Hacker News Reader

Comment by erdevs | Hacker News Reader

What is the rationale for news outlets not showing an ongoing police operation? Is it so that the suspects / perpetrators can't use the external information against the police? If so, does that rationale applicable when it is the suspect / perpetrator broadcast their own available information?

I don't know the background for these policies, so asking the first question non-rhetorically.

View on HN

"Munich massacre" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre

> [...] camera crews filmed the actions of the officers from the German apartments, and broadcast the images live on television. Thus, the terrorists were able to watch the police prepare to attack

Yes, I believe that has been cited that it gives the suspect or person of interest a way to evade/respond to police if the media are broadcasting information. For example, in this case, if we believe that the woman was holding a shotgun pointed at the police and the media reported that police were bringing a battering ram to break down her door, she might use that information to her advantage to escape, commit suicide, etc.

Tends to attract even more lookieloos.

That's a good point of concern, for sure.

It is also the reason why broadcasters do not show field invasions from fans in football (the real football). There are some people with very loose screws in their heads. Claiming fame with stupid shit like that totally justifies it in their mind.

Invasions dropped very substantially after the TV stations enacted this policy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com