Different Angles of the same Story (ANALYSIS TASK #2)

The Darwin shooting was a tragic event that occurred on the 4^th of June, 2019. Although Australia is typically not a country that entertains horrific events such as mass shootings, the presence of illegal firearms and violence still poses a relevant and significant threat to the stability and wellbeing of our society. This particular tragedy occurred when a 45-year-old man that was apparently well known to police opened fire in Darwin’s city centre in search of a particular individual. The man was recently released from prison, apparently an associate of a motorcycle gang and was not licensed for firearms. Indeed, the sawn-off shotgun he was alleged to have used is illegal in Australia.

This tragedy was covered differently from different publications. To compare fairly, two articles have been selected for analysis that were published on the 5^th of June, three hours apart.

The first is from The Guardian, “Four people shot dead in Darwin as police reveal suspect was on parole” posted at 7:28 AM. This article is rather direct with its facts and is purely a report of the situation, with no added bias or opinions. It includes a recap of the situation in addition to a few short statements made by local police, in addition to firsthand accounts of what they witnessed. The article itself is detailed with relatively little to no fluff and is a superb example of what a news article should look like.

While the former article focused on factual reporting of the situation and recaps of official source statements along with accounts from relevant parties, the latter article that appeared in The Sydney Morning Herald at 10:24 AM on the same morning was titled “Did gun laws fail in the Northern Territory?” which featured interviews and quotes from relevant parties once again, but this time with a focus on establishing a conversation about firearm laws and whether they were successful or not in this shooting. There is a clear tone of agenda, regardless of the conclusion and contents that the article came to the tone reflected an article that was produced to please the beliefs of the readership and indeed, the newspaper itself. The entire article was based off the comments of one source, an associate professor who oversees a group that monitors gun legislation across the world. As opposed to the previous article which featured different accounts and sources, this clearly was minimal effort established to give one individual a greater voice with no counterargument heard or even suggested in the article.

 Meanwhile, on social media in the same time period there was a significant amount of misinformation spread in the first 24 hours after the shooting was reported. False facts about the laws broken, false identification of potential suspects and witch hunts led the way on public forums such as Reddit with some users advising caution against jumping to conclusions. All social media platforms observed shared an outpour of sympathy for the city and those involved, however Americans used the shooting to justify their own lax firearms laws by comparing massacres in Australia in America, and suggesting that they still occur in Australia despite some of the strictest firearm regulations in the world.