The network was published a shocking video from surveillance cameras, which clearly show the moment of the explosion at the Polytechnic College shot the first victims. A day later the video was removed from all resources, nevertheless it continues to walk on the network in the form of snippets and screenshots. “Pravmir” I decided to ask the respected TV journalists – did the right Internet and TV channels to put this video in open access, does it violate the media law and the ethical code of journalism, why it was published, and what would they do if this video was in their possession.
- Shooting at College in Kerch: 21 people were killed and over 40 injured
- Published the names of victims of the attack on the College in Kerch
- Kerch. Remember them so
- “You knew them or not – it is a terrible shared our grief,” Kerch said goodbye to the victims of the tragedy
- “In the first five minutes I thought war”. Kerch
Andrey Loshak, a journalist, formerly a regular contributor to television programs from the series “Profession — reporter” on NTV:
Andrey Loshak. Photo: spletnik.ru
– I don’t have any definite position on this matter. Video of an assault on Columbine is in the public domain until now – and it also played a major role in the promotion of this violence. But I think in the modern world in General is very difficult to ban anything. Perhaps the bans only lead to great interest. Now a video from Kerch removed from all sites – apparently, from above it is indication to remove it. Maybe it is also correct, and did not have it initially show. But it could still be in the network – someone from law enforcement could drain it, as is often the case.
The issue is complex, and I don’t have clear position, because I, in principle, that the world became more transparent. Too bad the video is at odds over the network, it’s scary, it’s better not to see. Perhaps, for certain purposes it is possible to show some fragments, but only so as not to offend the memory and the feelings of the relatives of the victims. In the right context, the video can give the correct understanding of what has been a horror. But it is impossible to savor, it is impossible to do from this show. Again – someone will be able to create the right context, someone-no. But free information, I think it should be.
Eduard Sagalaev, President of the National Association of broadcasters:
Eduard Sagalaev. Photo: Dmitry Korobeynikov/RIA Novosti
– I believe the TV was not supposed to publish this video. Television executives had no right to it – neither from the point of view of ethics, nor with regard to the law on mass media. My opinion – these videos can only be used by law enforcement to investigate. The shock that may cause this video, including children, adolescents with fragile psyche, is not normal, the Fact that the video decided to remove everywhere it says that someone “above” understood the situation and took action.
As a television Director, I wouldn’t show this video. Maybe I would have found a way to talk about it as something different or I would show the video part. But the most tragic moments can not show. I would have at least showed snippets where you see the victim. The worst thing, from my point of view, is that in this video, parents can learn their children, relatives of their victims. This can be a tremendous trauma for life. Here every nuance is important, and we need to thoroughly think what to show and what not.
Why have you released this video? It is not even the pursuit of ratings. Is another. This desire to be first, ahead of others, to give information as soon as it appeared.
I don’t think this video could serve as a call to similar action. Everything that happens causes feelings of fear, disgust, and I don’t think someone could follow this example. Although, of course, I’m talking about normal people. I can’t speak about all, can’t say about teenagers, mentally ill people. This is a terrible video can act on people in different ways.
Masha Slonim, independent journalist, one of the authors of the Moscow journalists ‘ Charter:
Masha Slonim. Photo: novayagazeta.ru
I don’t know what the Russian law on mass media on whether to show on TV the bloodthirsty scenes, blood and dead people, but posting such videos is, of course, contrary to all the laws of journalism and even human ethics.
Honestly, I don’t understand why those who posted this video, they needed to do it. The video was supposed to hit (and hopefully hit) to the investigating authorities. I would advise those who this video has shown to imagine that at the end of the scene of the shooting they see their own children, relatives or friends!
Vasily Gatov, a visiting fellow Annenbergs school of communications University of southern California:
Vasily Gatov. Photo: tv2video.ru
Directly video does not violate the law on mass media, but can be interpreted as a violation of the 4th article. I believe that the decision to publish was taken at the level of news, as above; rather, it was decided to appease the conspiracy theorists, who immediately began to say that one teenager could not make that happen and that “the authorities hide the attack”.
If I had this video, I wouldn’t show the video, but would be looking for a way to tell about its content and authenticity.
Oh, and about journalism ethics: because this is the most important event on the agenda, are the factors of public importance, not ethics. The subject of journalistic ethics is the solution to the “border” issues, in circumstances of “normal” routine news. Relatively speaking, outside of crises. In that moment, when the journalist describes the crisis (crime, war, internal conflict affecting a large part of the audience) — the Central task is not filtering content based on ethical elections and most complete information — including because it provides greater security to its audience.
In my opinion, it is because the video clarifies the situation and makes it clear that the killer was one (thus removing the issue of “associates” and “the authorities hide”), its publication is public safety. Another thing is that the format of the publication could be more restrained.
Arina Borodina, a journalist, teleobservation radio station “Echo of Moscow”:
Arina Borodina. Photo: uralskweek.kz
This release, showing the shooting of people in Kerch Polytechnic College, on “Russia-24” I have personally seen only in the morning, after 9.30, and then he disappeared from the airwaves. Moreover, his show was interrupted the current broadcast. The audience showed a story lasting more than five minutes, where the presenter explained the actions Roslyakova with CCTV cameras. Roslyakov went to College and then the explosion occurred, showed how it took off doors, Windows, as were wounded people, and then Roslyakov walked down the corridor, shoot people, and indiscriminately shooting.
As far as I know, the TV station issued a warning almost Roskomnadzor, in any case, turned the story’s focus. And videos were deleted. In the following editions of “Russia-24” this story was gone, leaving only a short video, about a minute, the scene of the tragedy in Kerch.
The fact that the plot disappeared and it no longer showed, knowing the realities of making such decisions for a reason. So he went against someone’s instructions from above. Or were shown the folly. From my point of view, he certainly violates the law and professional and ethical standards. I don’t understand the objective of the story in which we see how the man shoots the other person and that the frame falls down dead. We do not discuss in detail who these people in the video. In my opinion, no matter what motivated the channel “Russia-24”, showing the chronicle of the massacre in Kerch, I see no need to show the violent death of a man at a mass TV audience.
If I lay the responsibility or not to show these images in the public space, for a large mass audience (especially given the fact that the audience is not prepared for such personnel, it’s not a traditional phenomenon), I would have these pictures never published and was not given on the air.
I have no particular versions of what purpose the channel “Russia-24” showed footage of people shooting. But again, if they then disappeared and were, therefore, the channel has either issued a warning or they do recover, that there was no need to do that.
Prepared By Olga Lunina