On 15/11/2017 11:37, Robin wrote:
On 15/11/2017 11:14, Nightjar wrote:


There is a difference between reporting an incident and revelling in
the gory details. They can also choose the slant they put on the
reporting - whether to concentrate the effects of an attack, or to
emphasise the bravery of those who tried to stop the attackers. A
message that the attack was essentially a failure and that attackers
will meet determined resistance is far less likely to spawn copy-cat
attacks.

Is there to be a government defined meaning of "failure"?Â* Eg:

"Two men in a lorry shouting Islamist slogans ran down fans as they left
the London Stadium last night after the match between West Ham and
Spurs, killing 17 fans and seriously injuring 56.Â* They then drove off
before abandoning the lorry and fleeing on mopeds.Â* Police are appealing
for witnesses."

is to become:

"Men in a lorry drove at fans outside the London stadium last night but
the attack failed to disrupt the match between West Ham and Spurs
watched by 47,000.Â* Police say they are confident of arrests in due
course."

And I'd like to know what _evidence_ there is that different media
reporting would change the likelihood of attacks given the sources
available to anyone interested in jihad.

I can't help but wonder if the thought is more that it would be
doubleplusgood to deny the oxygen of full facts to silly little people
who hold inconvenient views.

Cue Linda Smith, "I'd like to deprive them of the oxygen of oxygen"