The New Zealand Attack Posed New Challenges for Journalists. Here Are the Decisions The Times Made.

The killing of 50 people in New Zealand last week seems to be the most extreme example of a mass shooter using the internet as part of his arsenal of destruction and hate. We look at how this affected our calculations around how to cover the attack.

Comments: 72

  1. "The Times profiles attackers, and names them, after such incidents in order to give our readers a better understanding of what happened and why." *Your* knowing his name allows you to investigate his background and pass your knowledge (sans name) on to us. But*our* knowing his name won't give us a better understanding of anything at all. It's meaningless to those of us who didn't know him personally. Other evil and/or sick people out there knowing that mass killers' names are published give them confidence that should they do something similar, they too will live on in infamy among the general public and in glory among other violent, hateful sociopaths. That the public needs to point this out to you is astounding. Purdy's explanation is just lazy rationalization of a long practice that's long overdue for retirement. Using the name once, right after the event, I can see. More than that, and you're obviously reinforcing the impulse to kill to be "somebody." But as NZ's leader rightly said, he's a nobody, and should stay that way for the sake of a civilized society you're a part of, NYT.

  2. @sixophone - Agree. Give them numbers so the sheer frequency of massacres is constantly visible. I don't need their names, ever. But with sufficient demographics they can be found by people who feel the need to deep dive such terrible incidents.

  3. @Sixofone —perhaps you would prefer we all pretend it didn’t happen at all? Would mass murder then dry up overnight?

  4. Kudo’s to The Times for the excellent and sensitive reporting and not showing or linking to any of the terrorist’s video

  5. Hypocrites. What do they, or did they teach, about how to report a story? What, when, where, who, why, or something like that. If you really are so concerned about advancing the shooter’s message then don’t report it at all. Total silence, like they do in China or North Korea. Suppress all knowledge of it ever occurring. If you then decide you can’t do that then just report the facts. Is there a problem with that? Seriously, it’s a legitimate question if any of the reporters asking for comment want to answer. All of your professed dilemmas are caused by your own efforts to moralize and control the narrative yourselves. You call it “explaining and putting events in perspective”, but you are just making propaganda in the style of the NYT system of values. The NYT can’t possibly refrain, it’s mandatory, you cannot help yourselves from inserting some sort of “message” advocating gun control in any of this reporting, for just one example of your innocent “putting things in perspective”. You “inadvertently “ further the terrorist’s message when you try to alter the narrative. People can see that. It’s plain as day and it’s just a signal to pay more attention to what you are trying to suppress. So what if readers want you to avoid using his name. Just because they complain doesn’t mean they are right. Even if the prime minister says it doesn’t make her the moral pope of controlling plain fact. The massacre itself is the message. If you fear being complicit, don’t report it.

  6. @Aristotle Gluteus Maximus Surely there must be some middle ground between not reporting anything - like they do in N Korea and China, not who we aspire to be - and asserting some sort of agenda as we report it? It’s sad that we’ve become so accustomed to these shootings and “triggered” (so to speak) by ensuing debate that we are are actually considering gagging newspapers as a viable response.

  7. @Petey Like I noted above, the people who the shooter advertised to ahead of his attack saw it in real time and saw his manifesto unedited as he wrote it and they were able to pretty much tear it to pieces and discredit it in about two hours after the onset of the attack. These were the same people where he thought he was among kindred souls, people who thought like him, his online buddies and good blokes.

  8. Several stories in the Times gave the gunman an unnecessary form of respectability by putting Mr in front of his name. He murdered 50 innocent people and wounded many more but the Times portrayed him as gentleman by using the Mr title!

  9. Not a fan of news stories in which the news station its own story. It’s impossible to be objective, it is self important, it is piling on a tragedy and violent trend that feeds off of news coverage. This is an article I could have done without.

  10. Even the commentators on 8chan were saying that the shooter was giving away,( inadvertently?) tactical information on how these shooters operate . Ask “the authorities “ if their police forces, intelligence agencies, etc. viewed and studied the video for any valuable information on how these attacks progress. Why shouldn’t ‘the people’ who you ostensibly serve have the opportunity to gain that same tactical advantage, especially since the people will be the first ones to confront the next shooter, and not the “authorities “ who only arrive six minutes later after the damage has already been done. Remember, the world’s experts say a six minute response time is a success and excellent.

  11. @Aristotle Gluteus Maximus The people can get such information from wherever they like, AGM. There is no reason or obligation for the NYT to assist.

  12. @Cato But the entire civilized media tried to censor that video so no one could see it. You didn't see me say that it should be broadcast on public television. In New Zealand it's illegal to make it available to anyone who wants to see it with a jail term of fourteen years.

  13. If the NY Times had published the link to the shooters manifesto, then more people would read it and realize that the shooter said he wanted to cause a further restriction on guns, so as to further polarize both New Zealand and the United States. The people who are calling for more restrictions on gun rights, are doing exactly what the New Zealand shooter hoped they would do. What could be more important than making available the shooter's manifesto? Isn't understand the motive terribly important? If the NY Times thinks it must be annotated to be understood, then perhaps someone could do an annotated version.

  14. @Larry The people on 8chan who were advised early of the shooter’s intentions and saw the video in real time and read his manifesto were more objective and critical of the shooter’s efforts at propaganda making than any NYT reporter. What I saw was that most of them were shocked he actually did it since the vast majority of people on that chat board know and understand that what is said is sh—talk and not taken seriously. They really picked the “manifesto” apart, dissecting it quite well, pointing out where he copied and pasted from elsewhere, offering their critical opinions on his logic and claims, all within the first two hours of the event. But it wasn’t done in polite politically correct language.

  15. Thank you. THIS is responsible reporting. I found it very disturbing that other news organizations included still images from the gunman’s live feed. I am pleased your newsroom deliberated over this and spent time explaining how complicated this is. Including these images stands the risk of emboldening future criminals who seek to receive equal attention and recognition for their acts of violence and flies in the face of any reporting your institution runs questioning the responsibility of social media companies where this information was originally obtained. These images do not add significant news value and do not inform the reader in any significant way. It is imperative you continue responsible reporting on such a critical topic and I am grateful you have done so in such a conscientious way.

  16. I noticed that the shooting happened the same week when here in Quebec Alexandre Bissonette called for appeal to his judgments. The Couronne also called for appeal. Alexandre Bissonette is always in first page of the news. I agree with the Prime Minister of New Zealand killers shouldn’t be on first page. Victims should be. Not when they are wounded or dead. When they were at their best. Lawyers of the victims should be. Or place a picture of the courtroom or the entrance of Palais de Justice. Or the people who helped, first rescue. PS: i don’t really mind to have my comment published.

  17. I miss the Public Editor. These carefully constructed explanations for the paper’s actions are neither interesting nor informative. The independence of the Public Editor made storytelling feel unexpected, and added a frisson of tension when she disagreed with the paper’s actions. Oversight is more engaging than whatever this was.

  18. Of course the attacker in NZ was married to the internet, because the internet is now inescapable from all our minds. It's been said elsewhere, but we must remember that internet is like our collective unconscious. Newsrooms will eventually become inured to their similarity to the internet, and become as vulnerable and careless to those who manipulate and use both.

  19. To deny any gift of glory or propaganda to shooters, but still inform readers of the magnitude of the problem, you could report only statistics, somewhat like the financial pages. Number of attacks this month (week, year), kill count and wounded count (or ‘casualties’, as the military does), and perhaps location by country or even continent.

  20. “...but who these people are could explain to people what their interests and experiences are.” No, printing their name doesn’t tell us who they are and what their interests and experiences are. Those are different things. You can print everything you think readers should know about the person without using his name. His name adds nothing.

  21. This is brilliant and very very helpful.

  22. This is complicated stuff. There's the story -- the shootings; the meta-story -- the shooter's live stream and screed; and the meta-meta-story -- the shooter's attempts to troll the media and roil the gun-control debate. All three layers have to be reported to convey the full impact and meaning of this disturbing event, and doing so responsibly will require many difficult editorial judgment calls, as this piece makes clear. Not everyone will agree with every call, but I do appreciate the Times's careful approach. And I don't see this piece as grandstanding or navel-gazing on the part of the Times -- though that is always a risk with this sort of inside reporting -- but rather an effort to be transparent and solicit thoughtful views from readers, which might inform the Times's approach the next time around. Sad to say, there will likely be a next time, which is why this dialogue is valuable.

  23. One story that has not been emphasized enough, in my view, is that we generally equate terrorists and terrorist attacks with Islam and with Muslims in general--especially after 9/11. Ask anyone on the street that when they hear Muslim or mosque they think 9/11 or terrorist, or even if you see a woman with a head scarf. Trump has gone a long way in promoting this view from attempting to ban Muslims from entering this country to creating barriers against them and their communities. Even though this was a horrific attack, maybe it helped to humanize and feel for the victims. I think there is a long way to go and the racism ranges from overt to subtle. Somehow we need a new narrative about Islam, what it stands for and how we see Muslims as brothers and sisters and not strangers and potential threats.

  24. I believe the NYTIMES have been quite responsible in this regard. I have seen quite a few articles on terrorists and terrorism and the NYTIMES has always been careful to remind us that most domestic terrorists are Christians or have sort of Christian orientation. Terrorism around the world has most recently been by terrorists with some link to Islam, but, terrorism considered in an historical context, has a broader range of sources.

  25. @Carol Perhaps you have forgotten. One of the many complaints about the Muslim world was that there wasn't much condemnation from so-called peaceful Muslims when there was a significant attack perpetrated by terrorists in the name of Islam. The word 'terrorism' has become synonymous with Islam because the terrorists say so, and there hasn't been much correction of the record by the Muslim world, until recently, because of complaints. When the NYT runs editorials by a prominent Muslim complaining of discrimination and bad treatment by white westerners it's just a veiled attempt to justify those who use terrorism tactics to defend Islam. This Christchurch attack was just a tit for tat in a simmering war among those who want to find a justification to kill. George Bush made it a war when he reacted to 9/11 as if the Muslims were the enemy, instead of the individuals who perpetrated the attacks.

  26. I strongly disagree that I need to see an attacker's name and photo. Any attention we pay to to these attacks will help motivate future attackers, but we need to know about them to debate how our society responds. We do not need names and photos to decide how our society should respond Any context that can be provided by the attacker's name or photo can just as easily be given with a description of their background.

  27. @Dan—instead of “Hitler”, should we have substituted “a failed Austrian painter”?

  28. @Larry D - "Some people did something." -- Ilhan Omar

  29. Thank you NYT. Truth is a difficult thing to paint. It’s good to be self-reflective when trying to convey it. Media manipulation is also an art form used by individuals, advertisers, PR agencies, on up to the POTUS. Both the media and its audience must be ever vigilant of this. It’s essential in a democracy. We’ve all learning as we go.

  30. I appreciate your explanation of just how nuanced this process is (what glorifies the violence and what information the public deserves to have). That said, it feels like this has become an intellectual exercise, a debate informed by journalism rules of the past. As readers, we don’t “worry that using the name glorifies and inspires new attacks” (so condescending). We KNOW it does. We are living in a new time. Politicians and white nationalists and celebrities alike know how to manipulate the press to their advantage. The public needs more than information—we need your help. Part of this issue is that success is now based on follower count, site views/clicks, how many comments you get or if something goes “viral”. For once, I want the media to admit that mass shootings are good for business. Having people glued to their screens and retweeting stories of a shooting is good for business. People are addicted to the news after these shootings. Whether you like it or not, you profit from that. It needs to be part of the discussion. I’m not interested in someone trying to explain evil ramblings, or make sense of a terrorist manifesto. How refreshing it would be, how welcome, if a media outlet finally drew a line and said: enough. We will only report on victims. These terrorists will remain unnamed. And your article begs the question: Why are you “easy marks”? Why don’t journslists know about 8chan? Why are you only determined to name terrorists AFTER they have killed?

  31. It is time to stop internet streaming video. there is no need for it and it cannot be controlled.

  32. I am a New Zealander, and a citizen of the USA, living in Seattle. As the events regarding this story unfolded, it was very interesting to see how it was handled in the New Zealand and USA media. There are different laws and codes of ethics in both countries. Also they are different cultures. However, they share many commonalities. I appreciate the way the NTY handled this story. It is useful to read here about the rationale behind the NYT approach. One of the reasons I subscribe to the NYT is that I am willing to pay for carefully sourced news and responsible editorial. We can learn much from how the New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, is handling this crisis – in particular the sensitivity she has shown to the victims and how she is using the issue to strive for continued good race and religious relations in New Zealand and even extrapolating this to the world stage. Thank you for your care in reporting. I expect there will be ongoing interest in what New Zealand does in regard to gun legislation following this tragedy. I look forward to seeing coverage of this important topic in the NYT. There may be learnings here also. Thanks for your good work.

  33. Y'all are doing the best you can with an awful situation, but I still disagree that the name/photo of a shooter is necessary. Maybe if they're high-profile themselves, but for a no one coming out of the woodwork? It's unnecessary. I'm a big-time Christina Grimmie fan and I can't emphasize how painful it is to search for her, for images/video of her, and have the results constantly bombard me with her murderer's name and face. His part in her story and her legacy is minimal--not something that should be dragged out every time I'm after pics from her photo shoots or videos of her live shows.

  34. I do not understand why Facebook and other social media companies do not delete the account permanently from any IP address which streams this horrendous poison. It won't stop the poison from spreading but surely it would slow it down. Is the failure to do this economic?

  35. @MDMD They do and they did.

  36. This is a beginning. Our world is changing so quickly and journalism must also adapt. We need at least one news source that will be a beacon for unbiased, responsible reporting. We need straight information, straight facts, with scrutiny and patience.

  37. @Jason Sypher - So you want "unbiased reporting and straight facts" but you want the news to censor names and manifestos "for the greater good."

  38. This quote (from “Kevin” on your staff) demonstrates the youthfulness of your decision makers (not in itself a bad thing, but important in this context): journalists covering the terrorist hijackings of the 1960s and especially 1970s faced exactly this dilemma. It’s not new. We should have learned this long ago. ““I think we need to understand — and we’re starting to, I think — that media manipulation is often a key part of how violent extremists plan their activities,” he explained.”

  39. In the same way, Trump managed to advertise his political view in a broad way that reach also liberals and progressives. Before the 2016 election, Trump managed to spread the simple xenophobic and racist message and you guy helped to spread it for several months until you guys realized that you help him to be popular. Also what happens with that paid political advertising depicting also racism from the 2018 election is also other example. Despised that some of the media censured the add, it was broadly commented, for you journalists, and also, in some cases they posted the link to the origin add at youtube. Of course, I think it was premeditated because the Trump ( campaign) payed the space for the add to those media who are more hostil to him. although it was censured , a lot of people got the message from the add. so you guys played in the Trump's hands with those narratives.

  40. Thanks for this insight into the difficulties of reporting on these horrific terrorist events. While I may not agree on all your editorial decisions regarding this story, I am impressed by The Times’ diligence in getting it right.

  41. The article providing quick bios of the victims is perfect! I feel an obligatory duty to read every word; journalism at its finest. In my opinion, humanizing groups that are often targets of hatred is progress. Reading about challenges reporting news makes for a more wise and informed reader. Thank you for give us, the reader, that respect and insight.

  42. Isn't this just the tiniest bit self-congratulatory? Was there a need for this, really?

  43. I appreciate your thoughtfulness in sharing how difficult this subject is to report. I can only speak for myself, so here goes. I don't care to know the name of the murderer. It's possible to report on that person's background and circumstances without a name. Just call him spineless murdering thug, or murderous coward, or something like that. I do take the time to read about the innocent victims, each and every one of them. It gives me the opportunity to pay respects and to mourn them. We are all connected, and hurting those beautiful people hurts me. There are no words to describe how much it hurts, and it's unimaginable what their loved ones must be going through. It doesn't matter what you do, someone will find a way to be offended. It is what it is. The most important thing is to not play into the hands of the repulsive slaughterer and those of his ilk who would consider doing such an odious act. Also, sometimes people need to be shocked to have their eyes opened, making it too gentle doesn't drive home how abhorrent it is. Someone walked into a place of worship while people were on their knees with their heads to the floor, eyes closed, and praying. Men in the front, women in the back, children playing in between, families separated. That weakling assassinated men, women, and children, shooting at them like they were fish in a barrel. It's ugly, it happened. People need to know, so that we can all work together to find ways to stop it. It needs to stop.

  44. @Chrisie “I don't care to know the name of the murderer. It's possible to report on that person's background and circumstances without a name.” I couldn’t agree more. I understand the NYT’s explanation that understanding who the killer is helps us understand the event and hopefully helps us prevent it from happening again, but I don’t agree that his name is important to understanding who he is. The NYT can share all other relevant information such as age and background and motives while calling him simply “the gunman.”

  45. The NY Times needs to show an article on a rifle club burning down in the North Island NZ. That's how you shut up the National Rifleman's Association or whatever they're called in the USA and get law changes so semi automatic rifles can't be sold. Every business that sells semi automatic and automatic rifles plays a part in these mass murders. There's going to be gun law changes in NZ so listen and learn from it. After the rifle club up North burnt down it shut up all the selfish gun businesses and gun owners and left the government to get on with the job of changing the laws so this NEVER happens again.

  46. @CK So the war has begun. That's good results for Brenton Tarrant, the shooter. He said he was going to do exactly that in his manifesto, start a war over gun control. But maybe you didn't see that in his manifesto because it was censored. With all these vacant gestures to get back at the shooter by refusing to say his name or read his manifesto you and the rest of the "civilized" world is falling right into his trap.

  47. We are with our PM in her assertion to not mention his name. How is that falling into his trap; could I suggest we are rejecting him outright. I do not agree with your sentiment. Peace and joy to you at Easter.

  48. Appreciate the thoughtful article. I personally think responsible media outlets can do more to discourage these horrific acts. 1) Don’t publish the shooter’s name. 2) Don’t publish or quote the shooter’s “manifesto”. I do not care what twisted justification they try to make for murdering the innocent. 3) Publish every shameful or embarrassing incident in the shooters life that can be discovered. Mocked by schoolmates, left by a spouse, fired from a job, etc. 4) Reporting should focus on portraying them as pathetic losers, not as some powerful avenger or “god of hellfire” that they fantasize about being. 5) Report on and celebrate the law enforcement or civilian personnel who stop the shooter.

  49. We all mourn for the loss of those precious lives in Christchurch. But as diplomatically noted by PM Arden, the racist ideology that envelops society today is a “globally” placed issue as the perpetrator himself is Australian. Why has global media placed its focus on NZ as a destination where terrorist extremism exists? Should the lens be redirected to Australia? Should we look at the rise of extremist right wing politics driving ideology and grooming the next wave of terrorists in waiting?

  50. @Angelena The focus is rightly on NZ because it was NZ's deplorably lax gun laws that enabled the shooter to arm himself with semiautomatic rifles and 30-round magazines. He may be Australian but he couldn't have done in Grafton New South Wales what he did in Christchurch because our gunlaws over here are so much stricter.

  51. @Colenso G'day from across the ditch. As you may be aware our (NZ) government has announced most semi-automatics will now be banned, along with other changes to our gun laws, which although already stronger than those of most US states, have not been as strong as those of Australia. You've posted elsewhere in this comment section that we Kiwis were 'smugly complacent' about gun laws prior to the tragedy in Christchurch. I don't agree. Truth be told, I, and nearly everyone I know, thought that semi-automatics and the various accessories associated with them were already banned here. That was naivete, not complacency. Were you Aussies smugly complacent about your 'lax' gun laws prior to the Port Arthur massacre there in 1996 which resulted in your laws becoming stronger? No, you all probably, like us here until 15 March, simply never dreamed something so horrendous would happen. Rather than turn this into a chance to boast of Aussie 'superiority' over us neighbours, Colenso, perhaps you could simply extend your sympathy in our time of grief and loss. Aroha nui.

  52. @Colenso was Australia smug when they decided they were not going to change the gun laws in the 1980s after the Hoddle Street Massacre and others that were happening in the 80s - it took until the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 for conservative politicians to do the right thing - so enough of your aussie smugness as the perpetrator was still an aussie and not a kiwi - nz does not have looney far right political groups like australia does maybe your smugness should be directed at them for creating the atmosphere for an australian to commit such a crime

  53. I am a bit taken aback by this article. The purpose of this article, written by New York Times staff writers with contributions from NYTs managers, seems more to give self praise and accolades for the manner in which the NYTs covered the horrific tragedy in New Zealand. I am a long-term reader and subscriber to the New York Times. But I am suspect of the paper in toting its own praises, especially when choosing to write an article giving notice to all of the “correct” things that the newspaper did in covering the event. There is always room for learning how to better handle a tragic news event. This article cites what NYTs feels that it did well in its journalistic capacities and for which it deserves public recognition by its audience and readers. Where is there similar citing of what the newspaper can improve upon or what it can take from this event of human tragedy to do better by the world? I find a degree of complicity with the mainstream press in the almost unfittered advancement of Donald Trump to becoming our 45th President. Where were the news stories on Trump’s multiple business bankruptcy filings? I hope the New York Times can be less focused on giving itself praise in its handling of the New Zealand shooting and will be more focused on reflecting on how the newspaper can make promote truth, accuracy, and moral guidance in an increasingly disruptive world. There is always room to learn and to do better.

  54. @Karen J. "Where is there similar citing of what the newspaper can improve upon or what it can take from this event of human tragedy to do better by the world? " It went out the door with Margaret Sullivan, the last (real) public editor here, when she left in 2017.

  55. Thank you for the detailed explanation. I understand your reasons for publishing the assailant’s name in your general reporting of the events in Christchurch. I remain disappointed by your decision to include the name in the article that specifically reported on Jacinda Ardern’s intention to refrain - that was wrong, unnecessary and insensitive.

  56. I congratulate the times for calling him this man a terrorist. That’s the only thing he is. I do think you need to go back and call the person who shot African Americans at prayer the same thing, as also the person who shot people at a concert in Las Vegas and the person who shot people at the synagogue. They are all terrorists.

  57. "Michael Slackman, our international editor, called this an extreme corruption of a form of communication that was once promoted and viewed as a means of uniting people and advancing democratic values." Extreme corruption? Erdogan of Turkey has been using segments of the terrorist's (not gunman's, by the way) video during political rallies for an upcoming election to increase his support among his religious base. Now that's corruption! It is corruption of everything good and decent about the internet, democracy, and more than anything else, Islam. That man is utterly disgusting, on par with his counterpart over here in the US.

  58. Not good enough NYT. The mass murderers want notoriety. They get it from media. Similarly, all accused deserve their day in court before being convicted.

  59. This article shows what a responsible news organisation does---it evaluates the facts, context, audience and potential legacy of its subject matter; applies established ethical standards to its reporting; and presents not only the story, but the entire process. These are the actions of a news organisation that is far from "failing." Any number of other "news" outlets favored by those who would use "Fake News" as a rallying cry do not come close to meeting these standards.

  60. “Terrorists want publicity and recognition,” he said. “If we decide to publish it, even if for legitimate journalistic reasons, we have to recognize that to some degree our actions are part of the whole event, and that is an uncomfortable position for us to be in.” This realization came too late, I firmly believe that many lives would have been spared had mass media refrain from publishing names and gristly details of the attacks. The typical argument is that someone else will publish those images and collect all clickbites is as sick as terrorists themselves.

  61. @seryi volk How would censoring reporting of the massacre spared many lives? They were already dead six minutes after it started. Just don't report the massacre at all, like in communist China or North Korea. Deny it ever happened. That would spare many hundreds of lives because it is liberal media agitation over these incidents that inspires, incites and fuels these angry killers.

  62. "Michael Slackman, our international editor, called this an extreme corruption of a form of communication that was once promoted and viewed as a means of uniting people and advancing democratic values". Mr Slackman's words give the game away. All this fine-sounding stuff about the Times' integrity, but here we come to the heart of what is going on, and has been since 2016, the efforts of the paid media to blame the internet for "Fake News" and creatures like this killer. The reality is that whatever happened in NZ was not caused by the internet. It was caused by social conditions created by many decades of corruption of government and paid media that led to the nihilism of Trump's election and widespread disaffection with rulers. Internets don't kill people - people kill people. With the internet the discriminating person can find authentic information un-alloyed by propaganda as well, of course, as plenty of rubbish. For the first time in history we can find out what is going on without being told by the rulers and their hangers-on. I believe that it has prevented one war at least already (over Ukraine), and all right-thinking people should reject the efforts to remove it as an instrument of individual freedom.

  63. I'm glad to see the New York Times examining how to avoid promoting racism and violence while covering the news. But should we re-focus on what is news? In the U.S., more people die of domestic violence than terrorism (over 1,000 deaths vs. 95 last year), as Rebecca Solnit points out in "Call Them By Their True Names". Yet the New York Times ran 30 stories on terrorism and none on domestic violence in this year to date. President Obama pointed out that Climate Change kills more people worldwide than terrorism, and the projections get worse: New York Times climate change articles, year-to-date: 10 Let's do better.

  64. It’s all quite mysterious to me. Given the event happened close to the weekend, I wasn’t able to “tune in” as quickly as I would normally and by the time I got around to trying to understand what happened, the story has all but dried up. What a new phenomenon and I’d say, completely suspect. Yes, I would like this mans entire life made into an open book so that we, the public, can truly understand the full context of what is happening, not only in NZ, but in Australia, and England, and Italy and Spain, and everywhere that immigrants and black and brown people are being targeted for the mere crime of existing and hoping to improve their life condition. And yet suddenly, the honorable thing is to be silent? Forgive me if that sounds a bit ripe. Shall we just turn our eyes and forget it happened? Shall we mute the discussion, the analysis, the lessons to be learned. Is it more acceptable, more polite if we just don’t talk about it? Was the video inconvenient? If there isn’t video, then it didn’t really happen, right? After all, police abuses weren’t a real thing before those pesky camera phones. And by the way, whatever happened with the Las Vegas shooter? What was that all about? Or are we not allowed to ask? The level of chutzpah here is staggering.

  65. @Kay It's quite odd, suspicious, that they were not able to determine a motive in the Las Vegas attack. There was early speculation that it was an attack on conservatives. If it was an act of civil war the FBI would lie about it.

  66. @Kay More than enough news for the casually interested readers and viewers about him and his tactics appeared in the media. More importantly, the journalistic verbal and written responses did not end there and not with a prayer. New Zealand has now banned the kind of automatic weapons he used. That's saying quite a lot and appears to make the future safer for people. The internet has a lot of more in-depth material if you want to look for it.

  67. @Kay -- "black and brown people just hoping to improve their lives" And the way for them to improve their lives is not to fix their own dilapidated countries, but to flood into white countries?

  68. OK, I understand this, but how is this different from the murder of Daniel Pearl and other high-publicity terrorist acts committed by ISIS, Hamas, and others? Of course terrorists want publicity. Of course they want the world to see. Deny them this pleasure - and the world will be a safer place.

  69. In striving to find the right pov between newsworthiness and pandering to prurient interests, might it be helpful to place a NYT's watermark (not necessarily a logo) over questionable images that communicate actual news, such as, in this case, the shooter? Further, could carefully crafted language be overlaid as well, such as, "offensive news content" to inhibit misuse? This might help prevent the image from being used for purposes beyond reporting.

  70. Manifesto? What a joke. I've read it. It's not even Mein Kampf, which I've also read, let alone something from Marx. The alleged shooter is a sad loser. He lost his father, a very good Grafton triathlete, to a horrible death when the son was just a teen. It's likely the mother gave each of the two kids part of the compo from Hardy's, which has then funded the shooter on his travels ever since. Having lost his dad, he went on to lose his moral compass. Rightly outraged by the attacks on innocents conducted by Da'esh in Sweden, he decided to avenge the atrocities by murdering more innocents. But the fact is he could not have done what he did in Grafton, NSW. Why not? Because since Port Arthur, access to semiautomatic rifles has been restricted in every Australian jurisdiction to feral animal exterminators. If he'd competed regularly at his local gunclub, then he could have acquired and retained a permit for a semiautomatic handgun, but he wouldn't have been able to buy a thirty-round magazine for it. Only in New Zealand, smugly complacent that Port Arthur could never happen to them, was the shooter able to buy legally semiautomatic rifles on an ordinary gun licence, then easily upgrade them with 30-round magazines.

  71. Someone needs to investigate whether or not he was addicted to drugs and how he got his money. There's lot of contradictions and he's probably a compulsive liar as well as he said he inherited money and then invested in bitcoin but he has two legal aid lawyers to represent him and you can only get legal aid if you're poor and have no money. The awful part of all this it doesn't matter what you ban as people can still think and read articles on international media sites. Because of this Aussie terrorist our nation is going to lose lots of its freedoms and you can't undo what he has done as it is unrepairable. I'm still processing this and we'll never be able to forget it as there's police on the streets now with guns. The local football team, The Crusaders, is having a name change and the anger and resentment over that is horrific and could cause more crimes against Muslims. It doesn't matter what's published and what isn't published because he has affected kiwis and our sleepy, carefree way of life forever. My worry is that his government paid for lawyers will draw out this trail for ever and day because of the money gravy train and we're constantly going to have to relive it over and over again. He's supposedly in a maximum security prison, Auckland prison, Paremoremo, and has a whole wing to himself in isolation. If you look at Wikipedia, Auckland prison, you'll see lots of people have escaped from it so if you can break out you can break in. Just saying.

  72. These exposés excusing your editorial decisions just make NYT look even worse. The one about your front page dead bodies brown bodies was bad enough but how deeply disappointing that instead of respectfully heeding Jacinda Arderns thoughtful and very reasonable #Christchurchcall request — the Times opted for profit instead.