The article linked below is titled: Over 50 feared dead in Nigeria church attack, officials say. What I find most interesting and peculiar is the fact that the article is void of descriptors revealing characteristics of the perpetrator.
Without a general characterization of the perpetrator(s) the audience is left with uncertainty of intent. This acting as a narrative cliffhanger. Which make me ask, why?
Are you attempting to create suspense within the presentation of this horrific event? Or are you seeking to vail the perpetrators in mystery. Stirring and stimulating intrigues and curiosity of the who. Which than lead me to ask are you marketing and PR agency?
If you are do marketing and PR can I ask what is the pursuit relative to perceptual framing and guidance of expression? Why are you applying literary devices? Could it be at your editors request you hide and descriptions which may characterize the perpetrator(s)? Why is that...
What has drawn me to such question is that horrific events like this is followed by the screams of Allah Akbar. Giving a sense of interest and intent by the perpetrator(s) establishing a sense of closure within the audience .
More importantly, is the fact that descriptors are needed to settle fears of those who share identities - that being Christian. Such a presentation of information is a disservice to the audience.
The task is to inform and prepare for events, pre and/or post occurrence. Here you are either selling a mystery and failing to prepare by not including descriptors of the perpetrator(s).
This is something we all should be demanding it be stopped as it is a failure to meet journalist standards and intent from an ethical point of view. Serve the people not this twisted agenda that is being served by such a presentation, or lack there of pertinent information to meet your obligations to the people.
This piece was inspired by this article