#ISISMediaBlackout and the Fine Line Between Reporting and Propaganda

Members of the extremist group that calls itself the Islamic State claim to have beheaded a US photojournalist. James Foley had gone missing in Syria in 2012 after being kidnapped. In a video titled 'A Message to America,' released by the group on a social media account, the masked perpetrator spoke in English with a British accent, driving the UK's Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond to say that the group pose a direct threat to national security.

But you already knew that. News and images spread across social media for hours before official outlets picked up on them. Some of the tweets and Facebook posts included censored screenshots of the murder, while others distributed it in its original video form.

IS in particular is already well accustomed to using social media to its full potential, making the hashtag  #AllEyesonISIS go viral, and utilising its own Twitter-spamming apps. Sharing the propaganda imagery of Foley's purported death is the latest in their social media scheme.

In response, some people suggested that social media users should not spread the material. The hashtag #ISISMediaBlackout quickly gained traction, with users protesting that sharing such graphic images of Foley was, in essence,  spreading the terrorist group's propaganda for them. The hashtag appears to have originated with Twitter user and blogger @LibyaLiberty, according to the Washington Post.

you know what I think? And I know how crazy this sounds,but we need an #ISISmediaBlackout. Amputate their reach. Pour water on their flame.

— Hend (@LibyaLiberty) August 19, 2014

The hashtag was coupled with portraits of Foley, and messages of condolence. Youtube has been removing versions of the video  under its 'violence' policy, and Twitter has been suspending accounts that link to it, but given the nature of the internet, it is unlikely that they will be able to silence all of the channels, all of the time.

Seconded. RT @DavidClinchNews: #ISISmediaBlackout pic.twitter.com/0VpyZI0xFO

— Andy Carvin (@acarvin) August 19, 2014

Others, however, suggested that treating this case differently was somehow insulting to the scores of people that have been killed by the group. From my personal account, I criticised YourAnonCentral, a Twitter presence with some 62,000 followers, for sharing a graphic image of Foley, to which they argued, "#IS (#ISIS) beheads hundreds of people, while James was a western journalist, his death won't be given special treatment by us." That account, and many others, regularly shares uncensored images from Gaza, Syria and other war-torn locations.

But Foley's death, if in fact it is verified—as of this morning, Foley's family has had no official confirmation from the US government, according to Global Post—does carry a certain political weight, and that's why it is more overtly propagandist.

Targeting a western journalist will inevitably get a strong and specific reaction. That, plus the timing (as a direct counter to US air strikes, according to the Guardian), and the speeches made by the perpetrators, give the video an explicitly political message. To share it would not help the public by increasing awareness of the event—it is already well documented—but would allow those behind the video to spread their message further.

That's not to say all other material is fine to share; the debate around what should be shared on social media hinges on a delicate balance, between drawing attention to an event by distributing source material, and avoiding becoming a platform for propaganda.

I don't agree there should be a complete blackout on all IS material; some imagery, Foley aside, could be important to gain a better idea of what the group and its supporters are doing. But users should consider each time if it is worth sharing the content to raise awareness, or whether the content ultimately serves its distributors more than the public.