Avoid language that alienates particular religious or ethnic groups. Do not speak of ‘us’ or ‘our values’ in ways that exclude minorities.
Seek relevant and informed commentary from within affected communities and be sensitive to the effect your content will have on people who more closely identify with victims.
Draw on the diversity within your teams and the wider ABC to inform your analysis and coverage – remember though, it is not their responsibility to be your unofficial advisor on racism.
Do not report unsourced and unverified speculation on the responsibility for, or intent of attacks. Speculating about responsibility risks blame being falsely apportioned to communities and can amplify the impact of terror organisations by making them seem more effective than they are.
All propaganda should be critically assessed before being reported.
Claims of responsibility for attacks by terror groups should never be taken at face value. They should be carefully qualified and should not be highlighted before they have been verified.
As much as possible, the focus of reporting should be on victims and survivors. The media plays an important role in forming collective memories and healing communities.
Avoid inadvertently glorifying terrorists or mass killers.
Do not oversimplify, sensationalise or ‘rank’ the incident because it may encourage people who may seek notoriety. (e.g. do not say, “The deadliest incident since Columbine, 9/11 etc.”)
Avoid putting photos of the perpetrator side by side with a victim.
Use the perpetrator’s photo and name sparingly, especially in follow-up stories.
Avoid stigmatising communities or religions
Liaise with community leaders and support services
Be sensitive when conducting interviews.
Report on victims and how communities and the nation can mobilise to support victims and prevent future attacks.
Harness the perspectives and expertise of the community
Use inclusive language
Avoid reporting that increases misunderstanding and prejudice of mental illness and include information about treatment and prevention.
Propaganda material – video or audio – should never be streamed live from the scene of a crime or other terrorist incident.
The use of any terrorist or killer-generated material must be upwardly referred.
Only quote, carefully and selectively, from a manifesto, social media content or other writings when it adds important information to the story.
Do not publish or link to complete or unedited manifestos or videos.
Do not refer to websites or social media accounts where manifestos, unedited videos and other similar material can be found unless they are newsworthy in their own right.
Use drawings and graphic material sparingly. Avoid images that glorify violence.
Any use of manifestos, videos etc produced by terrorists or mass killers must be upwardly referred.
How likely is the risk of something unforeseen happening, or of viewers seeing distressing or inappropriate vision?
How reliable is the person doing the streaming? Is it an ABC reporter, a reporter from another reputable organisation or a random citizen?
What’s the worst thing that can happen in the location being streamed? Someone being killed live on TV is much worse than broadcasting human remains, which is worse than intrusions into grief.
What is the news value? ABC News broadcast live vision of the Lindt Cafe siege despite the obvious risks because the news value of the story was so high due to the proximity and unprecedented nature of the event. However, even a situation like this requires careful judgement to lessen the risk of showing violent or distressing incidents.
Mitigate the harm by clearly warning and explaining to viewers and keeping a ‘Live vision’ super or similar on screen.
If live streaming the coverage on social media, do you have moderation resources in place to manage the response?
Is there sufficient context and qualification to mitigate misunderstanding of events?
Does the content meet the same standards of accuracy required of all ABC content?
Is the content unintentionally publicising or glamorising the agenda of the terrorists or killers?
Is the content likely to inflame an ugly online discussion that cannot be properly moderated?
Is the speaker singling out broad groups of people such as homosexuals, Aboriginals, Arabs, Muslims or Jews?
Are they proposing actions or policies based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc?
Is the speaker assuming an identity that is exclusionary of sections of the Australian community?
Exercise extreme caution and sensitivity whenever dealing with issues related to ethnicity, religion, gender and sexual orientation.
What editorial purpose or justification is served by reporting these statements?
Does it need to be reported verbatim or can it be described or paraphrased? Consider reporting the fact that inflammatory comments were made without directly quoting the person.
Is there sufficient context to ensure that the ABC isn’t seen to condone or endorse the statements?
Use sober language and do not sensationalise reports.
Don’t exaggerate the significance of protests or comments by minor public figures.
Seek comment from those being vilified and from critics.
If you are at the event where the inflammatory messages are expressed, ask the person to justify why they made the remarks they did.
Get critical reactions from those attending the event.
Get critical reactions from influential figures and/or community heavyweights to underline that the hateful views aren’t held by everyone.
Add context to your report. Is the person making these statements attempting to draw attention away from other problems? Is there an analyst you can ask to interpret the person’s intentions for making such comments?
If any of the comments claim to be based on facts, check the validity of those facts. Don’t leave false assertions unchallenged or uncorrected.
Is there a sufficient editorial justification for inclusion of the comments?
Have the comments been properly contextualised and challenged?
Have the views and perspectives of affected parties been adequately presented?
Have factual assertions been checked and where they are false either excluded or challenged?
If conducting interviews, is the interviewer sufficiently well-briefed and capable of challenging false and discriminatory claims?
Will the format of the content allow for critical debate and analysis or will it provide a platform for discriminatory statements and prejudice?
Spell out the rules to studio guests beforehand.
If a guest breaks them, cut them off.
Explain to your audience why you have cut someone off and why it is important not to give such people a platform to spread their message.
For press conferences conducted by politicians or others known to use highly-charged discriminatory language or expressing prejudice consider pre-recording and editing if possible. Upwardly refer before broadcasting or streaming the event.
Spell out the rules before asking for callers.
If a caller breaks the rules, cut in saying, “Remember the rules I mentioned at the beginning of the program. I now have to cut you off and I am moving to the next caller.”[1]