The Media: Can't live with 'em, can't gag 'em

Watching the TV news coverage of the Anthony Walker trial, I'm starting to feel uncomfortable. It is clear that we are going to be fed the detail of this case every step of the way. Yesterday brought us headlines of "Killed Because He Was Black" and pictures of a similar axe to the one embedded in Anthony's head, and today Sky's headline sums it up with, "Horror of Attack Relived".

I understand the human interest of this tragic case. It strikes at the heart of our humanity to learn of such a young lad killed in such an unthinkable way. That those accused of his murder are held to have done it because they were racist, just makes the whole story even more pitiable, even more sickening.

But I just can't shirk the feeling that there is something lustful often in the reporting of it. "Here's our reporter, straight out of the court room, with the latest details." Must we? And do we have to see footage of Anthony Walker's friends and family walking into the court every day? Is it not all stressful enough for them?

Perhaps it is a matter of respect to give as much attention as possible to so heinous an attack, and perhaps that attention can only come in the form of shocking headlines and panting reporters standing in the beating rain outside law courts. I don't know.

But sometimes I do think that the media doesn't think, and just sleep walks into reporting events without giving due consideration to what damage they might be doing.

And yet they can and do report sensitively and responsibly when they feel it necessary. The local news coverage for instance of the troubles in Lozells was exceptional. It took great pains not to be sensational and to sort fact from fiction. It could have gone down the "black and Asians at war" route, but it didn't. It gave a voice to responsible community leaders, who appealed for calm and a recognition that outside forces were trying to create trouble. When the cemetery was attacked in Handsworth, and the graves of many Muslims broken, again the line taken was that the attack was meant to be provocative, and every interview with every politician, community leader, or local resident, reinforced the message that there should be no reprisals.

I compare that to what I remember of the local coverage after the car bomb planted by The Real IRA in Birmingham in 2001. News reports were full of what happened after the 1972 Pub Bombings, dragging up stories of how Irish people were spat on in the streets of Birmingham and hounded out of local workplaces. Reporters wet themselves with excitement down in the Irish quarter of the city, asking random Irish people if they thought they were going to be attacked by Brummies. I can't say they were spoiling for a fight between locals and the Irish, but they certainly took the juiciest angle they could, never stopping to think for a moment that there might be a role for them to play in damage limitation. Unfortunately for the news in this instance, there never were any reprisals by Brummies, although of course the media having done its best to scaremonger, never saw fit to mention this.

It was much the same after the September 11th attacks. I wasn't in Britain for the first week, I was stranded in New York, but when I got back I do recall much media lick-lipping at the idea of a violent backlash against Muslims. I also recall lots of interviews with self-righteous posh people pontificating about the negative coverage of Islam in the media. I don't think the media had time to do negative coverage of Islam, in between its reports about the expected violent backlash and interviewing lots of self-righteous posh people pontificating about the negative coverage of Islam.

It might have been a better use of air-time to try and diffuse any sense of negativity towards the religion. After all, three thousand people had just been killed in its name, a fact that was often side-lined as if it were too impolite a thing to mention - just an embarrassing faux pas best ignored. Unable to address the issue of Islamic fundamentalism head on, the media didn't know what to do. It knew it would not be fair or responsible to represent all Muslims as terrorists, but then it didn't mind representing the rest of the country as salivating thugs ready to pour into the streets and reap murderous revenge.

The media response to the July 7th Bombings in London, I think, has been more measured in that regard. Perhaps we've grown-up a bit as a country. We're surer of ourselves and how we should respond to such an act. And we realise that we don't need self-righteous posh people to speak for the Muslim community. Muslims have spoken for themselves and have talked freely about the problem of extremism in their religion. This openness is much healthier. If responsible people do not discuss such matters, then the far-right will, and that helps nothing and nobody.

When we discuss such matters though, and when the media write the headlines, and film the reporters, and show the pictures, and devise the documentaries, the least we can ask of them is that they be honest without being sensational.

Soon the people accused of killing Isaiah Young Sam will be brought to trial. There are resonances between Isaiah's murder and Anthony's, but I'm already guessing that the Isaiah trial will be covered in a less sensational manner. It took several days for the press to release the names of those arrested, and only then were we sure the ones who killed him and stabbed his friend were Asian. With tensions strung out in the community, care was needed with how this murder was reported, and care was duly taken. Absolutely no good would have come from screaming headlines about a gang of Asian men killing a black man because of the colour of his skin.

But if the trial in Birmingham is less sensationalised in the national media than the trial in Liverpool, I hope though it is not down to an unwillingness to confront any racism in non-white communities, but due to a recognised need for ongoing sensitivity. My fear though with that, is if they don't feel they can shock in their reports, then they won't want to report at all. And that would say something very depressing about the mentality of the media in this country.