Who gets the most out of a story?

For any major crime that's shown on the news, those involved - whether directly or indirectly - go through a consistently specific cycle. Nowadays all it takes is a tweet to make journalists go to the scene in minutes. Once the story is verified and the broadcasters figure out what's going on, they hold the power to develop a narrative of the situation. Within hours the press get on the act and they too develop their own narrative, deeply analysing the statements made by witnesses and officials involved.

I watched Sky News when the recent 'Terror in Westminster' took place. As a PR man, I could sense how busy the press officers of the Metropolitan Police and the government were from the moment when the individual ran over dozens and was shortly after killed himself. They too had their own narrative to control, and reputations to uphold - and honestly, they did a very good job. The police were highly praised, politicians appeared more human than their general public image seemed.

The public praised the media's narrative too which surprised me because they are usually perceived as insensitive and speculative during these highly sensitive moments. They echoed the praise of the Metropolitan Police, the politicians who were in lockdown during the commotion outside and the civilians who were tourists one minute, and witness to murder the next.

The media's praise should be commended. However, instead of the emergency services' heroics being splashed on the front pages, the likes of the Daily Mail among others decided to put a picture of the culprit lying helpless on the floor. This is common practice. After recent terrorist attacks in Paris, Nice and Berlin for example, we have seen either the attackers of these incidents or their horrors on front pages. These are powerful images that sell papers. Yet, I question their choices.

My personal opinion is that they have given this individual what they want. By giving that person front page coverage and pages inside of these papers explicitly explaining who he was, it was a platform he possibly craved. We all do things to create reaction, regardless of its scale. He got the world talking about him - what great publicity for him, I thought. It may have damaged any chance of the majority to talk highly of him, but he must have considered that before causing havoc.

However, my professional opinion turned my focus on public interest. Is the over-exposure of that individual in line to what the TV news channels' audiences want? Is the over-exposure of that individual in line to what the newspapers' readers want? I did a low-scale poll on my Twitter page and asked that very question to my followers. While a small number of people voted, it gave me a general idea of what they thought. It seemed that they wanted to at least know the basics about that individual, or everything. So what I got from that (and after talking to people generally) is that not only the culprit got what he wanted, but the information that came to light is what the public want too.

Journalists know what they're doing and while they're not the most trusted professionals around, they know how to whet appetites. For PRs, this is hugely important and regardless of who is seen the best in a particular media story, we must appreciate this is what that title's public wants. I'm completely fascinated by this as it seemed like only yesterday when the Leveson Inquiry suggested a lot of stories that came out of the tabloids were not in the public interest...