your heaping too much intelligence on the nutters, to be able to tell the difference between a Somali, Singaporean or a Swiss for that matter.And if you didn't say where the person is from, those same far right nutters may well just go and target the nearest Mosque anyway, as soon as they hear about the possible connection to Islamic extremism. The problem here is with the far right 'nutters' who will mindlessly seek revenge on innocent people. It's an awful problem, but the solution in a democracy is rather obviously to deal with those far right extremists appropriately (and to provide suitable protection to people who may be at risk), not to hide information that is relevant to major news stories.
its not about hiding the news, its about how its presented.
Today the media incites the news, when it should report the news.
Agreed, but newspaper headlines do not figure out ways to prevent it.I understand the logic behind that, but the problem is that, if you want to figure out ways to make this kind of attack less likely in the future, then you need to understand the motives behind the current attack. Trying to hide the motives isn't exactly going to help there. (Though maybe trying to avoid specifically using the person's name too much in order to avoid giving them too much publicity might work).
They just sell stories… the “what”.
Its the Police etc who investigate the “why” not Journalists.
We dont do trial by newspaper, but many have faced ordeals by media… that is the issue… and now the Somali minority is at risk in a story inflated by the media.
There is no need for mass publicity for crimes against individuals, where there is a risk that reporting style may bring retribution from other similar extremist elements… as both sides simply escalate a situation of committing events to draw attention… trouble is thats what sells newspapers.
When that owner isnt British, and is under influence of a foreign power, then its not reporting in Britains national interest.
Thats why media needs to be regulated.