Attacks: press changes coverage against contagion effect – 06/04/2023 – Daily life

The recent increase in cases of attacks on schools in Brazil has raised a debate about how crimes of this nature should be covered, and press vehicles have announced that they will stop disclosing the name of the aggressors, images and other details of the actions.

The decision was taken based on the guidance of scholars who maintain that this type of content encourages other young people to commit similar crimes. The central thesis of the so-called “contagion effect” is that these aggressors, usually socially isolated people, seek precisely notoriety.

The topic is already widely discussed in the US, where this type of violence is older and much more frequent than in Brazil – there have been more than 370 attacks on schools since the Columbine massacre in 1999, when two students shot dead 12 students. and a teacher.

In Brazil, the spotlight once again turned to this discussion after the attack, on March 27, carried out at the state school Thomazia Montoro, in São Paulo, which brought to light the explosion of violence in the school environment. Since August, there have been nine attacks, more than one per month. That same amount happened every two years, between 2002 and July 2022, according to a survey carried out by researchers from Unesp and Unicamp.

The massacre at the day care center in Blumenau this Wednesday (5th) is not included in this specific survey because it was not carried out by a student or former student, a research criterion aimed at school conflicts. Despite this, it may also have occurred as a result of the contagion effect, in the opinion of Telma Vinha, a professor at Unicamp and coordinator of the survey.

In the edition in which it reported the tragedy at the nursery, Jornal Nacional, from TV Globo, spoke about the adoption of new coverage criteria. “It was the policy of Grupo Globo vehicles to publish the name and photo of perpetrators of massacres only once”, said William Bonner.

“The objective has always been to avoid giving fame to the killers so as not to inspire perpetrators of new massacres. This policy changes today and will be even more restrictive”, he announced. “The name and image of perpetrators of attacks will never be published, as well as videos of the actions”, said the journalist, informing that “subsequent frustrated attacks will not be reported, to contain the contagion effect”.

The same was done in Jornal da Band. “You may have noticed that, at no time here, did we mention the name of the murderer”, said the presenter, Eduardo Oinegue. “It’s a decision that Jornal da Band made: not to give his name, not to show his face. As absurd as it may seem, many times these guys want this, it’s fame, it’s the spotlight. They like this macabre stage . Not here at Jornal da Band!”

Record, for example, chose to publish the killer’s name and photo both on TV programs and on its news site, R7.

In the direction of a more unified scenario, Abert (association of TVs and radios in Brazil) prepares a protocol for these coverages. “For a long time we’ve been worried about giving a stage for these crazy things,” he told Sheet the entity’s president, Flávio Lara Resende.

“The document will be a suggestion, we cannot impose it. But most are concerned and should follow.”
He says that it is necessary to consider the role of fake news in the contagion effect. “There is an urgent need for regulation of platforms that makes them responsible for spreading content like this.”

The president of ANJ (National Association of Newspapers), Marcelo Reich, also sheds light on social networks. “I saw a series of pseudo-vehicles, often formed by a single person and that seek clicks without shame, hypervaluing the figure [do assassino]”, he said. “The professional press has codes of conduct to avoid further harm. But how to control what proliferates like a digital sewer?”

Head professor at the School of Communications and Arts at USP Eugênio Bucci assesses that, despite the growing impact of social networks, the press vehicles should, yes, get together to think about the coverage of the attacks. “A more reflective posture helps the press, including, to differentiate itself from irresponsible content on social networks.”

Twelve years ago, after the massacre at a school in Realengo, Rio, Bucci analyzed the coverage of these crimes in the Press Observatory, in the text entitled “Leaving life to enter the spectacle”. “A guy goes there, kills a bunch of children and still gets the adored, and empty, fame for which he killed – and died. And we all know that others will come”, he wrote.

He stated, however, that “journalism has no arguments to refuse to say the names of these criminals”. “There’s no way not to give the photo. You can’t withhold from people what people want to know. And they have a right to know.” It is a position that has been reassessed with the occurrence of new attacks. “Today we gathered arguments for not giving the name and photograph,” he told Sheet.

This is the basis of the US No Notoriety campaign, which advocates that murderers do not feature in the coverage out of respect for the victims and to avoid the contagion effect.

The omission of the name and image of the attackers was defended by Telma Vinha and Catarina de Almeida Santos, a professor at UNB, in a webinar by Jeduca, the association of education journalists, on March 31. “There is competition on extremist forums to see who gets the most media attention,” said Telma.

A Sheet she pondered that “the boundary is delicate” between the contagion effect and the role of informing and generating debate, including the search for solutions. “The path is to reflect on how to inform and generate debate without causing contagion.”

President of Abraji (Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism), Katia Brembati argues that protocols should be discussed, but that the rules should not be exhaustive. “You cannot prohibit the disclosure of names, because it is necessary to analyze each case”, she defended. “If the criminal runs away, for example, it is often important to disclose the information so that he can be found.”

But she thinks it is healthy to reflect on these coverages, which have not yet been widely debated, such as suicide and kidnapping. In the case of suicides, the World Health Organization advises the media not to disclose methods and farewell letters, for example.

For kidnappings, after a series of cases in which coverage was related to their outcomes, part of the vehicles defined internal protocols. A Sheet, for example, avoids publishing kidnappings in progress and when the family requests secrecy. Grupo Globo, in 2011, wrote a letter of principles in which it explains that it discloses kidnappings because it believes that this protects the victim, but that there are a series of precautions with the way in which the news should be conveyed.

“Now, for the attacks, we need a new reflection. Do people have the right to know the name of the criminal? They do. But the consequences of disclosing this information must be analyzed”, he said. “What positive points will there be in disclosing the name, methods and manifests, considering that many times the criminal wants this? What is the benefit versus the harm of making this information public?”

Brembetti defends that journalists are prepared in advance. “It’s hard to reflect in the heat of coverage whether or not we should, for example, interview relatives who have just lost loved ones,” she said.
“We cannot bow to the public’s morbid interest, even out of respect for the victims and to avoid panic. Careless coverage also generates a bad press image.”

For general crime coverage, the Sheet advises that “we consider whether there is legitimate journalistic interest or just curiosity about the accused, victims, witnesses, family members and friends.” Internally, the newsroom has reflected on the coverage of attacks, always on a case-by-case basis.

In the Thomazia Montoro crime, for example, the video that showed the teenager’s action, replicated on websites and TVs, was initially published by the newspaper, with its image blurred, but ended up being removed from the air after an internal reassessment.

The name of the aggressor could not be published in any way, in compliance with the Child and Adolescent Statute, as he was a minor. In the coverage of the daycare massacre, the Sheet chose to publish the killer’s name and photo (who is 25 years old), even if not highlighted, because he understands that there is journalistic relevance.