- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Should the media sensationalize (glorify?) mass shooters?
Mass shootings seem to be increasing in frequency. As a matter of policy, not law, the media usually refrains from reporting suicides, so the precedent of self-policing is already there. Should the media adopt the same policy regarding mass shootings?
It seems that many mass shooters believe they will become famous, though most never do beyond a few days after their event. Would lack of media attention possibly discourage potential mass shooters?
The premise of the question presumes a voluntary policy shift from the media, not a legal restriction (and, yes, the 1st Amendment would preclude a legal restriction).
I'm sure they don't, but they don't get to choose how other people see it.I doubt if the media sees it as "glorifying" the mass shooter, anymore than "glorifying" an errant jet pilot when reporting an airline crash. Perhaps the headline "suicidal loser seeks high body count in lame attempt to gain fame" would make you happier.
Correct.This subject (IMO) is not about freedom of the press, its more about journalistic integrity, and ratings. The whole point of for profit new media is to get good ratings. What gets stations good ratings? Sensationalism. Mass shootings and tragedies bring amazing ratings to news stations. I suspect many journalists believe that covering over and over again the shooter of these tragedies probably isnt the most honorable thing to do, but they do it anyways because they know that their jobs depend on it.
I doubt if the media sees it as "glorifying" the mass shooter, anymore than "glorifying" an errant jet pilot when reporting an airline crash. Perhaps the headline "suicidal loser seeks high body count in lame attempt to gain fame" would make you happier.
Correct.
But, if the premise is true, then doesn't that make the media complicit in future mass shootings?
Not legally complicit, but morally complicit.
Morally? That is a very good question. I do believe that when people who partake in these shootings see the media covering the shooter, many of them see that "oh i can be famous if I do this", so therefore they do this. Does this make the media morally complicit is a very good touchy subject which I believe deserves discussion. Nothing gets the for profit corporate media more ratings and more $$$ than a good old fashion tragedy.
There's the old saying, "If it bleeds, it leads."... and nothing "bleeds" like a mass shooting.
I cannot say that all mass shooters have said this, but many have said or indicated beforehand the notion of becoming famous by their upcoming planned actions. But, honestly, of all the shootings we have had in the last 15+/- years, how many names of the shooters do you remember? I remember the two from Columbine, I remember the guy in Sandy Hook, but that's about it... and I'll probably forget the Sandy Hook guy before long. I don't recall the guy's name in the Aurora theater shooting, and that was high-profile and wasn't all that long ago.
My point being that Harris and Cleibold (sp?) at Columbine became famous because they shocked the country into consciousness regarding mass shootings, but everybody else is view as a forgetful copycat. Yet, these people may not view themselves as just a copycat. Then again they usually have a huge delusional thing going on anyway. So, maybe... MAYBE... if the news stops, they won't think they will be famous, and thus won't think of becoming famous... at least in that manner.
Should the media sensationalize (glorify?) mass shooters?
Mass shootings seem to be increasing in frequency. As a matter of policy, not law, the media usually refrains from reporting suicides, so the precedent of self-policing is already there. Should the media adopt the same policy regarding mass shootings?
It seems that many mass shooters believe they will become famous, though most never do beyond a few days after their event. Would lack of media attention possibly discourage potential mass shooters?
The premise of the question presumes a voluntary policy shift from the media, not a legal restriction (and, yes, the 1st Amendment would preclude a legal restriction).
Correct.
But, if the premise is true, then doesn't that make the media complicit in future mass shootings?
Not legally complicit, but morally complicit.
That would be an accurate description. I think if the media had any morals they would refer to the shooter as suicidal loser and not air the losers name or photo
I doubt if the media sees it as "glorifying" the mass shooter, anymore than "glorifying" an errant jet pilot when reporting an airline crash. Perhaps the headline "suicidal loser seeks high body count in lame attempt to gain fame" would make you happier.
I agree 100%. But then again how do we stop them from reporting on such issues? No government can cuz it would be against the 1st amendment. If anything it will be have to be up to the journalists themselves.
Should the media sensationalize (glorify?) mass shooters?
Mass shootings seem to be increasing in frequency. As a matter of policy, not law, the media usually refrains from reporting suicides, so the precedent of self-policing is already there. Should the media adopt the same policy regarding mass shootings?
It seems that many mass shooters believe they will become famous, though most never do beyond a few days after their event. Would lack of media attention possibly discourage potential mass shooters?
The premise of the question presumes a voluntary policy shift from the media, not a legal restriction (and, yes, the 1st Amendment would preclude a legal restriction).
Both excellent articles. Thank you.
Should the media sensationalize (glorify?) mass shooters?
Mass shootings seem to be increasing in frequency. As a matter of policy, not law, the media usually refrains from reporting suicides, so the precedent of self-policing is already there. Should the media adopt the same policy regarding mass shootings?
It seems that many mass shooters believe they will become famous, though most never do beyond a few days after their event. Would lack of media attention possibly discourage potential mass shooters?
The premise of the question presumes a voluntary policy shift from the media, not a legal restriction (and, yes, the 1st Amendment would preclude a legal restriction).
Try to imagine a mass shooting where none of the networks would tell you who did it. Would that be acceptable to you?
Yes it would be acceptable.They can bring attention to the tragedy without giving the suicidal pathetic social outcast loser who shot these people his 15 minutes of fame.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?