Anders Behring Breivik on trial: A roundup of global opinion

A roundup of opinions on the Anders Behring Breivik trial and the attention it has received from Norway and around the globe.

3. National Times (Australia)

“Should the media censor Anders Behring Breivik?“

Opinion by James Paterson, Tanveer Ahmed, and Damian Spruce

THE LIBERTARIAN JAMES PATERSON

“The media - like everybody - has a moral duty to exercise restraint, particularly when it comes to relaying views as disgusting as Breivik’s.... Ultimately, whether to cover Breivik’s trial is an editorial judgement to be made by individual news outlets.

Yet it is not clear what would be gained if the media did decide to collectively suppress the broadcast of his trial.

Repellent beliefs flourish in the dark. Censoring the trial could suggest that Breivik’s opinions are more powerful and persuasive than they actually are.... Conversely, having his views out in the open presents the community with an opportunity to rebut and reject them.”

THE PSYCHIATRIST TANVEER AHMED

“Anders Breivik’s actions as a mass murderer could hardly be more despicable.... The irony, however, is not just that Breivik’s hatred of Islam should lead to the sort of terrorist act many had taken to be Islamic, but also that nothing so resembles Breivik’s mindset as that of an Islamist jihadist.

Both view themselves as political soldiers but are driven not so much by political ideology as by a desperate and perverted search for identity, a search shaped by a sense of cultural paranoia and a claustrophobic victimhood.

Islamists want to resurrect an ‘authentic’ Islam that never existed and Breivik similarly wants to establish a mythical, authentically Christian Europe.”

THE LAWYER DAMIAN SPRUCE

“The primary argument against reproducing Breivik's stunts and statements in the media is that it is bad journalism. A newspaper that simply printed word for word a politician's press conference would be rightly criticised for uncritical coverage. But this is what the media is doing when it prints a picture of Breivik's raised fist in far right salute: it is carrying out his job for him, conveying his message, unedited and without analysis, to the public.

Part of the job of the media is to cut through the spin and refuse to be a mere conduit for a political agenda.

From the beginning, global media exposure has been central to Breivik's strategy. He has used mass murder to gain levels of attention that could not be bought with millions of dollars in an advertising budget.... In focusing the world's attention on his ideology, on his motivations and emotions he is excluding the concerns of victims and voices in support of democracy and multiculturalism. This is not freedom of speech, it is a denial of that freedom to those who we need to hear from most: people speaking on behalf of the 77 victims, and more broadly from those speaking for democratic values.”

3 of 6

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.