The New Zealand shooting video should never have been published by the media. It’s not just distasteful – it’s dangerous

A mass murder, presented through the murderer’s eyes, like something from a computer game. Choosing to put this in the public domain sanitises the deaths of 49 innocent people

You might think the media was – regrettably – sufficiently well-practised at reporting terror attacks by now.

Yet today we have seen an extraordinary intervention by the prime minister, requesting that UK news organisations take down from their websites footage of the attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand, which left 49 dead and many others fighting for their lives.

In any other circumstances, such direct commentary on journalistic practices by a senior politician would be regarded as an outrageous interference. But on this occasion, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that May is absolutely right.

Not that newsroom decisions are easy. Every day, journalists make snap choices under enormous pressure. It is easy to run a news desk as a spectator, but much harder when major events are breaking.

The advent of alternative sources of news, notably via social media platforms, has complicated matters further, as journalists consider what details to exclude from their own coverage, even though they are widely available elsewhere.

But then, it has always been thus – only the scale and the sense of immediacy has change.

Likewise, it has been the case for a long time that many of those who commit terrorist atrocities in the name of some sort of “cause” have a very clear idea of the narrative they want to create – and to see distributed.

A few years ago, this would be evident in the video recordings made by Islamist suicide bombers before they carried out their attacks. In the case of Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in 2011, it was a lengthy manifesto which sought to justify his murders. The same was true of Ted Kaczynski, the “Unabomber”, whose bombing campaign in the US lasted nearly 20 years.

Now, however, terrorists have the ability – thanks to technological “advances” – to film their crimes as they happen, streaming them in real time to audiences around the world. In the case of the Christchurch attacks, video and online manifesto were in circulation even before the horror had ended.

Still, the whole point of journalism is to be the filter; to analyse and bring order, clarity. That does not mean avoiding difficult issues, or preventing the world from knowing about appalling crimes, or the bleak realities of war. But it should mean we do not project or amplify precisely those narratives that killers and terrorists – or indeed any who seek to exercise power over others, violently or not – have formed for themselves.

By showing the video taken by Brenton Tarrant of his bloody assault – even if edited to exclude the worst elements – some parts of the media in this country and elsewhere have done precisely as he would have wished. A mass murder, presented through the murderer’s eyes, like something from a computer game. By turns horrifying, glorifying and somehow sanitising the deaths of 49 innocent people.

The Mirror has acknowledged that it erred; perhaps others (including MailOnline and The Sun) will do the same in due course. Earlier, though, The Sun was happy to defend its position.

Of course, there are big questions to be asked of the major social media companies as well. It is partly via the platforms they provide that people are being radicalised, that hate is being fostered and that violent imagery and even murder is being circulated. This cannot be the price we accept for the internet’s many virtues.

No wonder the regulatory vultures are circling over the big tech firms. They must do better.

Nevertheless, failings by the likes of Facebook or YouTube cannot be an excuse for the media to avoid exercising proper ethical judgements.

It should be abundantly clear that publishing footage taken by a terrorist as he embarks on a mass murder spree is the wrong thing to do: insensitive, gratuitous, unnecessary and likely to promote more violence.

It does not, despite protestations to the contrary, shed light – rather, it suggests we are prepared to succumb to the darkness.