Media house faces backlash for sharing murder footage
A local media outlet is facing mounting criticism after posting video footage of a recent murder in which a young man was fatally shot, reigniting debate about media ethics, trauma, and the responsible reporting of violent crime in the territory.
The video depicts one of four murders recorded in 2025, where a young man was fatally shot on December 17 in the Purcell Estate area. The footage, which had reportedly been circulating in WhatsApp groups and other private social media spaces, drew renewed attention after it was shared publicly on Facebook by Guavaberry Media Inc. Residents argue that while the video was not new, its publication by an established media house significantly expanded its reach, exposing viewers — including children and grieving relatives — to disturbing content without warning.
Several social media users on Facebook said they only encountered the video for the first time after it appeared on the media house’s page. One resident wrote, “Speaking for myself, I didn’t see that video until it was posted on Guavaberry Media Inc. page. Posting something on Facebook versus circulating on WhatsApp is far more triggering… This is the World Wide Web.”
Others acknowledged that the clip had already gone viral but questioned why a news organisation would amplify it. “Video for years [has] been getting leaked! But not posted on FB,” one social media user stated. “Why start now?”
A particularly emotional response centred on the victim’s twin brother, with residents urging the public to focus less on the footage and more on the human cost of the tragedy. “That man has a brother that looks just like him,” one commenter wrote. “Every time I think about it, it damages me.”
Another commenter criticised the manner in which the incident was presented, suggesting alternatives to showing the killing itself. “They could’ve blurred the body of the victim… Enlarged freeze frames of the murderers would’ve been much more beneficial,” the commenter said.
Amid the backlash, Guavaberry Media owner Cindy Rosan has defended the decision to post the video, stating that she was simply doing her job as a journalist and that public outrage should be more squarely focused on the territory’s escalating crime problem rather than on media coverage.
The controversy has sparked broader discussion about where the line should be drawn between informing the public and retraumatizing a community, particularly in a small territory where victims and their families are widely known.
In the meantime, as the police continue investigations into the four murders in the territory last year, the BVI finished 2025 as a low-crime jurisdiction and maintained its track record as one of the safest Caribbean countries.
Copyright 2026 BVI News, Media Expressions Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.
Cindy just a POS. Not journalism, voyeurism.
Everybody was sharing it among themselves before so what’s the problem? We are just hypocritical.
That’s the problem when everybody with a cellphone wants to be a ‘journalist’.
You can’t buy class…
It may be bad taste but the crime is worse. How is the public going to help whenever there is a crime the police do not share the getaway vehicle and do not share the description or number of suspects. The public do not know whether it is a scooter or car. How can people help with no information and this is a small place.
Because these same ones talking about bad taste is the gun-men friends and girlfriends.
They don’t care about crime until it touches them.
There was a time when these actions would have been thought carried out by person(s) on scooter which shows that times and methods of carrying out crime has changed.
The “lady” trades integrity for clicks. Calling herself a “journalist” is insulting to professional journalists worldwide, though “media house” is accurate. She trades sensationalism for clicks. Clicks indicate traffic and generate better advertising revenues.
There are a number of principles that professional journalists follow. They’re detailed in various professional standards and codes of ethics through various accrediting bodies, etc. Some that apply:
Minimisation of Harm
This is the most relevant principle.
Under codes such as the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, journalists must:
“Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort.”
In practice, this means:
• Avoid publishing graphic or explicit violence
• Avoid retraumatising victims’ families
• Avoid sensationalising death
• Avoid using imagery merely for shock or clicks
Publishing raw murder footage—especially if graphic—almost always violates this principle unless there is an overwhelming public-interest justification.
Public Interest vs. Voyeurism
Journalism distinguishes between:
• What is interesting to the public, and
• What is in the public interest
Murder footage usually:
• Adds little factual value beyond confirming the event
• Risks becoming voyeuristic
• Can interfere with justice or investigations
Most professional outlets will describe events rather than show footage.
Respect for Victims and Human Dignity
Ethical standards generally require:
• No unnecessary depiction of death
• No identifiable images of victims without consent
• Special care where families may not yet be notified
Publishing footage showing someone’s death is often viewed as a fundamental violation of human dignity, regardless of news value.
Proportionality & Editorial Justification
Ethical outlets must be able to answer:
• Why was this footage necessary?
• What would be lost if it were not shown?
• Could still images, redaction, or description suffice?
If the answer is “engagement” or “impact,” that is not considered sufficient.
What Professional Media Typically Do Instead
When murder footage exists, responsible media may:
• Use blurred or cropped stills
• Show aftermath, not the act
• Include content warnings
• Avoid autoplay or thumbnails
• Provide contextual reporting rather than raw video
Important Distinction: Media vs Platforms
Many online “media houses” blur the line between journalism and content hosting.
• Journalistic outlets are bound by ethics and editorial review
• Social platforms operate under terms of service, not ethics
• Some sites label themselves “news” but do not follow journalistic norms
Calling something “news” does not make it journalism.
…it’s a shame the “journalists” at BVI News didn’t seek to point this out.
This rests squarely with the media platform and its editors. Publishing graphic murder footage without clear warnings and basic safeguards is not responsible reporting, and it requires a full, unambiguous apology and a strict, published graphic-content policy going forward. But the deeper issue is that this does not read as an isolated lapse—it fits a long-running pattern where the platform is widely perceived to operate as a political proxy, using selective outrage, selective silence, and recurring takedowns to shape public opinion and tear down other representation. That perception is tied directly to coordination with the Sixth District representative, and to political puppet masters from Virgin Gorda who benefit when a media platform is used to divide communities and control narratives. If the outlet wants to be taken seriously as media, it must end the proxy role, stop laundering politics through “news,” and commit—publicly and consistently—to transparent editorial standards that protect the public without weaponising information.
When your whole ‘media house’ is your cell phone, it is a problem when the police seize the phone.
I suspect that she would not post the video if it was one of her kids that was shot and killed.
If she thought it would bring her publicity, which is all she craves, then she would post it.
that cr**y m** m** is not even a real media space she needs to go support her …s
I can understand why the video was posted. I personally would have blurred some areas of the video and get the permission of next-of-kin first, but be that as it may, I have watched enough true crime shows to know that posting such a video could be the difference between solving a crime and not solving a crime. A person who was in the area (and now seeing this video) and may have seen something and not realizing what they saw, could now put 2 and 2 together and maybe share that information with the police. Someone could maybe recognize the car, the movement/gait, clothes being worn, etc., of the shooters. While posting may seem insensitive, I can see the purpose of doing so. FYI, Cindy and I are not friends or associates, so I am not defending her actions. Rest in Peace to the young man and I hope the perpetrators of this heinous crime are brought to justice, speedily!
SHE SHOULD BE CHARGE FOR HER ACTIONS, WHAT SHE KNOW ABOUT BEING A JOURNALIST…
I suspect she knows a lot more than you and many on here being critical of her.
if that was my family.. i would want the public to see what went down.. maybe from the way a person ran or walk.. something seen in the footage could be of help to catch the murderers..
Sindee lacks any and all integrity and morals! She is all for sensationalism and that is what drives her ego even more. She is just another paid political hack that masquerading as ‘news media’.
She needs this to pay her bills….
What I can’t understand is why she is doubling down on what she has done by posting more videos showing murders and killings in other parts of the world – as if this makes what she did right. CR would have so much more support if she knew how to humble herself just a little bit. We live in a VERY small community – these kinds of things hit very close to home. You have to be more sensitive. You cannot draw a comparison to similar activity somewhere like South Africa – its totally different. As people have already said – footage of these incidents leak on whatsapp all the time – but a public facebook post is taking it to a whole new level.
CR should have removed the video and GBMH should have publicly apologized to the family. She has sons. Put yourself in their mother’s shoes. She should have a right to view the footage if she wanted to, but also a right to never have to see that. CR has taken that right from her and made it a public spectacle.
HUMBLE YOURSELF – admit when you are wrong.
The irony is she became the very thing that she hated and looked down on. She used to call VINO yellow journalism and ridicule them but now look at what she has become. VINO tone down a lot now she take their spot as the ratchet gossip site. It’s all about the clicks and views and try to break the news first. The things people will become to pay their bills.