As a bloody siege played out in Martin Place, another "battle" raged in the wider community about what it all meant.

In my short time as a reporter, I've never seen so much contested ground over how to define a tragedy.

In many ways it was a clash of traditional or "mainstream media" versus new media meeting the culture wars.

When the old guard misstepped by labelling it an Islamic State siege, the new kids on the social media block were quick to jump. And fair enough.

One commentator went further and criticised the mainstream media's rush to call the siege terrorism.

The siege was a crime perpetrated by an individual. A police matter not a national security issue, she said.

This conveniently overlooked the two cabinet national security committee meetings and the New York Police Department's constant dialogue with their New South Wales counterparts, not to mention Man Haron Monis's Islamic flag among other factors.

But her approach fitted an agenda to criticise the media.

The Sydney Morning Herald's John Birmingham strangely called for the return of the newsflash to replace live around-the-clock coverage, which he said had been shameful.

The media's faults are many but you only need to spend an hour on Facebook to conclude that the ensuing social media-filled vacuum would be far worse.

Birmingham's best point was the need for a protocol on how to report events like this.

Like the rules around suicide reporting, there's probably sense in developing guidelines - that balance the public's right to know - about reporting on the modern-day siege.

Agendas, prejudices and ideologies also shaped how people thought the siege should be framed.

For supporters of the government's national security agenda, it was validation of the laws.

If you were against the the government's anti-terror laws, the siege became a rallying point to argue that they shouldn't get any stronger.

Domestic violence campaigners saw it as a time to denounce how society dismissed violence against women.

Sensitivity at labelling Monis an Islamic extremist - and by extension a problem for both the Muslim and wider community to deal with - meant there was more comfort in labelling him a person living with mental illness.

But mental health is vague. I'm a reporter, and if the studies are correct, I'm surrounded by people living with mental illness.

None are ever likely to storm a cafe and take hostages, so how does throwing around the term help?

I'm also from Sydney, and Monday saw my home town change forever.

See that? I just inserted myself in to the story.

The practice of trying to connect to a large unexplainable event is ever more noticeable with social media.

During the siege, it ranged from morons taking selfies at Martin Place to some two million people tweeting in the "I'll ride with you" campaign.

Amidst this loud chaotic contest of ideas, the respect owed to the raw pain and tragedy of the real victims diminished, in my view.

Maybe this is the new norm when it comes to tragedies or maybe it's a warning on how we could deal with them better in the future.