´óÏó´«Ã½

´óÏó´«Ã½ BLOGS - The Editors
« Previous | Main | Next »

Reporting the bomb plot

Mark Popescu | 16:31 UK time, Wednesday, 11 July 2007

One of the big stories this week has been the verdict in the trial of four people found guilty of attempting to bomb the London transport network on 21st July.

´óÏó´«Ã½ Six O'Clock News logoWhile a trial is running, vast amounts of information comes out in open court. Much of it is not reported at the time because the news agenda moves on and we rarely report every day of a trial over many months. ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalists also beaver away collecting more background and contextual information. Once the trial ends, and reporting restrictions are lifted, the whole story can be told - including some information which may not have been put before the jury.

One of the difficulties we face in telling the story is illustrating events which did not take place in front of cameras. Sometimes we use reconstructions - when actors show us how something might have been done. They're a useful device as long as they're clearly labelled - it is essential the viewer is not led to believe that they are seeing real events.

An image from the reportWe did this on our report on the bomb plot (which you can watch for yourself here) - using information that was given in open court that the bomb was made from hydrogen peroxide and chapatti flour. A number of viewers contacted the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to complain about this, one saying they felt it was "more or less a chemistry lesson on how to make a bomb". In our report, we made it clear that this was an exact science, and that the bomb failed because the chemicals were mixed in the wrong concentration. Indeed how the bombs were actually made, and whether they were viable, became a key issue in the trial.

An image from the reportWe gave no details about the actual concentrations that were used - indeed, much more detailed information on bomb making is available on the internet. We used clearly labelled reconstruction pictures of a clear liquid being heated and flour being added - illustrating no more than had been said in court and widely reported in the press. We didn't include details of some of the other ingredients that are used to make this mixture into an explosive (again, this information is widely available). The pictures would be of no use to a would be bomb-maker.

An image from the reportKate Robinson runs the team which made the background packages - she points out that a great deal of consideration went into what information was included.

    "We obviously thought long and hard about what aspects of the bomb-making process we would show. All the information we used was already in the public domain and there are many facts which would be needed to make such a bomb that we did not go into - even though we know them. However, as the defence rested on their claim that this was a protest and not a workable bomb, we felt that it was important to show the public that these were truly viable devices. At all times we have taken into our decision making process the advice that was being given by the police at court. What we did would not enable people to make a device."

One final important consideration is that we need to give people enough information to know, in future, what might be suspicious. For example, had more people known about the use of hydrogen peroxide, then the police might have been warned about unusual purchases of large quantities in advance.

Comments

  • 1.
  • At 06:01 PM on 11 Jul 2007,
  • Rich wrote:

You were absolutely right to give an overview of the process used to make the bomb and show the demonstration of its effects.

I can't seriously believe people have complained that this 'might give people ideas' or constitute instructions on how to build their own device.

I somehow doubt that anyone seriously planning such an atrocity wouldn't carry out proper resarch on the Internet etc, instead relying on a thirty second ´óÏó´«Ã½ News segment!

Instructions are not exactly hard to come by, in particular I remember a lad in school (aged about 11) who took great pride in showing off something he'd downloaded from a Usenet forum called 'Jolly Roger's Cookbook' - a veritable IRA training manual! Not that I would go looking even out of curiosity these days of course; I don't think i'd look good in an orange jump suit :O

Can we say hysteria - sometimes I despair for this country when I read about this sort of level of intelligence.

  • 2.
  • At 09:13 PM on 11 Jul 2007,
  • Richard Rankin wrote:

"´óÏó´«Ã½ journalists also beaver away collecting more background and contextual information. Once the trial ends, and reporting restrictions are lifted, the whole story can be told"

Presumably "backgound packages" were compiled for the two defendants for whom verdicts could not be reached.

What now happens to these packages - are they destroyed immediately or stored pending the outcome of the retrial?

Ignoring this particular case, what in general happens to pre-recorded backgound reports on a defendant when the trial ends in an aquittal?

  • 3.
  • At 10:51 AM on 12 Jul 2007,
  • John wrote:

People often leave out a crucial stage or component in their descriptions. For example, after 7/7 some news sources mentioned acetone and hydrogen peroxide but left out the third ingredient for TATP. (See, I just did it) I have seen this even in fiction novels by ex-military authors who obviously know the whole procedure. This would appear to inform the viewer and allow vigilance by shop owners etc without increasing risk.

  • 4.
  • At 10:25 AM on 13 Jul 2007,
  • vida wrote:

Re: shampoo/peroxide-chappatti flour/camping gas 'n nails plots - fear-inducing street theatre which softens up the populace for more 'security' legislation. Allow me to quote the editor of smokingmirrors.blogspot: 'Pretty soon, I don’t know when, either Israel or the US or both together are going to attack Iran. There are so many false flags waving in the media it’s like running through laundry lines in a third world city. The very same lies used to drum up previous (Middle Eastern) engagements are being used again."

  • 5.
  • At 08:17 AM on 14 Jul 2007,
  • Jonathan wrote:

It's not whether or not the exact information is given, it's the effect on the imagination of the young men who happen to see it, who are then perfectly capable of doing a Google to get the recipe for a bomb.

  • 6.
  • At 02:55 PM on 16 Jul 2007,
  • Sebastian wrote:

Vida in comment number 4 tells us this is all "fear-inducing street theatre":
Ah, so there is no danger, no bombings have taken place, there are no radicalised Muslim young people in Britain, none have carried out or attempted to carry out lethal attacks, nor should any terrorist attacks on the public be expected in the future.
That´s reassuring.

This post is closed to new comments.

More from this blog...

´óÏó´«Ã½ iD

´óÏó´«Ã½ navigation

´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.