The media handling of the New Zealand massacre

In My Humble Opinion
1

The massacre perpetrated by Tarrant in New Zealand was tragic. I’m confident we agree on that, and I hope you can keep that agreement in mind in the ensuing discussion.

Seriously, I hope for a speedy recovery for the wounded, the deceased and their loved ones have my sympathy, and I hope the perpetrator receives a full measure of justice, but … why is this particular terrorist attack receiving so much media attention and focus? My current theory is that it’s essentially equivalent to when a pretty white girl gets murdered or goes missing. I suspect most of you would recognize the name “Natalee Holloway” without any prompting, and many of you can probably readily recall the virtual wall-to-wall media coverage her disappearance received. By contrast, a brown-skinned 30-year-old male went missing in Aruba 2.5 years after Natalee did, and I doubt much of anyone has ever heard of him (Jose Manuel Vicenzo Tromp, in case you care). Gwen Ifill even coined the phrase “missing white woman syndrome” to describe the phenomenon.

So, back to the massacres: while the New Zealand massacre was tragic, it had fewer fatalities than a recent terrorist attack in Nigeria and not many more thana SVBIED attack in Kashmir, neither of which seems to have received comparable media coverage. Why is that? Is it geography? Do we simply care more about what happens in New Zealand than Nigeria or Kashmir? Is it the relative innocence of the victims (Many probably think of worshipers praying peacefully as particularly innocent and Indian cops in disputed territory as perhaps less so)? Is it that this attack serves as a convenient narrative for advancing preferred political narratives while the others did not? Is it the “vividness” (for lack of a better term) of the attack (livestreamed via Facebook vs rather sanitized photos after the event)? Is it that the motivation behind the NZ attack? What do you think?

2

My first guess is that we don’t usually equate New Zealand with violence. I’m sure they have their share of issues but they don’t usually become worldwide news. Add in the fact that it happened in a place of worship and the live streaming and I think it’s pretty obvious.

3

Both Nigeria and Kashmir have, and do, see horrific violence somewhat routinely. While NZ seems a quiet pleasant backwater where such things rarely occur.

I also think they’ve done a lot that people in other nations admire. The PM won’t say his name, his face was ordered pixelated, they expect gun law changes within a couple of weeks. The Muslims community has been joined by every other segment of society, from the Hakka tributes, to Kiwis in hijabs in solidarity. NZ gov has and is providing instant help, medical care all covered, funeral expenses, compensation for the ones left without a breadwinner, fast tracking the arrival of foreign relatives, etc, etc. All in addition to the expected public appeal fund that has brought in record amounts. They aren’t arguing amongst themselves, no one hesitated to call it what it was, no equivocating.

I see unity, I see strength, I see much to admire. I have no problem with the coverage. I think you’re way off base.

4

And while we may skirt around the issue for fear of western-centricism, there’s no doubt we relate more to New Zealand than we do Kashmir (I’m British, but I think we’re all on the same page here). They are part of the ‘anglosphere’, we regard them as cousins, we have similar political systems, cultures and social attitudes. They are us. And if it can happen to them - nice, quiet, no trouble New Zealand - it can happen to all of us.