And it took me less than 3 minutes to google it*, crop it and post it after I read this tweet:
Really, really hate the prominence of Breivik fist-salute photos. It’s the shot he wants, makes him look glamorous to a particular group.
— James Ball (@jamesrbuk) April 17, 2012
Why can’t you do better, media? Why are you enabling this guy’s “heroic” narrative? Why are you publishing the shot that he wants people to see?
*Note that I didn’t go for a cheap shot of the one where his eyes are looking shifty-sideways or the one where he’s rubbing his head in his hands, either. It’s easy enough to choose a neutral shot and just let the journalism (remember that?) speak for itself.
Related posts:
- A picture paints a thousand words
- Detroit tests 150 rape kits from backlog of 11,000: finds 21 serial rapists (one also a murderer)
- What is “healthcare”? A tale of a murderer, a victim, and a tattoo.
- Privacy rights in Child Protection investigations: the need for the mass media to disguise identifying features on the minors in the Henson images
- You must be smarter than this lump of inanimate electronics to play statistician when you’re a journalist
Ah, but tigtog, this photo isn’t EXCITING!!!! Because the only reason a reader/viewer would read/watch a story about Breivik is because the MSM used an EXCITING!!!!! photo.
It depresses me that more people aren’t outraged by the contempt that the MSM shows for them when they decide that without EXCITING!!!!! photos their readers won’t follow such a story.
It’s the sidebar story in an article I just linked to and the photo is one of his face, close up so you can see his ‘scary staring eyes’. Better but not much. No wonder the myth of the obvious threat never goes away when mass murderers are never photographed looking like anyone else on the street.
I got very annoyed at our breakfast “news” show this morning (well, for a myriad reasons, but especially) for reporting on the trial and saying he had “read a statement which described his shooting spree as “sophisticated” and “spectacular”.”
Now sure, the newsreader got a little tone of scepticism in there, but seriously? They’re just going to finish the news story on that, as though his grandiose opinion of his acts doesn’t require context or comment? The dude’s describing mass murder as sophisticated, I’m sure we can at least get one Norwegian politician to say “well, he’s full of shit, it was murder, it wasn’t cool, let’s stop buying into his bullshit.”
Charitably, I could suppose they thought his words spoke for themselves without the need for anyone else to comment on them. Less charitably, I might guess finishing on that is another way to make it exciting.
Oh,that’s the one where he’s weeping with self-pity,totally wrapped up in how he is such a special snowflake and everyone’s being soooo meeeeaaan to him,right?
resident_alien, are you referring to the pic I chose for the OP or to another pic? I don’t know how to answer you without that datapoint.