Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Great article.
Thoughtful and thought provoking.
Great article.. we could all learn from it I suppose.
I see ur point but neither do I need to see a migrants baby washed up on the beach.
@Kath Noonan: I think the difference the author was trying to highlight is that photos of an accident site are for gratuitous ‘likes’ whereas the picture of the child was highlighting a crisis that was costing lives that European society was ignoring. That said, when the latter image was published it was typically pixelated be the media but I actually found the description in the accompanying text more impactful
@Kath Noonan: think you missed the point. Author was asking for consideration in context and using good judgement, but shoehorn in a topic anyway.
@Kath Noonan: This is actually a really good article and highlights a subject that needs to be urgently addressed. Hard to see how anyone can manipulate it to suit their own agenda and yet you managed it. It’s such a shame that you either completely missed the point, are an attention seeker or are just a not very nice person.
As a Norwegian native, I was appalled by this “name and shame” thing, when I came to Ireland 15 years ago. The only times we normally name criminals back there, are when they’re wanted fugitives, and even then, only when they’re a danger to the public.
Of course, the media has deemed a few to be exceptional cases, of importance to the public, including the Breivik case, as well as the NOKAS robberies in 2004. In both cases, the public were hungry for information, until the perps were caught.
To keep the public interested, all the media had to do, was to cease naming them after the cops confirmed the right people had been arrested.
@Finn H. Schoyen: It isn’t a good idea when it’s thoughtless. But I think it goes back to the ancient times when a poet was capable of destroying a person’s reputation. I suppose it served a purpose then, because no one was considered immune from satire. Maybe it was a way to oblige kings to treat other people fairly. Norway is no slouch at satirising public figures either.
Also ppl get off in court when this happens because they didn’t get a fair hearing, guilty by social media
have your say