Media ethics put to the test with debate over livestreaming execution
by Keenan D'Souza
Before US President Trump decided to pull the plug on the Pentagon’s plans to broadcast the execution of Nidal Hasan, online platforms and outlets everywhere were scrambling to decide what they’d show, and communication experts warned of long-term consequences for all media.
The execution by firing squad of Fort Hood gunman Nidal Hasan is still scheduled for December 3 and before the change of heart announced by Trump on social media, Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth initially promised the livestream for any outlet that wanted to carry it. "We'll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it's public," he told CBS News.
A former psychiatrist in the US army, Hasan was sentenced to death in 2013 for the killing of 13 people and wounding a further 32 in a 2009 shooting attack on the Fort Hood base in Texas. President Trump approved the execution by firing squad from Hegseth’s recommendation. It will be the first execution by the US military in over 65 years.
Before the decision was reversed, outlets including Meta, Twitch and YouTube had not weighed in, while TikTok and KiK had confirmed the content would be in violation of their site guidelines. Commercial broadcasters were still making their own choice based on their first ammendment rights, but the UN had already weighed, describing the decision as a “breach of torture prohibition".
Swinburne University Public Relations lecturer Simon Morgan described the initial announcement as a “power signal” meant to amplify Hegseth’s authority and influence over the US military. He warned the real risk ahead of the midterm elections on November 3 - in a country where voting is not mandatory – was a potential backlash that would drive those against the death penalty to go out and vote against Trump.
Morgan, a former Government media relations adviser, also suggested some of Trump’s religious voters might have taken issue with the decision, reinforced by Vice President JC Vance telling press he would not watch.
He added that while the idea of divine retribution and ‘an eye for an eye’ was important to some religious voters, it was also being framed as a “ghoulish embellishment to a barbaric sentence.”
Trump announced his reversal of Hegseth's announcement on October 15 in a social media post. “I think streaming the execution for all to see might have been a strong deterrent for the world to witness how America deals with terrorists and SCUM like Hasan but many very good and well-meaning people would rather not watch him die, through streaming, or through any other visual device." The President added that Hasan would still be executed, but the sentence would not be livestreamed.
Removing the choice for media channels has meant viewers don't know which way they would have gone if the livestream plans continued. Would they opt for a quick ratings boost - or as one critic described it, "a spectacle, like a pay-per-view event" - or would they ultimately protect their viewers and society as a whole from the longer-term effects. Many hope this decision is now permanently cancelled.
Comments