In the days following the horror of the Christchurch terror attacks, New Zealand media focused on the victims of the tragedy - a far cry from the Australian media's response.
New research by Dr Gavin Ellis and Dr Denis Muller revealed the gulf of differences in editorial decisions by media outlets in the neighbouring countries.
Dr Gavin Ellis said the New Zealand media concentrated almost entirely on the victims.
"Sure, they had to focus on the alleged gunman, but all of the focus was on the victims.
"There was a natural, human quality that took place in relation to that these were our people and the decision making reflected that."
In the days following the March 15 attacks, which claimed 51 lives, national media prioritised those affected by the tragedy over the alleged gunman and his motives, Dr Ellis said.
The stance followed the lead of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who, only days after the attack, said she would never name him.
"He is a terrorist. He is a criminal. He is an extremist," Ardern said in an address to Parliament. "But he will, when I speak, be nameless."
"And to others, I implore you," she added, "speak the names of those who were lost, rather than the name of the man who took them. He may have sought notoriety, but we in New Zealand will give him nothing. Not even his name."
She spoke directly to the families. "We cannot know your grief, but we can walk with you at every stage. Our hearts are heavy but our spirit is strong."
However Australian media spotlighted him, running extended coverage on his so-called manifesto, ideology and violence.
"Australian media played into the hands of the people who do these sorts of things, whereas the New Zealand media were very careful, very wise I think, not to give him oxygen from day one," Dr Ellis said.
The glaring disparities surfaced after Muller and Ellis scanned close to 300 stories published by metropolitan newspapers just days after the attacks, as well as scouring web-based television content and interviewing news executives in both countries.
They found that 34 per cent of stories in the New Zealand media over the first three days after the attack focused on the victims.
But in Australia, only 8 per cent of published stories focused on the victims.
Speaking of New Zealand's "exemplary" coverage, Ellis referenced Nadia Tolich, head of content at radio network NewstalkZB's immediate reaction to the attack.
Tolich told the researchers her immediate reaction was "Damn you. We're not going to fall for that".
"She said the alleged attacker's claim that he had chosen New Zealand because it was regarded as a safe place had also prompted an immediate reaction: 'I thought: How dare you stop us from being who we are'."
The differing coverage proved that a "proximity filter" affects the coverage of an event.
"The closer you are to the action, the more empathy you have with the victims," Ellis said.
"The further away the less empathy you have and you feel more able to exercise freer reign."
But a "defensive distance" - claiming to be too far from the event to remain empathetic, is only an illusion in the global internet environment, Dr Ellis said.
"You can't think that somehow because it's 1200 miles away or the other side of the Tasman sea, that somehow its insulated from audience," he said.
"News executives, wherever they are, need to be mindful of the fact that they now operate in a global environment and just be aware that some of the material that they are publishing or broadcasting is going to be seen by some of the people that are directly affected by these events."