A couple of days ago I messaged a friend I studied journalism with at university. She's now working for Fairfax in their Sydney newsroom. She told me that working since the Christchurch terror attack has been 'hectic' to say the least.
Instead of its normal pace, the office has been full of stressed and exhausted journalists scrambling back and forth from their editors' desks. They've all been trying hard to work out what should be, or what deserves to be reported.
She also told me the days have been so busy, she hasn't even had a moment yet to properly process the severity of the event. Reporting massacres, after all, takes an enormous emotional toll. And often, we as journalists only get time to sit and reflect long after the moment has passed.
The difficulty for journalists live reporting emergencies is they're having to make important and hugely impactful ethical decisions right in the moment. In balancing those tough decisions, how often does the common good start drowning in what will draw the most attention from an audience, and away from competing news organisations?
Good journalism should exist on the former level. Ideally, a journalist will provide a facts-based story which is carefully and sensitively curated. But, as news broke of the attack in Christchurch, the professional lines were blurred for many journalists working in news rooms around the world.
For a few hours, journalists across mainstream media seemed to forget terrorism is not only a physical act of violence, but a form of mass communication in itself. Terrorism relies on the media to publicise fear, incite reactions and even inspire or recruit copycats.
This publicity in the case of the Christchurch attack was magnified as media chose to use the video footage filmed from the perspective of the attacker. Many radio and television stations also read out and reproduced the killer's manifesto, or allowed their guests to directly quote the document on air.
"It's hard to justify taking a time-out for editorial choices. But if they had, perhaps they would have been better able to think critically about the information in front of them and their own motivations for publishing it."
Before long, many journalists recognised they were in fact broadcasting a version of hate speech through reproducing the terrorist material on air. In breaking news, it's hard to justify taking a time-out for editorial choices. But if they had, perhaps they would have been better able to think critically about the information in front of them and their own motivations for publishing it.
Journalists have since been speaking out against their own editors and newsroom editorial standards. Many people feel the choice to use the terror material to tell the story of human death and suffering came from a place of ignorance.
Some Muslim journalists have said they feel disgusted now to work in media organisations who allow such material to be presented as news. And, despite the onslaught of trolls who ask 'What about freedom of speech?', journalists can and should be more conscious of making ethical choices in their work.
Since the attack, the Ethical Journalism Network (EJN) has issued a simple and practical guide to remind journalists how they can identify and manage hate speech. The guideline aims to achieve 'tolerance' in journalism by encouraging editors and journalists to pause and consider the wider impact of spreading offensive or inflammatory content.
Following these guidelines requires a lot of self-control. This control however, shouldn't be seen as an attack on freedom. Instead, to understand the ethical dilemmas of your work is to understand the power media has, and the level of responsibility which comes with it.
When media conducts itself ethically, they provide a service to the nation. And, if they remain strong in their conviction, they become invincible against terrorists and other people who wish to take advantage of media power for their own benefit.
The main message in the guidelines from the EJN is to avoid sensationalising. It also urges journalists to not rush or get caught up in the atmosphere of the news cycle. 'Take a moment of reflection,' it says.
That moment to reflect could do wonders for all journalists. If not for the dignity of the people whose stories they represent, then for the confidence that they are contributing stories which make the world a better, and not a worse, place.
Francine Crimmins is a writer and radio journalist. She has also contributed to the ABC and The Wire. She is on twitter @frankiecrimmins
Main image: Television studio (simonkr / Getty Creative)