.  I joined the staff a year ago and, with Dee, created a book. We named it, with more than a tincture of hubris, “Truth in Journalism.” Then, marvelling at our book, we figured it could be a help to students of journalism.

Today’s news coverage of yet another “Middle Eastern” shooting in Sydney, this time outside a police station, has made me query the standards of journalism for covering the reporting of such crimes. What’s a journalist to do?

The Killing of Mr Cheng

We still don’t know much about what transpired, except that a 58-year-old man named Curtis Cheng was shot dead by a bullet in the back of the head. He was walking out from his office at the NSW Police Headquarters in Parramatta, where he had been employed for 17 years in the finance department. (He is not a cop.)

Already there have been sweeping statements by Commonwealth and state politicians:

— Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said. “This appears to have been an act of politically motivated violence.”

— Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said “When a 15-year-old boy can be so radicalised that he can carry out a politically motivated killing or an act of terrorism, then it’s a time for the whole nation to take stock.”

— NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione contributed the non sequitur that the attack was  “politically motivated and therefore linked to terrorism.”

— NSW Premier Mike Baird said “This tragedy will echo around the world.” (Bet it won’t, though.)

How Should the Media Inform the Public?

If you look up the media rules for reporting, you will get some old-fashioned advice such as “Don’t intrude on the privacy of the victim’s family.” “Be sure to use the word “alleged” if you name a suspect. “Do not publish the names of juveniles.” As far as I know, there are no publicly agreed-upon rules as to the propriety of discussing the political or ideological motives for a crime.

Worse, I suspect there are under-the-table ‘rules’ as to how the events related to shootouts are to be handled. Please note that I am stating opinion here; I cannot prove my case. I deduce from the coverage of a few ‘terrorism’ events in Oz and elsewhere, that it is a goal of some political players to give the public a good dose of fear.

Thus the press overstates the dramatic aspects of a case. Many people get shot to death in Australia each year, but only certain ones are publicized: those with Muslim connections and those in which the accused has done something outrageous to his child or his parent.

I also deduce that the press has an unspoken rule “Muddy the water for Australians so that they get the general idea that persons from Iraq and Iran are hostile to us.”

Mind you such persons may very well be hostile. The article at hand is not going to delve into the nature of Muslims or their degree of hostility. We’re talking about standards of journalism.

“A Reasonable Onlooker”

The journalistic standard I recommend for a shooting incident like the one at Parramatta is as follows. The press should first say what happened, minus any interpretation of motive. After all, we do need to hear the facts.

Did the guy seem to choose any person walking down the street? Did he give his victim a chance to offer a deal? Does it look from the video footage that the shooter was proceeding to shoot more people? All of that can be said without telling me that he is Muslim. I do think it fair to state his age right away, as that is an unusual point: he was only 15.

My rule: the opening report should claim what a reasonable onlooker would describe as the actual event. (In this case it is helped by a video, but there isn’t always a camera nearby.)

After that, it would be reasonable to mention that the killer lived in blah-blah suburb, attended blah-blah school, had an older sister, played in the school band, or any bits available that could help us picture his life.

The fact that this shooter died on the spot (having been killed by a cop) removes some restraints on reporting, such as saying whether the person had ‘previous.’ It also means a journalists need not fear a lawsuit for defamation, as a deceased person in Australia has no legal protection against defamation.

Was It a Terrorist Incident?

What is the definition of terrorism? I think the implication in the present case is that the boy terrorized people by pulling his gun unexpectedly and shooting at “anyone.” He was not apparently conducting a robbery, or terminating a rival.

Conceivably he was thinking “I hate Australians.” (Peculiar, since he be Australian himself.) Or “I want revenge for the bombings in Iran and Iraq.”  Frankly, I think it would be odd for him to take vengeance out of the blue, in such a way, when it could hardly have the effect of helping people in Iraq or Iran.

Do you agree?

Of course, stories get made up out of whole cloth, e.g. the 9-11 story of the hijackers who “wanted to take away our freedoms” (which, funnily enough they did!). But for now I merely assert that when a crime has occurred, media should separate the actual reporting from a discussion of the political motives.

Not that they must omit any discussion of such motives. Heck, no. If there are youngsters plotting to shoot us for religious reasons we need to know about it. But it’s unfair to the reader for a newspaper to say “Such-and-such happened today, an apparent terrorist incident.”

The Editor of Gumshoe Has an Eye for It

It’s weird to say that GumshoeNews is some kind of pioneer in correcting bad reporting, but – ahem – I do so say. The editor, Dee McLachlan, goes postal when she sees bad reporting. (That word, by the way became popular in the US after several “terrorist” episodes happened in post offices.) I’ll mention only three of the many that Dee has written about.

First — and famously, I hope – she caught the media putting forth a story on September 25, 2014 about an “incident” in Bella Vista. It was claimed that a member of the ADF, in full uniform, was assaulted and bruised by a person of – wouldn’t you know it – Middle Eastern appearance.

Dee figured the timing was a bit too convenient. The reported assault was at 6.30 am on the day Parliament was to vote some new anti-terrorist laws. Note: Ms McLachlan came to Oz after living under a dictatorship in South Africa where freedom of the press is not on the menu. (She thinks it won’t be on the menu here either, if we give away our standards.)

Long story short, the law did pass that night, in Canberra, and subsequently the NSW police admitted that the incident had not happened. It was, so to speak, a Hani Hanjour moment.

Two More – the Body Snatchers, and “Hear No Evil”

Very briefly, the second of my three promised items has to do with the MH17 crash. Per the Dee view of all things related to MH17, the goal is for Oz to side with NATO – or some such entity – and deflect attention from an investigation (or to deflect an investigation, full stop.)

Hence she went for the jugular of Peter Carylon of the Herald Sun, for his depicting of the crash scene. He ran it under the headline “Bullies, Goons, and Body Snatchers.” This referred to the Russians, of course. Search the Gumshoe website for “goons” if you feel a need to read the whole article, dated July 29, 2014.

The third instance of off-the-wall reporting caught by Dee McLachlan is last week’s article on what we might call the Three Monkey approach to educating the public. See no evil, hear no evil, and especially, speak no evil. What got her going was the statement by a sheriff in Oregon that he would not name the man who had done a shooting. “It might glorify him.”

I added in the comments of that article that YOUR ABC News once told us that Martin Bryant, of all people, was looking for glory, for his achievement of killing 35 people at Port Arthur. In fact, what he had said when interviewed in hospital right after the massacre was … oh, I may as well quote it verbatim:

(The Q is Police. The A is Martin Bryant. He is retarded.):

Q – I mean do you think that people should accept the consequences of what they do?

A – Yeah I do. I spose I should for a little while for what I’ve done [referring to stealing and burning a car, apparently]. Just a little while and let me out, let me live my own life. I’m missing my Mum. I really miss her actually, what she cooks up for me, her rabbit stews and everything. She’s not even allowed to bring a little bit of food for me, that, that’s a bit upsetting. Mmm.

Q – Martin, unless there’s anything else that you want to tell us, we’re going to ahh, stop the interview now. As Mr Warren explained to you, this is the last opportunity you’ll have to speak to us. You’ll be at your next court appearance, charged with twenty murders, I’m sorry, thirty five murders and …

A – Just that.

Q – … And approximately twenty attempted murders and several wounding charges as well.

A – Attempted murders.

Q – And also.

A – You mean attempted, they weren’t hurt?

Q – Ahh, yes they were hurt. Some of those people. You’ll also be charged with the arson of Seascape. Do you understand all that?

A – How months will it get me in?

Q – Well that’s not a, a question I can answer.

A – And the arson of the BMW.

Q – No, of the Seascape. We believe you burnt Seascape as well as the BMW. I hope we’ve explained things clearly and you understand the gravity of the situation.

A – It’s great to have someone to talk to. And you guys won’t be in again?

Q – No.

A – To have a talk.

Q – No.

A – I’ll miss yas.

And miss them he did as he went off to solitary confinement.

— Mary W Maxwell is the self-appointed publicity manager at GumshoeNews.com. Won’t you order her book, “Fraud Upon the Court: Reclaiming the Law, Joyfully”?