Christchurch attacks changed online journalism irrevocably

From the boiler room level 34C in Colombo, I had just landed in the cooler levels of 20C of Kathmandu for a few days and was looking forward to the drop in heat. I was preparing for a talk with a group of transnational journalists later in the morning, when a message appeared on my twitter feed that said that there was a shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand. Tragic news, but seemed very ordinary.   

Soon several other messages appeared that said police had effectively put the city on lock-down – a suggestion that the incident could be potentially serious. Then came the most ominous update which said that the attack may have been live-streamed.   

Soon the details of the attack and the live-stream became clear. My talk was going to be on trauma sensitive journalism. I also wanted to talk of a new line of research that I had been interested in the last year or so – the trauma dangers of online journalism. This attack had suddenly made that talk all the more important and pertinent.   

There were around ten to a dozen participants, all of them relatively experienced and some whom I knew personally. Before I began my talk, I warned them that the Christchurch attack had changed the way we would look at trauma impact and online journalism irrevocably. I showed a small portion of the live-stream to the participants, at least one left the room during that time but returned after the video ended.   

The live-stream itself had not been viewed that much, less than 200times according to Facebook. But Facebook itself took down 1.5m uploads of the video or parts of it within the first 24 hours. That is a massive figure.   

Journalists and other media professionals have been engaging in online journalism for decades now – it is probably as old as the internet itself, or may be a bit younger. In 1998, I did my first international report when a Norwegian tabloid saw my story of a Norwegian paedophile arrested in Negombo. I was able to get his home town details off the net using a dial-up connection and Netscape Navigator.   

The live-stream itself had not been viewed that much, less than 200times according to Facebook. But Facebook itself took down 1.5m uploads of the video or parts of it within the first 24 hours. That is a massive figure

Since then potential of web based journalism has evolved like we never anticipated. The web is a possibility of billions of sources and billions of consumers. In the same breath, it is also a source of billions of dangers – from trolls, to threats, to attacks to impact of being confronted with graphic content.   

The impact of graphic content can be slow on-setting but devastating. From photo-editors, to content managers, to others mining the net for information could be confronted with such content by choice or otherwise. It is the same as the psychological dangers faced by reporters who go into conflict zones, or those who cover the police beat or regularly go into natural disasters.   

It could also be someone who does not cover these beats regularly or someone new is thrusted into covering such graphic content purely by coincidence. It is not safe, not safe at all, for journalists and others to view and consume such content without preparation for the impact.   

Commenting on the Christchurch video Andy Cravin, Senior Research Fellow with the Digital Forensic Research Lab wrote – “It’s incumbent upon all of us to care for ourselves and make sure we’re not harming ourselves or others through unnecessary exposure to graphic imagery. It numbs our sensitivity, damages our psyche, and distorts our worldview in ways that help no one except the people who want us to fall prey to online violence and violent propaganda.”   

Sanjana Hattotuwa, a close friend who is currently based in New Zealand wrote, “terrorists know and now increasingly exploit it, weaponising the unending global popularity of social media to seed and spread their ideology in ways that no existing form of curtailment, containment or control can remotely compete with.”   

When I filed by first report on that Norwegian paedophile, any picture off the net would have worked, unless it was pornographic or extremely graphic. Later years these too made the cut. 

Now we know better or we should, we know better that the open space of the net can be and is being abused. We know better that exposure to graphic imagery could be extremely dangerous. We know better that those who act as interlocutors between the massive audience and individual content providers need to balance their mental well-being as well as the good of the larger audience.   

We are working in a universe where there is danger hiding behind each swipe. It is important we understand that danger and its evil reach into the innermost core of our well-being. We need to prepare ourselves for the impact, save ourselves from it and make sure that others are saved as well.   

The author is the Asia-Pacific Coordinator for the DART Centre for Journalism and Trauma, a project of the Columbia Journalism School Twitter - @amanthap