Morning Call: our pick of the papers

The ten must-read pieces from this morning’s papers.

1. His calamity cabinet must be the despair of David Cameron (Observer)

An astonishing number of ministers are either deliberately stirring up trouble or stumbling into the mire, says Andrew Rawnsley.

2. Last gasp of the seigneurs (Sunday Times) (£)

Both Ken Clarke and Dominique Strauss-Kahn owe their predicaments largely to the same thing – an indifference to women's feelings, says Minette Marrin.

3. Ed Miliband and the End of the World (Independent on Sunday)

Labour's leader should be thinking about policy and not about Clarke's resignation – or anything else unlikely to happen, argues John Rentoul.

4. Kenneth Clarke has done his time. He should go without delay (Sunday Telegraph)

Until the Justice Secretary is sacked, Cameron's claim to be on the side of the public over crime will fail to ring true, says Matthew d'Ancona.

5. Speak up on crime, PM, or be punished (Sunday Times) (£)

Law and order is usually the Conservatives' strongest card, yet many voters think the Prime Minister has thrown it away, says Martin Ivens.

6. Obama's visit marks a new special relationship of the super-realists (Observer)

With a shared pragmatism about foreign policy, the president and David Cameron may have a good deal in common, says Jacob Weisberg.

7. The right seems reluctant to run against Obama (Independent on Sunday)

Six months ago, the Republicans triumphed in the midterm elections, but few have come forward for 2012, writes Rupert Cornwell.

8. Why drown Ken Clarke in this tidal wave of phony anger? (Observer)

The reaction to the Justice Secretary's remarks about rape proves that true political discurse is a thing of the past, writes Rachel Cooke.

9. Who are the standard-bearers of the Tory right? (Sunday Telegraph)

Liam Fox's intervention on overseas aid shows that the right of the Conservative Party is still a force to be reckoned with, says Tim Montgomerie.

10. They shoot horses, don't they? (New York Times)

The Syrian regime that has been so accustomed to staying in control is getting a taste of what it's like to lose it, says Thomas L Friedman.

Reuters/New Statesman composite.
Show Hide image

When it comes to social media, we all have a responsibility to avoid sharing upsetting images

If Twitter is the new journalism, we are all editors – and responsible for treating our fellow humans with dignity.

“I wish I hadn’t seen that”, my colleague says from across the desk. It’s been an hour since the first reports came in of a shooting outside Parliament, and the news agency Reuters has started posting photographs of injured people, knocked down by the terrorist as he drove across Westminster Bridge.

In one, a brunette woman leans over a victim whose blood is beginning to stain the wet pavement. Lying on her back, she is framed by scattered postcards sold for tourists which have been knocked to the floor. She is clutching the arm of the woman helping her, but her eyes are staring dead into the photographer’s lens.

Another photograph – the one that my colleague is referring to – disturbs me even more: a man who has fallen (or been pushed?) off the bridge onto a stairwell. He is face down in a pool of blood, his left leg at an unnatural angle. It is impossible to tell if he is alive or not.

Briefly, before I scroll past, I wonder if someone, somewhere is seeing the same picture and experiencing a shock of recognition as they recognise their friend’s clothes.

And then there is one picture which I now cannot find on Twitter, but which, lying in bed last night, I could not stop thinking of: a woman’s legs extended from under the wheel of a bus, her skirt hiked up to show her underwear, her shoes missing.

We are a desk of journalists covering an attack on the Houses of Parliament, so I keep scrolling. It is only later, in an article by the Telegraph, that I learn a junior doctor has declared the woman dead.

Of course, the shock of seeing images like these is nothing compared to what war reporters, doctors or police go through on a regular basis. But a 2015 study at the University of Toronto found that extended exposure to violent or disturbing material can have a severe effect on journalists’ mental health.

The impact can be particularly confusing when one does not anticipate seeing violence.On social media, we increasingly encounter images this way: without warning and without a chance to steel ourselves. This is particularly a problem when it comes to members of the public, whose jobs don’t require them to look at shocking material but who can nevertheless be exposed to it just by virtue of using a social media network.

It is for this reason that, shortly after Reuters published their photographs of the Westminster victims, prominent journalists began posting asking their colleagues not to retweet them. Some protested the fact that Reuters had published them at all.

In today’s media landscape, news moves fast and social media faster. Where a picture editor would have previously had until their print deadline to decide which images to run, now photographers are able to send their work back to the office almost instantaneously, and editors must make a snap decision about what to release.

Deciding what images to use can be a difficult call – especially under pressure. On the one hand, there is the urge to not turn away, to bear witness to the full magnitude of what has happened, even if it is shocking and upsetting. On the other, there is the need to treat fellow human beings with dignity, and particularly to avoid, where possible, showing images of victims whose families have not yet been informed.

Social media makes this process even more difficult. Once released online, photographs of the Westminster attack were quickly saved and re-posted by private individuals, stripped of context or warning. One can choose not to follow the Reuters Pictures account, but one cannot necessarily avoid seeing an image once it is being retweeted, reposted and recycled by private accounts.

As the line between traditional news and social media blurs and we increasingly become participants in the news, as well as consumers of it, our sense of responsibility also shifts. On Twitter, we are our own editors, each charged with making sure we extend dignity to our fellow humans, even – especially – when the news is dramatic and fast-moving.

I was glad, this morning, to encounter fewer and fewer photographs – to not see the girl lying under the bus again. But at 3am last night, I thought about her, and about her family; about them knowing that journalists on desks across Britain had seen up their loved one’s skirt during the last moments of her life. It was, without putting too fine a point on it, no way to encounter a fellow human being.

Over the next few days, we will find out more about who the victims were. The media will release images of them in happier times, tell us about their jobs and careers and children – as is already happening with Keith Palmer, the policeman who we now know died on the Parliamentary Estate.

It is those images which I hope will be shared: not just as a way to resist fear, but as a way of acknowledging them as more than victims – of forging a different connection, based not in horror and voyeurism, but in a small moment of shared humanity.

There is no shame in being affected by graphic images, however removed one “ought” to feel. If you would like someone to talk to, Mind can provide details of local services.

The BBC also provides advice for those upset by the news.

Find out how to turn off Twitter image previews here.

Stephanie Boland is digital assistant at the New Statesman. She tweets at @stephanieboland