Should The Alleged Oxford Circus Shooting Have Been Reported?
News reports were released on 24th November 2017, that stated that an incident had taken place at Oxford Circus tube station in Central London at around 16:30.
According to early reports, shots were heard at Oxford Circus tube station and citizens were seen fleeing the scene. Police were allegedly treating the incident as terror related and armed police were sent to the station; photographs were even taken (and shared online) of armed officers in the area.
However, after attending to the scene and scanning through CCTV footage, police were said to have found no proof that any shots had been fired, and it transpired that the incident had stemmed from an altercation between two men, who were not charged. 16 people were injured as a result of them fleeing the station.
In this case, where information was shared and then retracted, was it right for journalists to publish the story?
In some respects, yes. A journalist’s role is to report information that is relevant to and in the interest of audiences. In News and News Sources: A Critical Introduction Paul Manning said:
“News journalists should have the task of gathering and communicating to the public, up-to-date information from home and abroad”.
In the case of the November incident, I believe journalists acted in the public interest and allowed people in and around Oxford Circus to gain information about what was happening. As a result, citizens could either remove themselves from or avoid the area. Tony Harcup said:
“Journalists have been described as the Fourth Estate of the realm, the eyes and ears of the people, acting in the public interest.”
On the flip side, if publications had held off on releasing information about the alleged gunfire, they might have helped to stem panic.
Early reports by the BBC, for example, quoted the Metropolitan Police by saying, “police have responded as if the incident is terrorist related”, however articles had been bulked out with information from those at the scene.
Other publications seemed to use similar tactics. For example, The Guardian published this video along with the caption, “a witness captures footage of people moving away from an incident in central London”, which I feel dramatises the visuals. It also confirms to readers that something had occurred by saying “an incident”.
The Guardian also called for people to share their eyewitness accounts of the 24th November incident. Thorsen and Allen said that:
“Crowdsourcing of information is seen as a valuable supplement, sometimes even a replacement, for top-down, one-way and regulated forms of information provision during calamitous events.”
It therefore seems feasible to say that journalists relied on eyewitness accounts (i.e. that from citizens online or people at the scene) to gain more information about the alleged gunshots, and did not wait for officials to fully investigate before reporting.
In doing this, I feel journalists validated the rumours that were spreading across social media after people uploaded images, videos and status updates about what they had seen or heard. On Twitter, for example, users posted videos of those running away from Oxford Circus station and some updated followers with information using #OxfordCircus.
Even though police had released a statement saying that they had been called to a potential incident of gunfire and were treating it as serious, the articles published heavily implied that a terror related attack had actually occurred. In this sense, citizens could have been misled, which contradicts the notion that journalists should report the facts and only the facts.
Admittedly it can be tricky — at what point should a reporter step back and wait for more information? It’s six of one and half a dozen of the other. If the story was not reported, there would have been outcry that people weren’t informed about a potential danger. However, by reporting it, news organisations received criticism for causing panic, spreading fake news and over-emphasising a situation.
In my opinion (which is perhaps slightly controversial) news outlets did the right thing in publishing information about the alleged gunfire. If the citizen reports had been correct, and people were fleeing because of a gun-related event, sharing this information could have saved lives. Surely it’s better to be aware and mindful of a potential danger, than to be completely in the dark and walk straight into trouble?
