5 ms·

As an aside, I wish the WSJ didn’t name the terrorist in their article and instead followed the NZ PM on leaving him nameless. If people really want to know it

As an aside, I wish the WSJ didn’t name the terrorist in their article and instead followed the NZ PM on leaving him nameless. If people really want to know it they can go to Wikipedia.

dv_dt 8y ago
I wonder if being owned by Murdoch made any difference in that decision.
HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
I found it incredibly childish that she did that. Like she's trying to stick her fingers in her ears and sing "LA LA THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN". He's not Voldemort.
- asutekku 8y ago
  Leaving them nameless doesn’t give them the “fame” they want. It’s a really good practice.
  - HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
    According to his manifesto he expected this wouldn't make him famous, and used the example that very few people can remember the names of the 9/11 hijackers. What he wanted - again according to the manifesto - is exactly what he's getting: further division and a clamping down on gun laws. She also legally has to do it I believe, as Tarrant is still the "suspect" and has not been formally found guilty. She's opportunistically trying to turn this restriction into some epic "I un-name thee!" cringe fest.
    - duxup 8y ago
      >She also legally has to do it I believe What makes you think that?
      - HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
        Because he hasn't been charged with murder yet. Same reason why his face can't be shown in NZ at this point - not formally charged.
        duxup 8y ago
        Ok I misread that comment entirely. I thought the comment meant she legally has to say it. The comment seemed opposed to the policy so much I read the comment a bit differently.
- unknownkadath 8y ago
  Damnatio memoriae has been around for a long time.
- phailhaus 8y ago
  No, she refused to say his name in order to make it harder for him to be recognized or idolized for what he did; she has refused to give him any sort of platform for his ideology. That's not the same as saying it didn't happen. She has very explicitly said that NZ's gun laws will change and that policy will be passed in order to help prevent this from happening again. We should know the names of the victims, not the perpetrator. It's a very well known phenomenon that when there is media frenzy over the identity and "secret life" of the attacker, violence rates go up. Many attackers do this for infamy.
  - HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
    Fair point, but she certainly could have done it without making it a big deal. But again, political opportunism. I bet it was a great day for her, huge for her career. Bush probably felt the same jolt of joy when he found out about 9/11. Re-election for sure.
    - phailhaus 8y ago
      If you don't point out that you're intentionally avoiding the name, then people are going to tend towards publishing and publicizing it anyways and fueling the attackers. She is a leader, and that's how you set an example. You can look at it cynically, but you have to admit it is an exceptional response. This is a good precedent to set and follow in the future.
      - HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
        We don't avoid saying the name of ISIS, or Al-Qaeda, or the provisional IRA or any number of other terrorist groups. We don't avoid naming Stalin or Hitler just in case another one comes along. It's not cynical to realise will find a way to profit from this, it's realistic. The crocodile tears, the head scarf, the voldemorting, the raison d'etre for making laws the government wanted to make anyway. Don't you americans remember all of this from the 9/11 aftermath?
        8y ago
- dang 8y ago
  You've been posting egregious flamebait like this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19449164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19449164 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19354655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19354655 to Hacker News. That's a gross abuse of the site. No more, please, or we will ban you.
bargl 8y ago
This is actually really good advice. I don't remember the name of the video I saw but one of the mentalities of people who do things like this is to become the "anti-hero" and that includes the infamy as well. If you are a talent-less hack and want to get on the news this is a very simple method. I say that in the hopes that journalists will start excluding information and keeping these people nameless and bland.
duxup 8y ago
NPR did a great interview about what might work to prevent or discourage copycats. It was based on research into what people who commit these crimes are interested in. They had a couple tips that might make these events less appetizing for those who might commit them. - Not naming the killer frequently was one. - Focusing on the victim's lives (basically humanizing them) was another. - Not playing videos of the chaos and violence was another. NPR actually seems to be following those patterns too. Not 100% because news is news, but I think news ogrs can follow them, and the information is still free.
- tomp 8y ago
  > Not playing videos of the chaos and violence was another. What research is this based on? Sounds suspiciously like “computer games cause violence” which AFAIK has been debunked.
orwell77 8y ago
Why should Wikipedia mention the name? In fact, why is Wikipedia still uncensored?? We should only read carefully vetted news, such as CNN, Huff Post and Pravda.
- duxup 8y ago
  I think the reason he mentioned Wikipedia was just an example about how it should be available if you want, but others could possibly help discourage other attackers by not mentioning their names as they might hope for.

As an aside, I wish the WSJ didn’t name the terrorist in their article and instead followed the NZ PM on leaving him nameless. If people really want to know it they can go to Wikipedia.

dv_dt 8y ago

I wonder if being owned by Murdoch made any difference in that decision.

HumanDrivenDev 8y ago

I found it incredibly childish that she did that. Like she's trying to stick her fingers in her ears and sing "LA LA THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN". He's not Voldemort.

asutekku 8y ago
Leaving them nameless doesn’t give them the “fame” they want. It’s a really good practice.
- HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
  According to his manifesto he expected this wouldn't make him famous, and used the example that very few people can remember the names of the 9/11 hijackers. What he wanted - again according to the manifesto - is exactly what he's getting: further division and a clamping down on gun laws. She also legally has to do it I believe, as Tarrant is still the "suspect" and has not been formally found guilty. She's opportunistically trying to turn this restriction into some epic "I un-name thee!" cringe fest.
  - duxup 8y ago
    >She also legally has to do it I believe What makes you think that?
    - HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
      Because he hasn't been charged with murder yet. Same reason why his face can't be shown in NZ at this point - not formally charged.
      - duxup 8y ago
        Ok I misread that comment entirely. I thought the comment meant she legally has to say it. The comment seemed opposed to the policy so much I read the comment a bit differently.
unknownkadath 8y ago
Damnatio memoriae has been around for a long time.
phailhaus 8y ago
No, she refused to say his name in order to make it harder for him to be recognized or idolized for what he did; she has refused to give him any sort of platform for his ideology. That's not the same as saying it didn't happen. She has very explicitly said that NZ's gun laws will change and that policy will be passed in order to help prevent this from happening again. We should know the names of the victims, not the perpetrator. It's a very well known phenomenon that when there is media frenzy over the identity and "secret life" of the attacker, violence rates go up. Many attackers do this for infamy.
- HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
  Fair point, but she certainly could have done it without making it a big deal. But again, political opportunism. I bet it was a great day for her, huge for her career. Bush probably felt the same jolt of joy when he found out about 9/11. Re-election for sure.
  - phailhaus 8y ago
    If you don't point out that you're intentionally avoiding the name, then people are going to tend towards publishing and publicizing it anyways and fueling the attackers. She is a leader, and that's how you set an example. You can look at it cynically, but you have to admit it is an exceptional response. This is a good precedent to set and follow in the future.
    - HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
      We don't avoid saying the name of ISIS, or Al-Qaeda, or the provisional IRA or any number of other terrorist groups. We don't avoid naming Stalin or Hitler just in case another one comes along. It's not cynical to realise will find a way to profit from this, it's realistic. The crocodile tears, the head scarf, the voldemorting, the raison d'etre for making laws the government wanted to make anyway. Don't you americans remember all of this from the 9/11 aftermath?
      - 8y ago
dang 8y ago
You've been posting egregious flamebait like this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19449164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19449164 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19354655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19354655 to Hacker News. That's a gross abuse of the site. No more, please, or we will ban you.

bargl 8y ago

This is actually really good advice. I don't remember the name of the video I saw but one of the mentalities of people who do things like this is to become the "anti-hero" and that includes the infamy as well. If you are a talent-less hack and want to get on the news this is a very simple method. I say that in the hopes that journalists will start excluding information and keeping these people nameless and bland.

duxup 8y ago

NPR did a great interview about what might work to prevent or discourage copycats. It was based on research into what people who commit these crimes are interested in. They had a couple tips that might make these events less appetizing for those who might commit them. - Not naming the killer frequently was one. - Focusing on the victim's lives (basically humanizing them) was another. - Not playing videos of the chaos and violence was another. NPR actually seems to be following those patterns too. Not 100% because news is news, but I think news ogrs can follow them, and the information is still free.

tomp 8y ago
> Not playing videos of the chaos and violence was another. What research is this based on? Sounds suspiciously like “computer games cause violence” which AFAIK has been debunked.

orwell77 8y ago

Why should Wikipedia mention the name? In fact, why is Wikipedia still uncensored?? We should only read carefully vetted news, such as CNN, Huff Post and Pravda.

duxup 8y ago
I think the reason he mentioned Wikipedia was just an example about how it should be available if you want, but others could possibly help discourage other attackers by not mentioning their names as they might hope for.