The Christchurch Massacre: the Responsibility to Reveal (Not Conceal).

if we state this as a general matter of
principle there will be no doubt in any of our minds as to what is right and what is wrong and yet when we move from abstract principle to the practicalities of the particular example I think many people in the audience will start to feel conflicted if I were to ask you is it the role of a journalist a professional journalist of the New York Times to reveal or to conceal the political motivations of the man who just pulled the triggers murdering a huge number of people in a mosque in New Zealand what what is the role of journalists well when stated that broadly as a matter of principle it seems utterly absurd to imagine that concealment is journalism and yet in 2019 this is precisely what paid pundits are saying is their moral responsibility this is a puzzle that was already familiar in exactly magazines like New York Times The Economist the suppose that was already familiar back when Ted Kaczynski who was responsible for the deaths of just three people taken Zen ski a terrorist wanted his manifesto published in mainstream newspapers and the question was would publishing the political manifesto of a mass murderer or serial killer would that encourage others to commit the same crime and then what is the responsibility of the mass media the mainstream press it seems deeply morally incoherent for the role of a journalist to be anything other than broadcasting researching analyzing what the news is and relaying it to the public as best they can and yet this role of Guardian of public morality through concealment it has crept in more and more to how the professional media consider their own role in contrast to people like myself in contrast to freelance self-appointed largely unpaid opinion makers on the internet people who may just do their own research and present their own opinions on social media whether it's YouTube Facebook or what-have-you that the role of the professional journalist is instead to be responsible and to exercise that responsibility but precisely concealing the sources they're working from so I read you just one sentence here from the New York Times I'll provide a link in the description of this video the manifesto the manifesto of the man who just pulled the trigger in New Zealand the manifesto a wordy mixture of white nationalist boilerplate fascist declarations and references to obscure internet jokes seems to have been written from the bottom of an algorithmic rabbit hole so the video tape of the event transpiring we are given to assume this journalist has seen and yet the journalist and large corporations like Facebook and YouTube as described integral they're doing everything they can to make it impossible for you in the audience to see these videos of what happened for yourself it is that the journalist responsibility or if the journalist has this primary source material should they share with you the assassination of United States President Kennedy JFK is it the role of a journalist to conceal from you videotape Pete scene of thats right that time not videotape just film a recording of what happened would that be what a good journalist would do it certainly would be disturbing and upsetting for the public to see footage of the assassination of American President Kennedy right and yet now we look back and see that it was of tremendous importance for the public to see what evidence was available preferably in film that hadn't been edited in such a way as to be misleading so on and so forth there was a really important role for journalists there write this written manifesto I have no reason to think this journalist is being dishonest or is deliberately misleading you in this summary but again we're led to believe that this journalist has seen and read the original talk I don't know well I I do not know and yet we're told that the efforts are being made by all of these mainstream institutions and corporations to prevent the spread the proliferation the availability of that same manifesto now wouldn't the proper role of any journalist to instead be to responsibly quote and cite the sources he or she is working from and indeed to make them available on some neutral platform like the New York Times why shouldn't the New York Times themselves publish the footage why shouldn't they themselves publish and make available this manifesto precisely for its political and historical significance now I assume I would find the contents of this manifesto completely despicable I assume I would only criticize it or does the earth whatever I seem I would have no sympathy with it whatsoever but the question is at what point did the role of the journalist and the role of large institutions like the New York Times like Facebook like YouTube itself at what point did their role become custodian of public morality someone who preserves the morality of the public by keeping them in a state of pious ignorance instead of investigating analyzing and presenting the news and the news sometimes includes film clips horrifying film clips of someone being shot in the head and dying including former US President John Kennedy probably every single person watching this video has at some point in their life seen photographs or the actual film recording of john f kennedy's assassination it doesn't get more graphic than that so if you think the role of journalist is censorship then you must believe that the role of a journalist is to remove from the public record removed from view concealed from you and the audience the horrifying reality of what this this matter of public record must be ok Ted Kaczynski known as the Unabomber how could I rely on a sort one sentence summary of what that manifesto says and what its political significance is even the best in with the best intentions possible on the part of the journalist a one sentence dismissal like this is not going to give you a sense of you know politically who this person was or what they represented what they were connected to the FBI and the CIA will want to have the complete original document precisely so they can engage in political analysis of this and understand where this you know terrorist attack came from what motivated it who this person was connected to in some sense what they were reading or what they were influenced by there's a lot to know here precisely for the people who most directly opposed this kind of crime right now there's a very strange parallel provided by the reaction to the music of Michael Jackson and to some extent the the reaction the music of singer R Kelly in the last few weeks and you know look I know it's a bad joke to compare everything to Adolf Hitler in some countries you know it's illegal for people to see or show old Nazi propaganda films and the concern is that by showing these propaganda films or by having a book like mine Kampf books actually written by Hitler by having these sorts of things available they're going to influence people to imitate them I suppose it's very very hard for me to see how listening to the music of Michael Jackson would lead people to imitate Michael Jackson or how listening to the music of our Kelly would lead people to aspire to be like or have the kind of private life that our Kellyanne sex life yet and so on so there isn't any clear you know dotted line between cause and effect there I think if we're being honest with ourselves however in this case obviously the fear is that people in the audience are so weak willed are so weak-minded that they cannot resist the influence of these film clips or this manifesto if they are exposed to them now I can't say to you that that is untrue of a hundred percent of the audience maybe 1% of people in the audience are so stupid and so weak willed that they'll be seduced by this maybe it's 5% I doubt it that would be a huge percentage of people to sympathize with this kind of extremist manifesto but whether it's 1% or 5% or 10% the responsibility of the journalist cannot be and must not be pandering to the stupidest 10% of the audience nor can it be attempting to pull the wool over their eyes to keep that stupid as 10% in a kind of blissful ignorance New York Times if you have this document if you have acquired and read this manifesto you should on your website publish the document both to vindicate your journalists to show that they're doing their research and to make it available for scholars political political analysts the FBI or anyone else who wants to read it you should verify the reality of it if you have these film clips you should show that you the New York Times have a higher standard of responsibility than Facebook and YouTube you can host these films on your own website for the public record and I think you know very well if it were John F Kennedy being shot in the head you would be proud to be the news organization that broadcast that footage or that preserved it on the Internet it's very very hard to take pride in this kind of investigative journalism but it's shameful to engage in this kind of self-selected blinding of the public to the political content of major events that are now unfolding on the public record