As amazon attempted to market copies of the manifesto of the killer who carried out the New Zealand massacre I intend to give them a wide berth in future
Jim Carroll

Where to strike the balance?


https://www.thedrum.com/news/2019/03/15/uk-tabloids-facing-moral-brand-safety-questions-over-christchurch-terror-video
It is always difficult to strike the right balance between reporting the news and giving publicity to the wrong ideas.

UK tabloids have been criticised for publishing footage of the Christchurch mosque terror atrocity, in which 49 people were murdered, on their websites.

Despite New Zealand police urging the public not to share the "extremely distressing" first-person footage taken by the gunman, who livestreamed his attack on Facebook, The Mail, The Sun and The Mirror all ran excerpts online.
The Mirror claimed it ran no ads with the content. Since this morning, all three publishers have removed the videos.

Social giants YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and Reddit were also playing catchup to delete footage and accounts related to the shooter.
BuzzFeed reports that Mail Online hosted an edited version of the shooter’s video, showing him wielding a gun as he entered a mosque - the footage cut before fire was opened. It also hosted and enabled the download of the attacker’s 84-page hate speech manifesto as a PDF. These have since been removed from the site. At the time of publication, it was continuing to use a still image of the shooter entering the mosque.

I will continue to peruse the online tabloids referred to. I do not agree with a lot of the Guardian editorials either, but I still read them(while holding my nose!)