What news editor can resist something like that? Above all, when it is viral and your responsibility can be diluted in the collective morbid. Some save the honor by blurring the background or resorting to pixelated, which is the digital soap that washes any scrupulillo, but almost all itch. How to ignore the hook, how to let go of the current?
A massacre has been broadcast live on Live 4 and, for the first time, the images available to them are not loop resources filmed behind a police cordon, with ambulances and police sirens signaling that something terrible (which we can not see ) has happened. In addition, chains have long lost the ability to hide anything: if you do not broadcast an information, it is on YouTube. Therefore, the decision to issue or not only affects who decides, but has no impact on the public.
It has been said that it looks like a videogame, and it has been commented that this game aesthetic maybe greased the fingers of the murderers when tightening the triggers: between their victims and them there was a staging that dehumanized the latter. Through history and psychology, we know that killing is not easy and that, to execute his plan, a criminal must numb part of his brain and enter a kind of trance. If you are too aware of what you are doing, you will not. That was well known to the Nazis, who invented methods for the SS to kill in the fields without stopping to think about what they were really doing.
Are the spectators part of that method? Do these images of the cameras inserted in the weapons increase the disgust, fear and compassion for the victims or do they identify us, by their subjective level, with the murderers? Apart from the fact that its dissemination serves the cause of terrorism (which only wants to spread its terror), the question that we do not know how to answer when we see the killing is: who are we?