I might have already posted about this before… I know Parker has said something similar.
I think the media should agree on a no-name policy whenever there is a school or mall shooting (or something of the same nature). The identity of the shooter should be kept completely secret from everyone who doesn’t need to know. There is a certain kind of fame attached to the people who go on these rampages. The guy who killed eight people in a mall the other day said in a note of apology, “at least I’ll be famous.”
I think the media should start sending the message, “if you do this kind of thing you will not be famous – your name will not be mentioned in any paper or on any news station. In fact, we will provide as little coverage as possible about what happened.”
Maybe there would be more downsides to such an approach than I realize, and you certainly can’t mandate this kind of thing – that would be a pretty big infringement on freedom of speech. Perhaps there could be some kind of universal agreement among all media producers.
I don’t know… I just think that if there weren’t any coverage, fewer people would shoot up schools or malls for the attention of it.
6 responses so far ↓
Micah // December 7, 2007 at 2:11 pm
How many mass shootings do you assume are done ‘for the attention of it,’ Dave?
davedack // December 7, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Well, first of all I don’t think any of them are done only for the attention of it. But I would bet that more than half of them have some element of attention-getting involved (even if that element is a very small piece of the psychologically troubled pie). I’m really just guessing.
Do you think it would increase or decrease the likelihood of similar events happening again if the media decreased their coverage?
P.S. I don’t want to sound like the media are creating a problem – I’m not trying to blame them for anything.
davedack // December 7, 2007 at 4:43 pm
I think I’m coming off as really insensitive to the enormous complexity and intense inner anguish involved in these things. I’m not trying to be, I’m just not able to be very good with my wording for some reason.
eric // December 7, 2007 at 5:05 pm
without research, i.e. just type it out now!, how many school shooters can you name. From columbine, Va Tech, heck even this current one. I know that I sure can’t give you the names of any of them. So do they really become famous? I don’t think giving attention or censoring these cases will have any impact on the frequency.
Micah // December 7, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I actually do agree with your premise, Dave. I may take exception with the ‘attention’ piece, I think that aspect is tertiary at best, but I don’t like the news exhaustively covering these stories. For me, though, it’s because they feel like so many carrion birds just feasting on the anguish and misery of other people. The anchors sit formally and ask for moments of silence but the media outlets do nothing to help the situation. They just seem to feed on the carcasses to me, and that’s the bit that frosts my cupcakes about the whole thing.
christy // December 8, 2007 at 4:35 pm
The V Tech shooter sent photos of himself with all of his guns and a diatribe to NBC, so there was a certain amount of desire to be known and recognize for the acts he was about to commit. NBC posted one of the photos on their homepage and there was an immediate outcry and it was then removed. It is very tempting for tv news to use strong visuals like the photos he took because it delivers viewers which drives their bottom line. However, news media has an ethical responsibility to self monitor, which they do with every photo and story they run, and they also respond to the vocal outcry of their viewers. If, as viewers, we act on our complaint and hold the media accountable to stronger ethics, they will respond because don’t want to jeopardize losing their viewers. I am less inclined to have the govt dictate that behavior.