it's possibly too soon for it, and the irish politics thread might not be the best venue but, entirely away from the anti-migration/xenophobic rhetoric that's clouded social media and possibly reached this thread (not read it all), I do think there's a conversation to be had about policing and reporting standards when it comes to events like yesterday.
the juxtaposition of the mindless violence of both events (although not on the same scale; attempted murder of children is clearly the most callous crime here) bring it quite starkly into view.
for reasons most likely originating in a commendable desire to 'keep the peace' in communities, and to nip in the bud risks of reprisals, in reporting of events (in the past in the UK) like yesterday's stabbings work extremely hard to couch events in passive, uncertain and ambiguous terms. the same applies for the language used - it's softer, less aggressive, less likely to cause conflict. but this same standard isn't applied when 'keeping the peace' has long been lost, for example during last night's riots.
if you look at this BBC article from their Dublin reporter you'll see examples of both these things -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67516612 - There's no news article about the stabbings only anymore by the way, it's all shoved into collective articles predominantly covering the riots.
For a start, the article references a previous BBC report last night saying 'five hurt in stabbings' in the headline - omitting that two are in critical condition and they're mostly toddlers.
The articles speak in riddles about the suspect rather than reporting directly and fully, clearly omitting a detail deliberately (in media training this is referred to as 'tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, just not the whole truth'): "It is understood that included false claims that the attacker was a foreign national. Sources have indicated to the BBC that the man suspected of carrying out the attack is an Irish citizen in his late 40s who has lived in the country for 20 years."
There's no description of the suspect - they're in custody, so there's no real pressing urgency for it. But I think media would do well to be up front if they're opting not to report in their usual way (eg about height, build, ethnicity, recognisable features etc) instead of silently ignoring its omission. They're implying the person got irish citizenship 20 years ago and lived somewhere else before that, but omitting details about whether they're a duel citizen or renounced citizenship. Again, I think the lack of up front clarity about why media are doing this (either under instruction from police/state guidance, or of their own volition) adds the unnecessary risk of antagonising some to a degree.
A further example of the deliberate lack of clarity in statements and surrounding reporting comes from Drew Harris (Garda Commissioner) who said "We know what happened, but the motive for this is entirely unclear."
Now granted, a lot (probably most) of this can be explained by this now being an active police investigation which I fully understand. But I don't know how widespread that media literacy and awareness of media sensitivities around upcoming prosecutions is. Absence of clarity is unnecessary from the media - they can state 'we are choosing not to report on x because of y justification'.
Anyway, that's the reporting of the suspect of attempted infanticide. In contrast here's police statements and media reporting of the riots (which - it should be noted - are also currently under police investigation with 32 suspects due in court today)
Quotes from the article:
'Garda Commissioner Drew Harris, said there had been an "element of radicalisation" to the riot.'
The "extraordinary outbreak of violence" had come after "hateful assumptions" were made based on material circulating online in the wake of the stabbings, he added.
Mr Harris blamed the rioting on a "lunatic, hooligan faction driven by a far-right ideology".
The contrast in Commissioner Harris's directness and assertiveness and certainty couldn't be more stark. Including certainty about complex, and difficult to attribute, accusations of ideology and of radicalisation. Things that we know police and media statements would usually not amplify (as shown in reporting of the stabbings).
You then have the Taoiseach referring to the riots as "an attack on our society and the rule of law" (correctly) - but for some reason relativises the attempted killing of kids and teachers as if they are not: "Yesterday we experienced two terrible attacks - the first was an attack on innocent children; the second was an attack on our society and the rule of law"
Now, I'm not here to argue against those conclusions. Irish friends have told me things like this have been bubbling in Dublin a long time. To my limited understanding from afar, I agree with Harris. I just think that it's approaching time to have proper conversations (in the right forums of media/government/police/academics etc) about how communication could change to better adapt to achieve the goals they originally set out for (which include trying to reduce the risk of violent reactions like last night).
Jumping back to the point of this comment though, it feels like the accepted norms of reporting of crimes that could in time prove to be (or linked to) terrorism should probably come under review now we're 23 years into the 21st century. I think we often tend to repress (at least passively, if not actively) difficult discussions for entirely empathetical reasons. I don't think they are achieving the goals they set out to achieve (quelling unrest) and think there's also a high probability of other unintended consequences when it comes to discourse around difficult to discuss events like these.
Poll