Evil seeks attention, importance, fame and an audience. He gave up any right to those aspirations. Ignore him. Ignore him and make him invisible, nameless, faceless. Try him and lock him away from the company of others and the light of day. Forever. Don't show me his face, name or any "manifesto". I know all I need to know. Make this evil into a non-person and make him go away. Let his name vanish from memory. Let him be shunned and unknown to us
Show me the faces of the victims, the honored dead. Show me the strength and grace of the families and survivors. Let me never forget them. Show me the kindness and love of the individuals, community and country who embraced the suffering and worked for healing and justice. Let us learn from them, keep them ever before us, and grow our hearts to be like theirs.
4
That I understand, Canada has always kept the details out of the news to hopefully not encourage narcissistic and other copycats. Bravo!
Let's find other and best ways to protect our people. Gun regulations and keener eye on mental illness.
1
Within the story about the prime minister's call for the terrorist to remain nameless, -- for excellent reasons -- the Times gives him a link to his own story and includes several lines about the popularity of the live broadcast. Gun control aside, Congress could easily pass laws she is hoping to see: gunman remains nameless, no pictures published of gunman, no details published of gunman's life; online publications of killings should be immediately taken down and sent to FBI for their use.
5
I suspect he was radicalised before he came to NZ and chose NZ specifically because he could come and go overseas, with ease, as NZ has never had a terrorist attack and are known for being nuclear free and not geared up for terrorism prevention. NZ has a small population of under 5 million and our police don't carry guns. You hardly ever see police on the streets as we're just a peaceful nation. It's depressing and heart breaking what has happened to our citizens. We are all living in fear while this cowardly monster has every bit of security going in his prison. Now there are threats from overseas for revenge attacks and our terrorist threat level is still on high. The Auckland police sent down a helicopter to circle the city so we would feel safe and they're sent down an additional 250 police to walk the streets. All of NZ was punished for what this cowardly Australian did while he's safe in Paremoremo prison, north of Auckand. If there's going to be a revenge attack that's where it should be. Someone burnt down a rifle club up North as well.
1
If all of these hate sites were closed down it would help immensely. This is what Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc, must do. They did it for ISIS terrorist sites, now do it for other terrorist sites. Stop the radicalization. Shut them down now.
3
Both that person in our White House and the New Zealand killer, suffer from NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder). Speaking their name gratifies their narcissistic need for attention, and is what they crave -- above all. Just don't do it.
I am ashamed that our media uses the T-word -- though I understand why they must. Sad.
3
Thank you New Zealand. The New York Times, I would appreciate it if you took a page out of their book while covering future spree killers as well. While social media sites definitely need to look at their practices, I think it's clear that media coverage of mass murderers has not always acted in responsible ways either.
Readers want to know about these killers, we want to know their names. Publishing their names might help increase article views. But I don't think that justifies the incentive it creates for potential murderers. Responsible media sites can choose to act differently.
9
PM Arden : THAT is what a real leader looks like, that is what a real leader does. She is visiting with the Mourners, and hugging Mothers and Children. Meantime, on our Southern Border, we are Jailing Toddlers.
Now, which is the civilized Country ?!?
14
Not publicizing the identity of the killer: in this case, an excellent decision, worthy of a civilized society. A good example to set for the United States.
11
Prime Minister Arden has the right idea by taking away the perpetrator’s name. I wish the NYT would follow her example
12
What a pity that Jacinda Ardern can't run for President in the 2020 election. Her steely determination, her compassion and her humanity honor New Zealand. If only America had a Jacinda Ardern.
5
Here's a name we can all say but haven't in a while because nobody wants to:
Steve Bannon.
How does his name NOT come up every time we hem and haw about whether Trump's a racist or not.
Remember how Breitbart Bannon, a champion of the "alt-right," was Trump's campaign CEO and White House (co-chief of staff) Chief Strategist.
Remember that term: alt-right?
Sure it was just a rebranding of white supremacists as white "nationalists," with obvious lies that there was an equivalent "alt-left" and what's so wrong with loving your country, as if that's the innocence of nationalism.
Bannon and the alt-right.
Trump's #1 guy. Trump's people.
2
"New Zealand Is Loath to Use Suspect’s Name to Avoid Amplifying His Cause"
The Times, on the other hand, seems to have no problem with doing just that.
9
When domestic terrorist Ted Kaczynski was a young student at Harvard, Ted was for all intents and purposes, psychologically and emotionally tortured in an MK Ultra research program run by Psychology Professor Henry Murray. Kaczynski may have been selected for MK Ultra experimentation because, due to an injury during infancy, he'd been hospitalized been separated from his mother for a prolonged period of time. A vulnerable 16 year old was tricked by trusted authority figures and rendered more vulnerable.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon Bomber seemed, unlike Kaczynski, to have received the best the United States had to offer any young man and yet...
Haters often seek affiliation. Name their names. Tell their stories. Seeking publicly to understand some terrorists might result in public discourse that grabs the attention of some other human being in danger of falling into the nets of hatemongers and hatemongering.
3
Imagine if we never printed Hilter's name? If we never showed the photos from the Holocaust? Then we would never remember. What is the New Zealand Prime Minister trying to do by not saying Brenton Tarrant's name? What is she trying to do by ordering websites from posting his video? I think it has nothing to do with trying to stop future attacks. I think it has everything to do with trying to burnish NZ's image. God forbid we should think that some of the happy people of NZ and Australia are murderers.
View the video. Learn from it some lessons, perhaps, on how to protect yourself from an attacker. And never forget that evil people are everywhere.
4
Hitler was trying (with success) to keep his killing a secret that the world deserved to know about. This guy was wearing a body cam. The families of the victims do not deserve to have the last minute of their loved ones’ lives broadcast to the world as a tool for hate or for some kind of sick voyeurism. Hate breeds hate- this guy wants to be a “hero” to his fellow racists, I’m glad they aren’t buying into it in NZ.
5
Exactly. This is a point I've been trying to get into public consciousness and discussion since 2007 -
https://littlebloginthebigwoods.blogspot.com/2007/04/screaming-headlines.html and
http://tinyurl.com/y6gg459p from 2014
As it stands, every mass shooter, from terrorist to grade school, knows that they will become an immediate, immortal, international celebrity. Photo on the front page of every newspaper in the world, paper and electronic. Worth dying for, and a great way to prove you're not a nothing, yes? That'll show 'em.
Compare that to- do this thing; and history, the world, will erase you, for all time. No one will ever know you existed.
Which one motivates what? It's that simple. And yes, it could be done.
Don't mention their name. Don't show their picture. Don't read what their mother says. Don't click on any link going to info about them. Immediately close any webpage you wind up on busy showing their snuff porn.
Could the NYT unilaterally adopt those practices? It could. Nothing stopping you (except the lost click revenue.) That would be leadership, and community responsibility.
4
ABOUT TIME someone of stature did this! I've been boycotting the shooting porn for years now. Can't remember the event that led to my decision to stop. Might have been the one in the Colorado movie theater.
I figured that reading about them just made me feel terrible, but the events certainly weren't moving our legislators to do anything meaningful about gun control, and frankly, I found that worse than the tragedies themselves, however unspeakable and heart-rending they were. Their inaction, or ineffectiveness, was ensuring that yet another dreadful event, and certainly more have occurred. This latest one didn't happen here, but when a paper of international distribution headlines coverage with lines like "made for social media/to go viral" (can't remember), AFAIC, it's actively promoting the whole idea.
I recognize that these events are news and a news company is obliged to publish, but that doesn't mean we have to consume.
2
The honorable prime minister will not utter the name of Brenton Harrison Tarrant, the mosque-shooting suspect in Christchurch on Friday, a justifiable gesture in light of the unusual horror the event posed.
But the PM needs to know that the terrorists who perpetrated horror in New York, 11-26 in Mumbai, Madrid train attack, London bombings, San Bernardino, Paris, Brussels, Barcelona, Boston, etc. live in anonymity too. And, the Boko Haram hoods of Nigeria who kidnapped and raped countless school girls too are shielded by anonymity.
Exactly one month ago, an assailant killed 41 people in the pristine neighborhood of Pulwama, previously known as the “Joy of Kashmir” in India.
Anonymity did not dissuade any of the terrorists involved.
All uttered “Allahu Akbar” before detonating a bomb or firing at innocent people. Without exception, these terrorists were financed by the great Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and trained in the peace loving country of Pakistan.
None of the victimized countries consider bomb making legal either. Guns and bombs do not kill; people do.
The knee-jerk reaction to ban guns too does little to prevent hateful crimes inspired by organized religion with oil money backing the dastardly acts.
Three days after Christchurch, Gokmen Tanis, a Turkish immigrant killed and maimed Dutch citizens in Utrecht in a country known for the toughest gun laws in the world and one of the most tolerant towards Muslim immigration.
How will the PM tackle these issues?
6
@Appu Nair There is a very large difference between "anonymity" and the "denial of fame".
There is no reason at all that police should not have complete data on suspects. Just don't put their photo up on top of your media- saying "Wanted for Mass Murder!" Just plain "Wanted for Suspicion of Sex Crimes Against the Elderly" would likely catch them faster, anyway. And not many would be lusting for the same glory.
@Liberty In
As a non-white minority person, I do not see the minuscule number of gun trotting 'white supremacists' as the main threat to humanity. I do not want to make them the center piece of self-serving hysteria. That is the convenient narrative of the radical left that has also tried to pin the Christchurch event on the President. How deceptive!
But I am concerned much more about the whole scale murder and mayhem perpetrated in the name of religion, often with the complicity of money, power and the legitimacy of nationhood.
Feeling horrified about these terrorists has nothing to do with the color of the skin. When somebody who is fed up with terrorism acts out irrationally, I do not like it but it is difficult to ignore the underlying frustration.
2
Thanks New York Times for leading with such a powerful coverage of something the NZ PM is trying to do. And I then undermining it by naming the shooter and not only naming him but hyperlinking his name. I couldn’t even finish reading after I saw that.
5
NY Times - why did you publish the killers name in an article specifically about a request not to do that? The media holds responsibility to tell the truth but also not sensationalize and in this case, as muted as it might seem, you are complicit. I agree with PM. He needs to be denied fame.
5
This "Cassandra" has been calling for this for decades! Certainly if someone is mentally ill or otherwise unstable or vengeful enough to carry out an attack of this type, they are going to do it anyway. But some DO do it, often largely, for the notoriety. If they knew in advance that they would be denied that, at least some of these attacks might be forestalled.
4
Ms. Ardern is absolutely correct. Why won't the press listen? Deny him what he wants. that is one way to discourage other narcissists.
4
I totally agree with Prime Minister Ardern's decision not to name the killer. And, I believe that principal should be followed in all future crimes of this nature. These miscreants should remain totally anonymous. Describe them in terms of background, even ethnicity, but deny them even an instant in the media spotlight. And... drape them in hoods when they appear in trials. The knowledge that they will go to their unmarked graves without an iota of notoriety may give them pause before electing to sacrifice themselves on the alter of misbegotten 'celebrity.'
1
The Times does not publish the names of sexual assault victims. Its editors decided, quite commendably, that the real-world risk of disclosing this information outweighs any consideration of journalistic thoroughness. Why, then, does the Times continue to publish the names and photos of the perpetrators of mass shootings like this one? It only enables their notoriety and serves as an enticement to other deranged individuals, while adding little to the story substantively. Why reward these terrible acts? Don't you risk encouraging them?
8
@Connor Exactly, and non-publication of rape victims is an excellent answer to those who say "oh, it couldn't be done," It IS being done, already.
We could, you know - just TRY.
Prime Minister Ardern has demonstrated incredible class in her handling of this horrific massacre. From the way she immediately acted on the gun problem to the denial of the light of publicity to the ignorant lout who perpetrated the crime she has been a textbook example of how a Leader should handle a crisis. We should all honour her example by refusing to name the individual responsible and apply the same lesson to others of his ilk. One can only hope that her example will rub off on certain other “leaders” who shall remain nameless.
4
This was a tragedy waiting to happen. The internet created the perpetrator of the crimes, as well as made it possible for him to amplify his message of hate many times over, in a sense, giving it eternal life. The tech community has created a monster that they don't want to control because they believe it will spell the end of their high profits. We allow this to continue at our peril. Does anyone seriously think this is the last time this will happen?
This is as close to complete despair for the world we have created for our children as I have ever felt.
Jacinda Arden is a voice - finally, a voice - of reason, compassion, and strength. If only all leaders were so brave.
25
@AG - Ah, my friend - please don't let this, rather small event, bump up your despair.
While there were an embarrassing number of stupidities that combined to make it possible, it is NOT, truly, a major indicator of major world trends. As far back in history as we can see, there have been disturbed and disruptive individuals who have caused harm; sometimes great harm.
Focus perhaps instead on the actions of Abdul Aziz - who just dived into the situation - to protect - everyone - at the risk of his own life. There is the one to remember. And remember too; in history - there have been many such events where they had no one to be their Aziz.
1
@AG, I agree with Greenpa, and I think they phrased it more elegantly than I can. This is a problem, a horrendous, horrifying problem that we must face. But by many measures, violent death is still lower now than it has been throughout history. That does not negate what has happened, that doesn't make the death of one individual, or fifty, any less painful. But it is still important to remember.
Humanity has faced many problems, and improved them. I have hope we can do the same for this.
I hope this doesn't come across as invalidating the pain people are feeling. I only mention it because in my experience, hope can be more motivating than despair.
2
And yet, you named him.
20
We can refer to him as Voldemort.
4
Horrified to see the Times print his name and a link to it. That decision completely negated the message the article attempted to impart. This speaks to the problem that resulted in the incompetent man who now sits at the head of our government. The media has to get back to acting with journalistic integrity.
The prime minister is to be admired and emulated.
How inspiring to see a true leader.
27
“And to others, I implore you,” she added, “speak the names of those who were lost, rather than the name of the man who took them. He may have sought notoriety, but we in New Zealand will give him nothing. Not even his name.”
I agree. A nobody murdered innocents. Let him stay nobody.
51
@b fagan and yet, the NYT uses his name only a few paragraphs below AND links to a piece that details his life. Sort of the opposite of what the Prime Minister was asking for, no?
3
@sm - yeah. Freedom of the press. I'm not going to bother learning his name, don't care much about his life. People do horrible things. They do it for fame I won't contribute. A nobody committed mass murder. He's still a nobody. Shunning used to be a social practice. I can't think of a better situation to call for it again.
@b fagan, of course the New York Times has freedom of the press - I hope nobody is calling for the government to censor what they say. But as a reader, I do think it is fair for us to ask the New York Times to make more responsible decisions.
Does the fact that his name is "newsworthy" outweigh the harm that publicity of spree killers brings to the world? Is his name that important to our understanding of the story? I hope the writers are asking themselves these questions.
2
I am profoundly dissappointed at NYT to publish the killer's name - after an eager plea from NZ PM - who represents mourning and dignity of those who perished and are affected.
Here: the apetite for information, and decision to fill curiosity basically communicates that peoples pain matters less than sensationalism.
Maybe, at times like this, the human thing is to stand together and tall. Show respect.
45
It's about time. Thank you New Zealand. America - take note. This is how you deal with terrorists - deny them the oxygen of sensationalism and notoriety they so crave.
16
After Bin Laden was killed his body was dumped somewhere at sea for there should never be a shrine of him.
Terrorists and mass murders should not be able to claim status by having their names immortalized by wannabe followers.
NYT did a huge blunder by naming the NZ terrorist / murderer. Free press can and should imply restraint.
21
But then you named him. Why?
26
You not only used his name, you hyperlinked it. I am getting fed up with the Times. Should complain to your ombudsman.
26
Don't know if this has been commented on already. Way to use his name in an article about not using the name of this terrorist.
20
I completely agree with PM Ardern. Steal this lunatic's thunder, he desperately wants his name splashed all over newspapers, television, online sources, as it will enhance his standing in the sad, demented incel/nationalist community he values. It would be a minor miracle if news outlets refrain from publishing the usual endless stories on The Murderer's background, upbringing, motivation, but I won't be reading them, in fact, I will click away when I see them. For crying out loud, this latest Murderer published a 70+ page manifesto online, read that garbage if you really must know chapter and verse about him.
5
The Prime Minister of New Zealand requested that the terrorist's name not be released to deny him the notoriety he craves. So why did the NY Times proceed to name him? Denying oxygen to a fire is a reasonable response. I am disappointed in the Times.
25
I am disappointed to read in this article your naming of the "one whose name should not be said". Shutting off the oxygen supply of the fame flame might be an appropriate and timely means of helping extinguish another potential driving force in these types of social monster behavior!
16
Carries of hate are complicit. Internet providers must be held accountable. This bedroom-based tapping of racial vitriol on the net gains amplified power by its IT enablers. We must be more vigilant is nipping this in the bud, and more aggressive in prosecuting message enablers.
The New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, has stood out in 2019 as a person of integrity, honesty, and courage. She is a real leader, a hero in these times when the leader of the most powerful country in the world has proved to be a liar, a narcissist, and an immoral and despicable person who will soon face the world as an indicted criminal.
15
The issue is not that simple .And Ardern’s vow not to utter the attacker’s name will remain essentially token with traditional and social media having their own ideas.
3
NYT should be ashamed- an article about denying a sick and despicable person the notoriety he craves, and you give it to him! Shame! The media needs to acknowledge that the circus like non-stop coverage you all give to people who commit these heinous hate crimes has and does encourage future instances. None of you should name any of them!
29
“He is a terrorist. He is a criminal. He is an extremist,”
Uh, Ardern kinda left out the most important part:
He is a murderer. I assure you, the victim's relatives don't want that part forgotten.
4
Not saying the criminal's name --a very effective and winning strategy-- just like Roger Stone told candidates not to say their opponents' names. Here's proof: Mr. Trump's free publicity works the same way. There is no bad publicity; just keep names before the public and people will identify with them.
3
Agree with this, great idea. Deny these criminals the attention they pathetically crave.
7
I've been advocating this for years. They should be given an insulting label, such as "the human cockroach" or the "little angry man", and be referred to by that label until they can be put in jail for life, and forgotten.
7
@mlbex: and when they die, cremated and scattered with no marker. Erase any online mention. Obliterate them.
NYT, could you respect the prime minister's decision and folliw suit? Right now you are just praising their efforts yet completely diminish them- why? For the added effect and attention of which you obtusely accuse social media sites of.
21
Totally agree with this article, and I am happy to see my home country tackling gun control and these difficult issues head on, rather than the hollow "prayers and blessings" and deflection that seem to take place in the wake of similar events in my adopted home.
By the way, speaking as a Kiwi with European ancestry, the white supremacists who believe that “Europeans are the defining people of this nation and that they were essential in its creation", need to remember that Maori people were the defining people of New Zealand until Captain Cook and white colonists took it over amidst violence, bloodshed, and trickery. In fact, I'd argue that New Zealand wouldn't be New Zealand without Maori people, their language, and culture.
10
United States administration: our thoughts and prayers are with the victims.
New Zealand administration: we will work on gun control legislation.
19
@GGOGOS1
Well put...well said... Hallmark words vs Life Changing action.
Prime Minister Ardern is certainly entitled to refer to the shooter however she chooses, but the press in the U.S. must not follow her example in name or in message. To engage in such suppression is rank censorship, and will only increase the curiosity about those who commit such violent acts, and why. The silly attempt to prevent the New Zealand shooter's manifesto from reaching the public eye says more about what the those who censored it think about the public than the maniac who wrote it. Do they think we're all going to rush to the streets after reading someone's screed? When the Unabomber's manifesto was published by the 'Times' and the 'Washington Post' at the behest of the FBI, I recall no such occurrences. History has shown us that when we filter information about major public events, all it causes is confusion and uncertainty now and in the future, especially when it is about the occasional act of evil, as in New Zealand.
3
@David Godinez As a huge free-speech enthusiast, I am incredibly torn on this issue. The reason is this: I've been carefully studying these mass shootings since 1990, and have concluded that most of the shooters wish to become "infamous". Most are lone losers, who've accomplished nothing in life. And they want to go out in a blaze of glory, their name forevermore stamped into the newspapers, Internet, and history books. So, yes, these shooters do want--and expect--mass publicity from their crimes. And if they knew they couldn't get it, then perhaps many wouldn't do it.
But I don't see any effective way, to prevent their names from leaking out, and human nature tells us that the harder government or companies work to suppress this information, the harder that curious readers will work to obtain it. I cannot envision a solution to this conundrum.
2
@Robert
The media could simply not publish their names. Sure it might find it's way onto the social media but not everyone reads those. The public media does not need to make sure everyone else is exposed to it. I don't consider not naming the terrorists as censorship but as a way to deny them mass recognition. As an offshoot, I really don't need to read all of Trumps rants on Twitter in the newspaper. I don't subscribe to it and it is nothing news worthy anyway. Why give him the notoriety that publishing it entails?
2
NYT, I urge you and other news organizations to revisit your policies of naming or showing images of these attackers. Provide a link, if you will, to a secondary level where those who wish can learn the names or view the images of these murderers. But spare those of us who wish to honor, remember and mourn the dead instead.
15
I also want exemplar punitive actions to ALL who tried to upload copies of the videos One thing is freedom of speech but when the "speech" is a video with horrible acts, those who help spread it must face heavy criminal charges.
This after Kellyanne Conway, on "Fox and Friends" Monday morning, actually suggested people read the killers manifesto.
3
Too bad that you didn't honor the Prime Minister's decision to deny noteriety to the criminal. I am disappointed.
28
@Val
The Times is a newspaper. It's mission is to report the facts and that includes the name of the suspect. It would be derelict for the paper to not do it.
The Prime Minister of NZ is free to make her own decision, which I support.
2
Yes it’s extremely disappointing to see not only that NYT includes the terrorist’s name in the article but also a link (which I did not click on). Many years ago I saw an interview with Yoko Ono who said the name of the person who murdered John Lennon should never be spoken or written. I couldn’t have agreed more and I cannot understand why the media continues to constantly print and repeat the names of terrorists and murderers and information about their “manifestos,” since it is that very notoriety they crave. Even in this article about not saying the name!!! :-(
8
@Ralphie
"The Times is a newspaper. Its mission is to report the facts and that includes the name of the suspect. It would be derelict for the paper to not do it."
Would it though? Which such an attitude there will never be change. Somebody has got to be first to set a higher standard. Set a higher standard for such a horrific event. Support and respect Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s steps to bring this act of terror to a complete stop. I doubt that readers would think the NYT in general is neglecting their job to report facts. In this instance, I for one would applaud the effort.
1
Why don't u ever report on the silent pact media in Switzerland has worked out with law enforcement there? I case of a terror attack only the facts (where, how, number of injuries) will be reported. No on scene reporting, no photography, no mentioning of the perpetrator.
I know this would be difficult in a greedy-for-ad-revenue country like this. But it seems to work there.
13
I have long thought that the United States policy should be not repeat the name(s) of the people that commit mass violent acts or show their faces over and over again. After all this is what they want, that "15mins of fame", which is the case of our country goes on and on for years.
I so respect New Zealand for blocking out the the face and name of the accused terrorist.
7
That is exactly the right way to handle this. NO notoriety for the terrorists - no photo, no name - nothing but contempt, disdain, and punishment.
11
I totally agree. The person should simply be referred to as 'The coward'. The description fits perfectly. He gunned down helpless innocents, but as soon as confronted by a lone, unarmed but very brave Afghan-New Zealander, he turned and ran. In fact, from now on anyone committing similar crimes should always be identified by the media as 'The coward'. It fits the crime much better much better than terrorist or gunman.
11
Yes, I completely agree that referring to them as “the coward” is most appropriate.
1
Finally, a voice of sanity in the aftermath of mass violence. DO NOT give these people what they seek: recognition and even sometimes admiration. No publicizing of their names. Even when the names become known, do not print them or say them in news reports.
10
Brilliant response to an attention seeking terrorist. Let him be nameless and faceless. NZ and Mrs. Ardern are positively smart in their handling of this tragedy. And I love the fact that they are immediately doing something about gun control. No thoughts and prayers, just action. Positively brilliant.
79
It is time for all nations to follow PM Ardern's example and make laws that decrease access to semi-automatic weapons. Murder in America has become normalized by the advancement of white supremicists urged on by the president, inaction of governments to protect citizens, the NRA and companies whose only focus is "All profit, no responsibility".
13
If Facebook can sell information on its users to advertisers and researchers, why can’t it provide information on the people who frequent these hateful sites to worldwide law enforcement? No money in that? Step up, Facebook, and atone for the harm you have done to society with a positive step.
49
this is a republic not a communist regime, free will must prevail. Love your neighbor do your part, this is a divided country and your comment shows you'd rather be spoon-feed information and rat on your neighbor for things he decides to read online. your elk think the government should control content. States rights must prevail. The Federal government is a military machine that rather start wars then educate our your. Both Democrats and Republicans are totally corrupt there is no middle ground.
1
@Dee
The NYT moderates submitted comments for civility. Why then can't such a practice exist with social media cites such as FaceBook?
3
@Dee, my guess is that if law enforcement wants that information, they can get it. I don't think it would be very helpful. Those sites have many, many, many viewers who never go on to commit violence. Many visit only because they are curious. Many believe in the rhetoric, but aren't willing to be violent about it.
I don't know this for sure, but I suspect that up until the moment he published his manifesto, his Internet habits were not that different from hundreds of thousands of people who never commit violence. Even if you're comfortable with surveilling that many nonviolent people, it is difficult to do. Many people move through these sites anonymously. The money spent tracking these sites might be more effectively spent elsewhere to prevent violence.
Prime Minister Ardern gets it. The Times should recognize the power behind legacy denial and aid by omitting the voluntarily withholding names and photographs of those who commit these atrocities, especially those that set records, innovate or break new ground for barbarity. At most, report the name only, one time.
18
Prime Minister Arden is right. So many of these lone so-called 'terrorists' around the world do terrorise, do get inspiration from radical agenda, and do intend to do harm to many. Many are outcasts determined to go out in a blaze of glory; but their overriding driver is for personal attention.
We should stop referring to these people as 'terrorists' and call them 'sensationalists', or some other pejorative term. Only by showing them derision and denying them the infamous attention they crave, will we stop copycats trying to outdo them with even more spectacular atrocities.
34
@Jamie They should be called cowards - because that is what they are. Murdering helpless, defenseless people. In New Zealand, Abdul Aziz went after the coward with a credit card machine, and threw it at him. He then chased the coward with an empty gun and smashed his windshield. The coward got flustered and drove away - only to be apprehended by quick-acting police. When the coward had no gun, he was afraid of a man running at him with a credit card machine; afraid of a man who refused to be afraid.
17
New Zealand is getting this right. Address the laws, omit the fame of the shooter and support all who were victims.
Maybe America can follow THEIR lead, since WE no longer lead the FREE WORLD.
17
I wish that all media, especially in the US, would follow this example.
11
Prime Minister Ardern's refusal to speak the assassin's name is how Tasmania dealt with the man who killed 35 and wounded 23 in Port Arthur in 1996. That is precisely how all news media should deal with it. I deeply resent that I remember the name of the man who killed 14 women at Montreal's École Polytechnique in 1989, and I am resolved to consign the Christchurch killer to anonymity.
14
I had never heard of of 8Chan until last weekend. Out of curiosity, I googled it and was in the 8Chan message board within seconds. It lived up to its reputation. I’m not a gamer, hacker, white nationalist, autistic, into anime or the weird smorgasbord that populates 8Chan and it was a strange, angry alien world. One thing that popped out was the ubiquitous praise, harsh criticism and deconstruction of Brenton Tarrant, the NZ terrorist. While the civilized world may not want say his name, it is repeated ad nauseam on these message boards aimed at the audience that could produce another Brenton Tarrant. While not saying his name may make some people feel virtuous, it is a hollow gesture that obscures the problem.
7
@Padraig Lewis
Was it really necessary for you to repeat his name twice in your post? You have managed to implant it in my brain for which I am resentful. The N.Z. request to not give him notoriety was just abridged by you as you condemn others for the same action.
1
There are costs and benefits to living in a society with a free press with some democratic or republic norms that rely on informed citizens. Knowing the name of criminal perpetrators and their victims is essential to criminal justice.
2
I have always placed more stock in "actions speaking louder than words" and the actions by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern thus are truly exemplifies that adage.
17
She is grandstanding. She is playing to public opinion. If she were serious she would get serious and quit playing like she wants to get reelected. She is building a public image right now. Someone in her circle of advisors is telling her "This looks good".
@Aristotle Gluteus Maximus
With all due respect, I'll take Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's version of "grandstanding" any day over a president who remains mute in times of crisis and bullying behavior all of the other times.
Maybe, just maybe, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is using common sense and sound judgement. I realize for many, that may appear to be a new and challenging concept to comprehend. But being honest, direct, and taking action works for me - every single time.
44
@Marge Keller
Why are you comparing her to Trump. It has absolutely nothing to do with why these guys commit mass murder. Absolutely nothing. But it's no use trying to tell people that. It's like a the politicians are putting on a circus show for the voters but they have no idea what's going on in the sewers below them.
I have been so impressed by the actions of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and many other New Zealanders in the wake of this abhorrent massacre. I admire almost everything they have said and done since the monster went on his sick, self-centered attack. It’s provides such a vivid contrast to what our incompetent administration in Washington would be capable of.
11
One of the most effective ways to potentially reduce the frequency of mass shootings and possibly other terrorist activities would be to never show the face and never tell the name or any history of perpetrators of these horrible acts.
5
The New Zealand Government response to this horrific act has is appropriate and measured . There is and should be no place in a civil society for the hatred espoused by White Nationalism . Now if only our own Leadership could grasp this simple realization and follow the example of the authorities who govern New Zealand . Instead of continuing to dog whistle to the the White Nationalists in the United States our President needs to make it very clear that their rhetoric and point of view is not only unacceptable but is also UnAmerican .
4
This shooter obviously craved fame, like most other shooters. What is significant is that the shooter believed that his actions would gain him fame because that has been the result for other shooters. And who grants the fame? THE MEDIA! When any media source replays the events over and over, shows footage of grieving survivors, stories about what fine people the victims were, stories about the heroic actions of one individual, etc. etc., it offers fame to the perpetrator. Negative fame, of course, but that is appealing to these sick individuals.
Adern is right to say “don’t speak his name.” If only the media coverage of these events could be less dramatic and sensationalist. It would remove some of the incentive perceived by these sickos.
14
But, it is not his name that matters, his deeds have been heard already, loud and clear among his ilk, and others
I am also in favor of this. It saddens me I know the name of the person who killed John Lennon
3
New Zealand will recover from this tragedy and with leadership like this they will become the mouse that roared.
5
New Zealand's prime minister is correct. The media needs to focus on the victims and never show the faces of these criminals. This man is in custody and we don't want to speak his name, see his face, or hear his disturbing outlook on the world. This should be the approach for all media to take moving forward. Criminals do not deserve to be memorialized in our minds. The memory of the innocent victims is all that matters.
8
The prime minister's approach is wise. I would like to see us all apply the same to the attention-seeker in America who is currently doing so much damage from the Oval Office.
33
@Stevem Agree with you 100%
1
I have believed for a long time that this is the right way to handle something like this, in a case where its so obvious that his primary goal was to get publicity, and I was very excited to see NZ media even blurring out his face. I am a little sad to see that the New York Times and other media are not following their lead, although I understand why (they want to have consistent journalism & likely have basic rules dictating it). I do hope this does at least open a discussion within the NYT news & editorial staff though.
26
Although there have now been so many mass shooters by now, who really remembers any of them.
2
@Pat
I agree. The only name I instantly recall (which I will not write) is the guy responsible for the Texas Tower shooting of 1966 and that's probably because he was the first to commit mass murder with a firearm.
3
NZ understands the issue so quickly - ban names (attention) and control guns !! ...why can’t we do the same ??
42
"I implore you,” she added, “speak the names of those who were lost, rather than name of the man who took them. He may have sought notoriety, but we in New Zealand will give him nothing. Not even his name.”
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern gives new meaning to words like courage, inner strength, leadership, role model and classy. I hope other politicians, especially those in this country are paying attention and listening to her words. She truly has something to say and her message is powerful. She cares about her country and about her citizens. There is so much this country could learn from her example. What a refreshing change.
You rock Prime Minister! Thank you for going down the right and honorable path.
48
New Zealand and Jacinda Ardern are demonstrating loudly and clearly how it should be done to make a global statement against terrorism, gun violence, and inadequate gun control laws.
When Ms Ardern first spoke about the tragedy on Saturday, she showed the world how to look the victims in the eye and say” we are changing our laws immediately so that this never happens again”. With all the politicians in the U S that spout the line after a gun tragedy that now is not the time to discuss change to our gun laws, you are cowards. A young leader in a small country half a world away, has it head and shoulders over all of you bumblers.
See what a woman can do in a leadership role, everyone?
136
@Kate
The problem here is that those politicians are not bumblers, but bought-and-paid-for stooges of the gun industry. That is much harder to overcome.
17
We shouldn't watch or hear the video, we shouldn't say names, or read the manifesto. Please tell us all wise leaders exactly what you think its best for us to know so we can behave as you think you can engineer us to do.
If you have never read "Propaganda" or "Manufacturing Consent" perhaps its best you do.
3
"...the country’s prime minister said on Tuesday that she wants to do everything possible to deny him the attention he craves."
An excellent strategy...thank-you...maybe the only thing about this abysmal tragedy that all of the different sides of the debate(s) can agree is "right"...
8
I didn't pay much attention about news reports of her being the youngest woman to be prime minister, or when she gave birth while in office.
But her leadership in this incident has absolutely won me over. Her empathy, quick response and words will go a long way in healing the families of the victims, and will, hopefully, inspire other leaders on how to act in the face of tragedy, when the world really needs them.
205
@Guest
She's grandstanding
2
@Aristotle Gluteus Maximus No she's not grandstanding. She's being a leader.
7
I'm beyond sad that a senseless tragedy of this scale may be what it finally takes but it's right to call on the social media giants--Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, and others that have given hate groups a platform and visibility--to shut them down. Surely, their algorithms and big data intelligence can and must do better. Otherwise these faceless companies are serving as incubators, enablers, and accomplices. Enough!
72
@Ann writes: "it's right to call on the social media giants--Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, and others that have given hate groups a platform and visibility--to shut them down. Surely, their algorithms and big data intelligence can and must do better."
The problem with the AI filters is that they need to be "trained" (have analysis done) on the original video before they can pick up on attempt to uploads of permutations and alterations. In other words, the AI filters are pretty good at picking up on videos that the humans at the providers have already flagged (for example, copyright infringement), but not entirely new content being livestreamed, and the author has notified others in his community to immediately try to propogate (as in this case). I have been dismayed to see even "lead tech journalists" not understand this distinction, e.g. on PBS Newshour last night.
In other words this is not a case of the platforms needing to tweak existing filters to do a better job, its a case of the basic technical approach of the filters simply not being designed for this use case. My credentials for speaking on this: masters in Comp Sci, with some grad work in AI and continued personal interest in understanding it since graduation (though not relevant in my day job)
2
So enlightening to see a world leader such as the Ms. Arden. This is how true leadership looks like. Terrorists have no religion except that of hate. Wish all world leaders were as courageous and as rightful as she is.
17
“He is a terrorist. He is a criminal. He is an extremist. But he will, when I speak, be nameless.”
“And to others, I implore you, speak the names of those who were lost, rather than name of the man who took them. He may have sought notoriety, but we in New Zealand will give him nothing. Not even his name.”
-- Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern
This is leadership of the highest order, one no doubt that will be shown again when New Zealand passes some sensible gun control in the near future.
The United States is light years away from such humanity, decency and moral leadership.
144
@Socrates -- New Zealand went past "sensible" gun controls to downright restrictive back in the early 90's.
You may not own a firearm for self-defense and carrying concealed is prohibited. An applicant for a firearms license must pass a background check that considers criminal, mental health, medical, addiction and domestic violence records. An interview with the local Firearms Officer is required along with two third party character references who have known you for years, one must be non-family, one must be a current firearms license holder. Pistols and scary looking black rifles must be registered.
This is the "sensible" gun control that failed to prevent 50 people from being murdered.
I agree with the Prime Minister’s sentiments. People who carry out such heinous acts of terror do not deserve notoriety.
9
So far, New Zealand's response to this has made we want to move there.
23
The killer announced his intentions. 4000 people watched the carnage unfold live. Where were the Facebook moderators? Why did no one call the police?
The problem with hate groups is that they can operate anonymously on the internet. The killer was a nobody prior to his rampage. Facebook, Twitter google and the like should be required to publish names and addresses of all the miscreants that visit theses sites. Social shaming would then set in. If we could make it harder for these people to get jobs, rent apartments, buy firearms, it would be a powerful incentive for better behavior.
1
I don’t think Facebook has many moderators; they might detract from the companies’ profits. Behind Zuckerberg’s schlock about Facebook “seeking to unite the world,” we see a different reality — a company making billions of dollars by letting white supremacists, bots, conspiracy theorists and others use their platform to encourage disunity or publicize mayhem.
8
America, This is what leadership looks like.
94
@SL
Please make that: "Trump voters, this is what leadership looks like."
The rest of us already know.
3
That all future terrorists remain nameless in the media should be the standard of reporting. There is no humanitarian gain in widely publicizing who they were or what they were called.
61
Why not just call him 'Individual Zero' : for zero humanity, zero morality, zero merit of the least attention ... also to indicate that no matter how many he is multiplied by, his value will alway be zero.
29
@Christensen
Because that would be a name.
He doesn't deserve even a sound.
3
With all the news, I feel positive about not knowing this person’s name thus far.
They do not deserve a smidge of my attention.
11
Here is America, it is illegal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Because even though this might seem like it's protected under the 1st Amendment (Free Speech), the *potential* for harm over-rides any free speech benefits.
The same concept should be applied to hate speech and websites that promote it.
If someone created a website that was all about encouraging people to shout "Fire!" in a theater, you can bet that Facebook, et al would shut it down.
Hate speech has no discernable pubic benefit. In fact, as we see from the events in NZ, it encourages public harm.
We need to interpret our laws in a thoughtful manner that provides an overall benefit to the public good. Shut these hate-sites down.
15
She’s wrong and it’s wasted effort trying to make up for a complete disaster. His name is already known, especially among those who would welcome and praise his actions. For a government official to try and ban his name will just be a motivation for them to spitefully make sure it is remembered. His parents gave him that name. Why don’t they execute his parents too? Her idle gesturing is meaningless and following a formula, a recipe, that will have no effect on preventing another incident. She apparently is all show with little substance. Everything she has done so far, even if much praised in the clueless media, is the same all other officials have done with no effect.
She is wrong because they are not perpetrating these acts to make a name for themselves. They, he, has already done what he set out to do, with complete, unmitigated success. The sooner these elected officials accept that these killers have been able to run circles around the slow, plodding establishment they target the sooner the can find a solution. So far they are oblivious and can only make heroic gestures after the fact.
3
@Aristotle Gluteus Maximus Still better than naming him. At least if he's forgotten, his name is slightly less likely to end up inscribed on the barrel of the next murder weapon. He's clearly trying to do the same things as that mass murdered in Norway, representing himself in court so he can grandstand. The less we, as members of the public, know about him the better.
3
@Aristotle Gluteus Maximus - Point taken but she's after something less tangible but critically important for the creation and maintenance of the political will that is necessary for the kind of governmental action you envision. You are also wrong that he was not out to make a name for himself. He was and he did: just not with the same people that the Prime Minister of New Zealand is addressing.
1
@Bill
If he was out to make his name notorious it was a secondary goal. They don't commit mass murder just to make a name for themselves any more than Audie Murphy was trying to make himself famous for a future movie career.
These platforms provide the oxygen for spreading and spewing messages that were once relegated to the fringes of main stream media. Isn't it time to contemplate some kind of a regulatory mechanism to rein in the beast?
I only wish we had a leader as strong, moral and empathetic as New Zealand has.
67
It must be extremely vexing to our president to see the worldwide adulation this young woman is receiving for doing her job well, with empathy, and without consideration of political gain.
It is vexing to many citizens of the United States that he is unable to do the same.
105
@Phil Zaleon. Not to mention the very positive attention she has received and diverted his antics from center stage. The world needs more leaders like Jacinda Ardern.
16
@Phil Zaleon
There was a video of Trump reading a statement about the attacks.
It showed his typical lack of preparation. Whenever he comes to a word or phrase about which he is unsure, he pauses half a beat and then over-enunciates it and then he gets a self satisfied look on his face.
He did that with Ardern's name.
Anyway...organize, register, vote.
11
I have great admiration fort Jacinda Ardern. She is assured and compassionate, and has the qualities of a great world leader.
82
Thank you for this good report that also told us what has appeared in these ultra right wing websites.
These sites, I will never visit or for that matter extreme left wing.
But it gives a great context - rather than just rumors and speculations.
I think this prime minister has completely missed the import of this massacre.
Her pledging not to use his name - defies a leader of a country - under whose protection this murderer still lives. And he will expect to be protected in jails as it should be - we do the same here.
Not using his name is so childish. If you had asked me next month his name - I would not have known. His actions speak much louder than his name.
Remember the same nonsense Brits did with Gerry Adam's voice which was not allowed to be broadcast. That got Britain loads of good.
The best thing for any leader is to press for an open investigation.
Let chips fall where they may be. Law abiding citizens need to know what cracks he fell through.
And please, wait until this investigation and his trial is over.
Then, a rational discourse of all remedies be held.
In order to "protect the victims" people are calling for private companies to strictly control any form of expression, even private, so to ban "hate" and make sure everybody behaves well. Meanwhile, hate and dehumanization toward the attacker is justified because it is a "terrorist", and thus, we should cancel his face, his name, his words, and just "side with the victims". Our leaders should protect us by avoiding to talk about these monsters, and we should protect the victims by refusing to engage with the ideologies and people who carry such attacks.
I hope somebody realizes how down we falling. At this point, anybody can be sure to achieve success and popularity just by claiming to side with "the victims", who are treated as pure innocent divinities, against the "victimizers" who are godless, monstrous creatures.
Let's do what we want with the terrorist, ban him from humanity, cancel his memory, everything that does not let us think how similar to him we actually are.
NYT blew it when they published the killer’s name in an article about not using the killer’s name. I had earlier been impressed by the Times’s relatively sparse usage thereof in its coverage, but this undid all of that.
267
Agreed. And with a link no less. Shameful. I scrolled past the name and did not click the link. It was the least I could do.
35
@DA And they made a link to his name. Do we really need to know more about him? I'm ready to unsubscribe.
17
@DA I would add to this the literal quotes from the extremist websites. It is perfectly possible to summarize the reaction on those websites (if this is an interesting topic at all) without quoting individuals and thus amplifying their voice.
Not naming the attackers may be an important measure of prevention by reducing the motivation for killing a particularly large number of individuals. Break the logic of 'the more I kill the more attention I get.'
In a 2018 article Adam Lankford, whose research I got to know through NY Times, counts “… 24 cases of [mass shooters] who explicitly stated that they wanted attention and fame or directly contacted media organizations to get it. […] some mass shooters are exploiting the direct relationship between casualty counts and media coverage. As the Umpqua Community College shooter accurately summarized, 'Seems the more people you kill, the more you're in the limelight.'"
Identifying Potential Mass Shooters and Suicide Terrorists with Warning Signs of Suicide, Perceived
Victimization, and Desires for Attention or Fame, Journal of Personality Assessment, 100:5, 2018, 471-482.
7
Can this woman become President of the United States, please?
153
I’m not on social media. Honestly I find it pathetic and all those who participate are complicit in this mess.
However I have a solution. Let’s take the 1.5 million people who copied that video and without notice delete all their content. Delete photos and posts and everything they put on that pathetic platform to feel like they were important. Reduce them to nothing. That will teach them a lesson.
Make them invisible. Rob them of memory.
72
@Greg Giotopoulos You are on to something here, though your literal suggestion is a non-starter: these providers cannot do that without opening themselves up to massive legal exposure (they would be sued up the wazoo).
But maybe what they CAN do is to all get together to create an independent review board (like movies had > 50 years ago) that will use clear legal standards to declare a video particularly heinous, and then all consistently ammend their user agreements to hand the judgement of when this should be done to that independent group? Kind of like the International Court? I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how feasible this is, but it seems like a not-too-farfetched idea.
1
This idea is “Recommended” by many readers on a mainstream news site? That’s scary in itself.
I have no interest in the shooter (or any other) and I'm glad I was spared knowing that cowards name. This should be policy.
16
This would have been an even better more powerful article had The NY Times followed suit and did not mention his name either and I kept that thought right up until I saw the name in a hyperlink.
No I did not click through.
Been to NZ. A few times, wonderful people, wonderful country. I think the rest of the world will learn a good example of how to deal with this type of tragedy by following these Kiwis.
Godspeed to the fallen.
188
FB pulled 1.5 million copied videos of the attack from its site within 24 hours of the attack? That's separate videos, not views.
Time to regulate these sites. That's a cesspool that needs real oversight. We monitor sewage and other forms of toxic dumping, why not this?
107
"White people" are a little more than 15% of the world's population.
Through historic accidents, technology, and infectious diseases due to miserable personal hygiene, they temporarily dominate the world stage. They have had a stranglehold on economic leverage, self-dealing political influence and massive military power for a few centuries. It is increasingly tenuous.
Small wonder that the insecure among them are terrified of losing their most-favored status. The majority seem able to adjust to the idea of living in a pluralistic world. Others cannot and react like terrified dogs, cats and chimpanzees.
The leadership and people of New Zealand are showing us all how it should be done. We are grateful and bow our heads in respectful acknowledgment of true world leadership by example.
54
Have Australia strip him of his legal citizenship and then try him for terrorism as an enemy combatant. Use every legal device and more to disallow him from representing himself. If he refuses to be represented, he then is sentenced in full. End of conversation.
At a later time and date an open discussion of just how such people are psychologically damaged in childhood and how "easy" it is to twist and turn that internal rage and total fear of others, onto anyone and everyone. Remember this is just a little frightened tough boy, terrified of pretty much everything and everyone.
This is not someone who went home at night and contemplated the complexities of life, or read Socrates from the original Greek. Feelings are feminine and girly and to be crushed out at any cost. Stop creating these cripples and masks of sanity who are fighting a hidden war inside their heads.
7
The ease with which the perp bought his guns in New Zealand is deplorable.
Laws for gun control are way past due throughout the world.
Let’s get started now on sane gun control laws!
18
And that is how you do it.
My condolences to every family affected by the horror unleashed by this (nameless nobody) terrorist.
51
Reluctancy is when you hesitate to do or not to do something. New Zealand and the Prime Minister have shown the complete opposite, conviction.
83
She wants to deny him attention by not mentioning his now well-known name but goes right ahead with proposing exactly the policy the terrorist demanded in his manifesto.
2
@natan
If you are talking about changing gun laws, well, so be it.
His views mean nothing at all.
This change is merely being practical.
15
@Natan. The murderer wanted to foment more gun issues in the US, and only picked NZ as his target because it represents the safest place on the planet. The NZ government, led by its capable PM, is doing what is smart and right for NZ. To do nothing in the face of such horror would be immoral and irresponsible.
27