The ethics of tweeting Breivik

There is a dilemma for journalists covering the trial of Anders Behring Breivik — the man who has admitted killing 77 people on 22 July in Norway last summer.

On the one hand, Breivik is gaining another bout of publicity for his crimes. On the other, the journalist’s role is to document a trial which inevitably has attracted significant public attention.

Although Twitter’s use in court is not new, this is a particularly high profile case which also presents a wealth of potential ethical issues for journalists using the microblogging tool to cover the trial.

Reporting Breivik’s trial: Banning “old'”broadcasting while allowing “new” broadcasting 

Some parts of the trial are being broadcast by Norway’s NRK television, although a number of key elements will not be shown.

Some of the haunting recordings of those who lost their lives are not being aired. Breivik’s own testimony yesterday was not televised. And the evidence given by witnesses will not be broadcast in the future either.

In yesterday’s press conference, the prosecution was asked how the media should report Breivik’s evidence.

“Q: Is it right for him to testify in court about his political agenda? How should the media report it?

A: It is important that he explain his views and many other people share those views. It also impacts on whether he is sane or insane. We don’t want his testimony to be directly broadcast because it needs to be digested after being put in context by media organisations.”

If the point of not allowing the evidence to be broadcast is to allow an opportunity to put everything in context, it leaves question marks over whether journalists should still be allowed to use Twitter from court.

In short, does it make sense to ban the cameras but not the tweeters?

Twitter updates: Stripping context?

A number of journalists have been using Twitter to provide updates from the trial.

Tweeting Breivik’s evidence inevitably strips away even more context from it. We lose the audio-visual context of a live broadcast and I would suggest that even the best live tweeters won’t be able to relay a verbatim account.

It could be argued that this can be allayed if a number of journalists are tweeting from court as they will provide different tweets on the trial.

In theory, they could also offer additional contextual tweets which might help audiences make sense of Breivik’s rants against Islam, multiculturalists, Marxists, and feminists; the evils of the Labour party; and his justification of mass murder as necessary for the salvation of Norway.

But I would hypothesise that because journalists are likely to tweet news lines they will probably tweet similar things. There also won’t be much time for fact-checking or the broader context while they are live-tweeting.

Paul Brannan, tweeting for Al Jazeera English, offered this caveat to his followers during the afternoon, for example:

Of course, tweets stripped of context can be reclothed by their incorporation into more detailed live blogs by media organisations and then articles and longer pieces.

Arguably, when taken as a whole, a stream of Twitter updates from a journalist at a trial may contain more context than a short broadcast report for radio or TV.

It is also not unreasonable to expect people to be aware of the limits of Twitter as a medium. (Is it?)

And if people want more context, they will obviously look elsewhere; but the same could be said of live television coverage.

The case for live tweeting over live TV

Twitter has an advantage, of course, over television in that discerning journalists can exercise their judgement to decide which aspects to cover in an attempt to avoid unnecessary harm.

It was notable earlier today that the Guardian’s reporter covering the trial, Helen Pidd, decided she did not want to provide updates during some parts of Breivik’s evidence:

Pidd explained that she would “put it in context in a story at lunchtime”, adding that it “seems irresponsible to just put it out on Twitter unadulterated.”

Twitter users who replied to Pidd’s comments were divided over whether she was making the right call.

When I asked her about this decision, Pidd said she does not think she has a duty to report everything Breivik says:

“In any news broadcast or story there is always an element of selection – whether for reasons of brevity, ethical reasons, concerns about those you are writing about [or other considerations].”

Pidd had also discussed tweeting the proceedings prior to the trial with colleagues at the Guardian.

They had agreed that it was “not morally wrong to live tweet the trial” but that they “needed to be careful”.

There are plenty of things to consider here, but perhaps that is the bottom line at the moment. At least until we have a better understanding of how audiences consume this sort of coverage.


Daniel Bennett recently completed his PhD at the War Studies Dept, KCL. His thesis considered the impact of blogging on the BBC’s coverage of war and terrorism. He writes the Reporting War blog for the Frontline Club.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • RSS


  1. Posted 20Apr12 at 10:39 am | Permalink
    Morgana Benedetti

    I actually have been wondering about the contradiction of not allowing cameras and yet allowing live tweeting.

    Have to say that this permanent concern for effects on audiences says way more about the way the audience is being perceived by journalists than the actual people receiving the news. It also is a construction of audience that doesn’t really relate to a specific person. Let me explain – either it is an imagined reaction to the content that is at stake here or then the reason for not live broadcasting but allowing to tweet is completely different and has nothing to do with audience concerns – much more the concern is linked to the fact that Breivik discourse is very much close to the rise of Islamophobia in the ‘West’ and the re-emergence of racial divisions within society made more evident thanks to the economic crisis. Along with this there is the constant rhetoric from politicians about immigration numbers, how to restrict immigration, demographic concerns over reduction of European population etc – just take a look at the French electoral campaign or the political debates broadcasted without any concerns for content in Holland. So in fact this demand to wait for an editorial line to “put in context” as you say is much more an attempt to articulate the right meaning that is convenient to convey. Obviously it can be argued that in neither the cases mentioned above the people involved are mass murderes, however my point is that there is this latent discourse, very silent, that is anti the so-called multiculturalism, I mean we even had Cameron declaring the failure of multiculturalism.

    So in the Breivik case the problem is of course the fact that he took it to extreme levels but much more the hiding of this ‘realities’ and the possibility to give the meaning that the proper institutions see as adequate. It is all it is.

  2. Posted 28Apr12 at 6:18 am | Permalink


  3. Posted 15May13 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

    Hi, all is going nicely here and ofcourse every one is sharing information, that’s in fact fine, keep up writing.

  4. Posted 19Jul13 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

    Everything is very open with a very clear description of the issues.
    It was really informative. Your website is useful.
    Thanks for sharing!

  5. Posted 20Jul13 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    When I originally commented I clicked the “Notify me when new comments are added” checkbox and now
    each time a comment is added I get several e-mails with the same comment.
    Is there any way you can remove people from that service?
    Appreciate it!

  6. Posted 28Jul13 at 6:03 am | Permalink

    Hey would you mind stating which blog platform you’re working with? I’m looking to
    start my own blog in the near future but I’m having a difficult time choosing between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your layout seems different then most blogs and I’m looking for something completely unique.

    P.S My apologies for being off-topic but I had to ask!

  7. Posted 01Aug13 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    Wow, fantastic blog layout! How long have you been blogging for?
    you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your website is magnificent, let alone the

6 Trackbacks

  1. By Francis Sedgemore - Tweeting Breivik on 18Apr12 at 11:02 am

    [...] researcher Daniel Bennett asks whether it is ethical for journalists to Tweet from the ongoing trial in Oslo of serial child [...]

  2. By Reporting on Trial » GRNLive on 18Apr12 at 5:06 pm

    [...] concerning context has been raised in a debate concerning reporters twitter feeds from court. As Index of Censorship says today, despite the prosecutions explanation: “We don’t want his testimony to be directly [...]

  3. [...] ‘day in the sun’ and there is consternation, as Daniel Bennett observes at the Index on Censorship, of the ethics of journalists propagating his views and political agenda. There is an [...]

  4. [...] live-tvitrerne ikke er i stand til å formidle forklaringen verbatimt,» skrev Daniel Bennett på bloggen til Index of Censorship sist [...]

  5. [...] fore. Cameras were banned from filming Breivik’s testimony for fear of losing context but as Daniel Bennett observed last week, “tweeting [Anders] Breivik’s evidence inevitably strips away even more context from [...]

  6. [...] from court raises important questions, too: the ethical issues of live-reporting and the the risk of contempt of court, for example. In another of our Justice Wide Open papers, [...]