Detail of horror attack on boys was step too far
Friday, 29 January 2010
Print
Email
There’s no question that every right-thinking person in the country was left heartsick after reading about the so-called ‘devil boys’ attack on two innocents last week, but equally worrying to me is the relish with which our media has rolled out the details of this sadistic act of violence since.
It was without irony that panting news journalists seized upon every morsel of graphic information about the torture of near infants like the first doughnut after Lent, then repeated each one endlessly to somehow make the point that we, the morally superior citizens of Britain, were disgusted and horrified by them.
But since when was the human response to being repulsed by something to gorge on it, to conjure up increasingly colourful adjectives to describe its grotesqueries, to seek new and engaging ways to present its macabre minutiae like a list of culinary curiosities to be salivated over?
I first became aware of the nuances of the Doncaster brothers’ attack on two young boys when listening to a BBC radio station covering the trial. “Can you fill us in on the details of the assault?” requested the presenter of her reporter, who proceeded to offer up the kind of stomach-clenching imagery which would ensure a X rating for any film.
This was at lunchtime and though I quickly ushered my three year old son out of the room, he had been there long enough to ask me in a troubled voice why a boy would make another boy take his clothes off and eat nettles.
I’m glad my six-year-old wasn’t around because she would have understood all of the references to cutting, strangulation and gagging and would only have had to ask me about the sexual abuse. Five minutes later the same presenter filled a lull in events by asking her reporter if he could run over those details again.
In the next few days the newspapers immersed themselves in the story, some expressing their outrage through no-holds barred revelations of gruesome violence.
The coverage reminded me of 2008’s Baby P case, which moved some papers to offer readers an easy to read ‘bullet point’ list comprising each act of torture which had been inflicted on the 17-month-old victim.
I have worked around news journalists for years and there is an egotism about their refrain that nothing is more important than their brave pursuit, and eventual exposition, of the truth.
Concern for the greater good of mankind is often considered an issue for lesser, wet liberal types. But their evangelical belief that withholding any information is tantamount to a betrayal of their noble vocation is, in my view, self-aggrandisement of the most irresponsible kind.
So what if other kids living with ‘toxic’ families are impressed or turned on by the checklist of facts, or if repeated exposure to those facts leads to fearful adults burning with impotent rage to demonise, shun or even hit out at guiltless young people?
Who cares if we become numb to such imagery, desensitised to its inhumanity, slowly brutalised ourselves as we pore over the details of such cases the same way these boys and their father pored over the sexual violence in their horror movie collection?
Our brave journalists must wield the simple sword of truth at all times, and damn the consequences.
Yes, we had to know that this happened. But it only served the devil to deliver us the detail.
Post a comment
Limit: 500 characters
View all comments that have been posted about this article
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by BelfastTelegraph.co.uk's Terms of Use.
Posts submitted in UPPERCASE letters will be rejected.
JohnF - silly ad hominem points aside, you fail to apply any intellectual rigour to her argument. The point is that whether the abuses were reported in too much detail may be a valid point of discussion, but by using the "think of the children" argument, the author fails to support her argument in any direct way. The same logic could be applied to any group in society that has homogeneous characteristics - the effect on the elderly, asian people or the unemployed. So why use children in particular? It's a cheap trick to say "concern for the next generation" when in reality, the author has decided to side step any analysis.
Posted by Noel | 06.02.10, 07:51 GMT
Noel - you make me smile, attacking the argument with your own, completely incoherent rant - do you throw up semi-colons before you go to bed every night? Learn how to use them before you throw them around with such gay abandon.
You say the article appeals to 'mawkish emotion' by suggesting that it may have a longterm negative effect on children to report details of extreme acts of violence committed by other children. It is a poor, cheap argument to cast aside any concern for the next generation by calling it 'mawkish'. Many would regard it as sensible and responsible.
You say Jane doesn't elaborate on this concern but did you actually read the 4th and 3rd last paragraphs?
Posted by JohnF | 03.02.10, 10:44 GMT
I'm unsurprised that someone found this piece "insightful", but as P.T. Barnum is said, "there's a sucker born every minute". Journalists are not interested in the truth and it is certainly not this that motivates them to set out the details of any case of abuse. They are interested in copy, simple. In addition, you assume that not divulging the details of the abuse is a greater good but offer no evidence to assert this claim. Finally, your thinly veiled "think of the children" argument is pathetic and suffers from a mawkish appeal to emotion and reaches an irrelevant conclusion. Whilst the level of detail in reporting abuse cases may be a relevant point of discussion, any effect this has with particular relevance to children by being discussed in the media is indirect and fails to support your claim: that the detail of the abuses was unwarranted; and thus indicative of a shallow argument. Instead of abdicating responsibility, think of your own children, so we don't have to.
Posted by Noel | 01.02.10, 23:22 GMT
'Detail of horror attack on boys was step too far.'
I agree Jane - far too much information.
Posted by T J McClean | 01.02.10, 13:22 GMT
An insightful, quite bold article with important points in it. You're right of course - we have become so used to knowing all the gory details about everything that happens to everyone on the planet we have forgotten to step back and ask if we need to know them, and even more to the point, whether their distribution may be harmful and morally questionable.
Posted by ALEXWG | 01.02.10, 10:21 GMT
Thank you Ms Graham for stating as eloquently and effectively as you have an opinion I have long held.
So many times I have read things in the news and in magazines that are textual equivalents to people filling the abandoned barn to watch an illegal dogfight, or a passerby filming a rape with his phone, or any other atrocity being documented for prurient or morbid interest. Police, judges, solicitors, medical personnel etc. have a need for knowledge of these kinds of details, but presented in a clinical and objective way. We who read the news do not.
It needs to stop.
Thank you for writing this.
Posted by Oona | 31.01.10, 22:13 GMT