I was wondering why the police spokesman addressing the media about the (presumed) terrorist attack in London had chosen not to reveal the name of the attacker. A day later I read that the media had been asked not to reveal his name. Good. I hope that request is understood to apply not just for the next 48 hours but for some weeks ahead.
The Sydney Morning Herald:
. . . .
On Thursday morning Assistant Commissioner of Police and Head of Counter-terrorism Mark Rowley revealed that police had raided six addresses and made seven arrests as part of their investigation, which covered London, Birmingham and other places.
. . . .
He asked that the media not publish the name of the attacker at a “sensitive stage of the investigation”.
Presumably (hopefully) the British are following the French media decision to refuse to publish photos and names of terrorist attackers.
From July last year in The Independent:
and in The Telegraph around the same time:
The Guardian/The Observer has this headline:
The byline reads:
Clear link claimed between reports of atrocities and follow-up attacks
Hopefully the mainstream media will resist the temptation to continue spinning out this latest London attack to generate revenue for advertisers.
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- Celestial or Earthly Christ Event? Why So Much Confusion About Paul? - 2021-05-11 12:05:05 GMT+0000
- Did Paul Quote Jesus on Divorce? — Getting History for Atheists Wrong (Again) — #5 - 2021-05-10 10:42:06 GMT+0000
- Getting History for Atheists Wrong (Again) — #4 - 2021-05-10 02:50:25 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!