Should the media help mass murderers get famous?

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

...But if you know a dangerously unstable person might be triggered by seeing another equally unbalanced nut get famous for shooting up a school, why give him extra temptation if refraining will have no impact on your understanding of the events?

So you think there are potential mass murderers waiting around to be triggered by the media. Without the media mentally unstable people would be accepting of their failures, avoid purchasing weapons, and never seek revenge. They would never filter the world's information to find the materials that support their fantasies and desires.

...And kids that like violence would never play violent video games.
...And people that like golf would never read golf magazines.
...And Christians that like God would never read the Bible.
...And scientists that like science would never read peer-reviewed journals.
...And bird-watchers that like finding more about where to see birds would never spend a lot of their time reading bird-watching message boards.
...And people that like to look snazzy at work would never go to Nordstrom's website.

It's hardly important how we acquire our information to suit our individual interests - it only matters that we have these predilections. Organizations that supply the information and entertainment we use to fulfill these interests only have an ethical duty to supply an honest product, at most.

Even accepting the argument you propose, the media cannot possibly be a causative factor as important as the individual decisions, failings, and mental issues of the perpetrator. Those are the events that might lead them to idolize a particular mass killer. You propose that the media has an ethical obligation to self-censor in order to address a symptom and not the disease.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

If dragons existed and left behind videos and notes demonstrating their obsession with murder-related fame, it would be stupid to pointlessly oblige them.

And how much would we need to change about our lives because we have a 1 in 50 million chance of getting killed by a dragon?

[Enkel]

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/20/12858757-mass-murderers-often-not-mentally-ill-but-seeking-revenge-experts-say?lite&__utma=238145375.755651232.1342743347.1342819584.1342896870.3&__utmb=238145375.3.10.1342896 870&__utmc=238145375&__utmx=-&__utmz=238145375.1342819584.2.2.utmcsr=oprah.com|utmccn=%28referral%29|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/blogs/The-Urge-to-Jump-is-the-Urge-to-Live&__utmv=238145375.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc|cover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostnam e=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=103047491

"Such well-planned attacks are rare and not meant to make a statement, Fox said. “They basically want revenge,” he said. “Contrary to the common misperception that these guys suddenly snap and go berserk, these are well-planned executions.”

[...]

The attack may encourage copycat actions but not necessarily, Fox said. “What bothers me in situations like this is to see lists of the worst mass shootings,” he said. “It encourages people to try to break records.”"

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Inbred Mm domesticus

So you think there are potential mass murderers waiting around to be triggered by the media. Without the media mentally unstable people would be accepting of their failures, avoid purchasing weapons, and never seek revenge.

Jeez, have you read anything but the OP?

...And kids that like violence would never play violent video games.
...And people that like golf would never read golf magazines.
...And Christians that like God would never read the Bible.
...And scientists that like science would never read peer-reviewed journals.
...And bird-watchers that like finding more about where to see birds would never spend a lot of their time reading bird-watching message boards.
...And people that like to look snazzy at work would never go to Nordstrom's website.

I don't know what any of that means or how it applies.

It's hardly important how we acquire our information to suit our individual interests - it only matters that we have these predilections. Organizations that supply the information and entertainment we use to fulfill these interests only have an ethical duty to supply an honest product, at most.

And I challenge the ethics of disseminating information that serves NO PURPOSE and can give motivation to a murderer. Should NBC broadcast a detailed description of how to build a bomb? What if they were honest when they did it?

Even accepting the argument you propose, the media cannot possibly be a causative factor as important as the individual decisions, failings, and mental issues of the perpetrator. Those are the events that might lead them to idolize a particular mass killer. You propose that the media has an ethical obligation to self-censor in order to address a symptom and not the disease.

I'll repeat: the media is not to blame for the rampage. One more time: The media is not to blame for the rampage. But a contributing factor does not have to be as profound as the primary factor to merit consideration. Cancer has many causes. Do we dismiss all but the primary one? There are numerous examples where killers have specifically discussed their need for the fame their planned rampage would bring them, and others who went to specific lengths to draw media attention to themselves. Who cares if withholding the names and images of mass murderers treats, as you say, the symptom and not the disease? If the symptom involves murdering 30 people I say we do whatever we reasonably can to treat the hell out of it. There's no cure for the common cold but that doesn't stop us from taking a host of drugs that mitigate the symptoms.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Gabby Giffords. Kathy Gifford was Regis Philbin's first co-host.

Well, um ... right. I guess that makes the circumstances surrounding her no longer co-hosting with Regis Philbin considerably less tragic!

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

Cancer has many causes. Do we dismiss all but the primary one?

No. But we also don't ban everything that causes cancer. A lot of medications can kill - and it's known for sure that they're going to kill people. So why do they get approved? A lot of reasons, including the fact that they may be the best option and the fact that if something helps a million people and kills a thousand, it does provide a benefit.

Who cares if withholding the names and images of mass murderers treats, as you say, the symptom and not the disease?

You can't say it treats the disease when you've acknowledged that you don't know it would do anything at all.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Marley23

And how much would we need to change about our lives because we have a 1 in 50 million chance of getting killed by a dragon?

Your odds of having been killed by James Holmes alone were greater than 1 in 50 million.
If just one mass shooting is prevented, it would be well worth the imaginary inconvenience of not being spoon-fed a murderer's name for months on end.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

Your odds of having been killed by James Holmes alone were greater than 1 in 50 million.

My odds were essentially zero since he lived and died thousands of miles away from me. I admit I'm not an actuary and I can't come up with a number that has a solid basis in data, but I think 1 in 50 million is OK as a guesstimate. Your odds of being hit by lightning are supposed to be 1 in 1 million and there are lightning storms across the country every single day. There are 300 million people in the U.S. and very few shooting rampages.

If just one mass shooting is prevented, it would be well worth the imaginary inconvenience of not being spoon-fed a murderer's name for months on end.

"I have no idea if it would work, but if it did, it would definitely be worth it!" I understand why you don't think people need this information: in a sense it's trivia. But you can't demonstrate that it would stop crazy people from doing something crazy. All things being equal, I would rather judge what I want to know instead of having the press pre-emptively make that decision. I am not opposed to that in all instances (bomb making materials, national security, names of people who might be in danger), but this isn't one of them - particularly not with all the silly exceptions you've proposed. Like I've said, it's hard to justify denying information to everybody because you think it might stop one violent lunatic from doing something terrible. That's just not a rational basis for decision making. This is not going to be huge news for months on end. The Olympics start next week. There's a civil war in Syria. There's a presidential election coming in November. There is always more news. If you find this so distressing that it's a problem for you, turn off the TV and the computer for a while.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Marley23

No. But we also don't ban everything that causes cancer.

I've said nothing about banning everything that contributes to these tragedies. Not guns, not ammunition, not explosives, not body armor, not drugs with correlations to psychotic behavior. We're talking about a single factor at virtually no cost and huge possible reward.

A lot of medications can kill - and it's known for sure that they're going to kill people. So why do they get approved? A lot of reasons, including the fact that they may be the best option and the fact that if something helps a million people and kills a thousand, it does provide a benefit.

I'm still waiting for the benefit to having a single detail that can be discreetly found on the Internet instead be splashed all over television. So far your only harm is that it's just too much bother to Google it, or that you shouldn't be expected to or something equally petty.

You can't say it treats the disease when you've acknowledged that you don't know it would do anything at all.

And we can't know a drug will work until we test it. We have to make knowledgeable and logical assumptions to determine if we think it will work based on history and available data. Then, once we've determined we can test without significant risk we proceed. The risk associated with losing constant sensationalized repetition of a killer's name is so insignificant as to be non-existent. We're talking about a no risk, high reward proposition.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

I don't know what any of that means or how it applies.

It's simple, people have things they are interested in. There is a massive amount of information and entertainment available via the cultural products captured by the term "media". People sort through this massive amount of information to get what they think is interesting. War buffs probably read mostly about the military and warfare. Isolated, mentally ill, angry, failing young males read about murderers and slaughter. You're not going to prevent them from their fascination with people who have performed the acts they fantasize about.

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

And I challenge the ethics of disseminating information that serves NO PURPOSE and can give motivation to a murderer.

It's ethical for the news to report information about an event. The more accurate and honest their reporting, the more they challenge incomplete and dishonest information, the more ethical their behavior. That's their job, no more and no less.

Here are legitimate purposes of releasing the names and faces of the perpetrators:
1) So potential witnesses may provide additional information that teaches us more about the crime.
2) So that people that lived and worked with the perpetrator take a 2nd look at how the perpetrator left their home and workspace (say...if they left a bomb in their home or in the research facility this guy worked at).
3) So that people see that the perpetrator didn't have a special face or horns or dragon wings; that complete psychopaths can look pretty normal. It personalizes it for us.
4) So that I am informed, because I have every right in the world to be completely informed about the events that occur in my community. I can turn off the TV if the coverage gets to be repetitive or too much.

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

I'll repeat: the media is not to blame for the rampage. One more time: The media is not to blame for the rampage. But a contributing factor does not have to be as profound as the primary factor to merit consideration. Cancer has many causes. Do we dismiss all but the primary one? There are numerous examples where killers have specifically discussed their need for the fame their planned rampage would bring them, and others who went to specific lengths to draw media attention to themselves. Who cares if withholding the names and images of mass murderers treats, as you say, the symptom and not the disease? If the symptom involves murdering 30 people I say we do whatever we reasonably can to treat the hell out of it. There's no cure for the common cold but that doesn't stop us from taking a host of drugs that mitigate the symptoms.

A symptom is mass murdering, a further symtom is fascination with historical murderers, and probably another symptom is buying lots of guns. The disease is progressive development of a distorted worldview justifying mass murder to avenge their personal failures. Hiding the names of perpetrators is not going to prevent the development of the disease; they will idolize Ghenghis Khan or Vikings or Hitler if they have to.

If, and I say if, because those cites you provided expressly did not support your point about fame-seeking among mass murderers. You are speaking of associations (the presence of reading materials in the environs of mass murderers) as though they are a causative factor. You are accepting the story you created from your limited understanding of the facts as truth and then proposing a question of ethics and the media. Before I am willing to be convinced that the media has an ethical consideration to ponder, I need something a little better than points of data filtered through our love to make stories from incomplete information.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Inbred Mm domesticus

It's simple, people have things they are interested in. There is a massive amount of information and entertainment available via the cultural products captured by the term "media". People sort through this massive amount of information to get what they think is interesting. War buffs probably read mostly about the military and warfare. Isolated, mentally ill, angry, failing young males read about murderers and slaughter. You're not going to prevent them from their fascination with people who have performed the acts they fantasize about.

It's not about an interested person being aware of another person or event. It's about being infamous, a grotesque celebrity known and reviled by millions.

It's ethical for the news to report information about an event. The more accurate and honest their reporting, the more they challenge incomplete and dishonest information, the more ethical their behavior. That's their job, no more and no less.

Here are legitimate purposes of releasing the names and faces of the perpetrators:
1) So potential witnesses may provide additional information that teaches us more about the crime.
2) So that people that lived and worked with the perpetrator take a 2nd look at how the perpetrator left their home and workspace (say...if they left a bomb in their home or in the research facility this guy worked at).
3) So that people see that the perpetrator didn't have a special face or horns or dragon wings; that complete psychopaths can look pretty normal. It personalizes it for us.
4) So that I am informed, because I have every right in the world to be completely informed about the events that occur in my community. I can turn off the TV if the coverage gets to be repetitive or too much.

None of these are affected by withholding names from the general public. Anyone with a personal tie to the killer will have no question as to his identity.

I'll ask again: Should NBC broadcast instructions on how to build a bomb? I could come up with a bunch of reasons for it that are at least as legitimate as those you gave above.

A symptom is mass murdering, a further symtom is fascination with historical murderers, and probably another symptom is buying lots of guns. The disease is progressive development of a distorted worldview justifying mass murder to avenge their personal failures. Hiding the names of perpetrators is not going to prevent the development of the disease; they will idolize Ghenghis Khan or Vikings or Hitler if they have to.

The symptoms of psychopathy is irrelevant here. We're talking about triggers and motivators associated with the behavior.

If, and I say if, because those cites you provided expressly did not support your point about fame-seeking among mass murderers.

The cites absolutely make the case for fame-seeking killers. Harris and Klebold wrote at length about how they wanted to make a lasting impression, about how the world would know their names and see them as god-like. They were motivated by revenge for sure, but they didn't just kill the kids who taunted them. They planned for weeks an event that would get as much attention outside their school and town as possible.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

It's about being infamous, a grotesque celebrity known and reviled by millions.

The reason they become infamous is because people are fascinating, grotesque as that may be, by stuff like this.

Anyone with a personal tie to the killer will have no question as to his identity.

And the shooting will be front page, top story news on every channel and anyone interested around the world will Google the name. So there will be plenty of attention to crime and the killer. But for some reason if the name is not in print or on TV, that'll deter these attacks. This is really a nonsense argument.

I could come up with a bunch of reasons for it that are at least as legitimate as those you gave above.

I very much doubt that.

We're talking about triggers and motivators associated with the behavior.

We're talking about things you think are triggers and motivators. Where did you get your psychology degree again?

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Marley23

The reason they become infamous is because people are fascinating, grotesque as that may be, by stuff like this.

Doesn't change the fact that massive news coverage will be the primary vehicle to achieve that fame.

And the shooting will be front page, top story news on every channel and anyone interested around the world will Google the name. So there will be plenty of attention to crime and the killer. But for some reason if the name is not in print or on TV, that'll deter these attacks. This is really a nonsense argument.

Knowing you'll be Googled is a far cry from knowing every news anchor and talk show host in the country will be saying your name for months at least, that they'll be showing your picture while the President speaks at your crime scene.

I very much doubt that.

Watch me:

-Parents might be tipped off if they recognize those parts in their kid's rooms. Same for neighbors on the look-out for potential terrorists.
-Law enforcement could be assisted if more people could spot a bomb.
-Would raise awareness about how easy it is for average people to build a bomb, enabling us to better protect ourselves.

And, of course, your favorite:

-I have a right to know. Plus, it's on the Internet anyway.

We're talking about things you think are triggers and motivators. Where did you get your psychology degree again?

I don't need a psychology degree to read the evaluations from those who do... or the killers own words.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Marley23

And the shooting will be front page, top story news on every channel and anyone interested around the world will Google the name. So there will be plenty of attention to crime and the killer. But for some reason if the name is not in print or on TV, that'll deter these attacks. This is really a nonsense argument.

My point as well would be that resposible new sites, the largest of which are subsidiaries of the mainstream print and broadcast media, would follow suit. Plus, the number of people motivated enough to search it would be quite a bit smaller than those having it drilled in by relentless new coverage. The fame achieved from inclusion on blogs and lesser-trafficked news sites wouldn't be even close to what it is today.

[bobot]

It dosen't matter. Fame dosen't change what happened, which is what matters. Whether famous or not, the victims' status is unchanged. The victims are what matters. Just like when the media refer to tyrannical dictators and such by their first name... so what? Weird, yes, but insubstantial considering the human cost, which is all that matters. I don't care if the movie theater shooter "gets famous".

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by bobot

It dosen't matter. Fame dosen't change what happened, which is what matters. Whether famous or not, the victims' status is unchanged. The victims are what matters. Just like when the media refer to tyrannical dictators and such by their first name... so what? Weird, yes, but insubstantial considering the human cost, which is all that matters. I don't care if the movie theater shooter "gets famous".

What should concern you is the possibility that there's some borderline psychopath out there seeing how famous Holmes is becoming and thinking "that could be me." Or even worse, "I can do better than that." That's the point of this debate.

[bobot]

"Should the media help mass murderers get famous?"

Your thread title, not mine.

Fame means nothing to the people affected by this tragedy.
It's one of, if not the sole, most meaningless aspects of what just happened.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by bobot

"Should the media help mass murderers get famous?"

Your thread title, not mine.

Can I assume you think "To Kill a Mockingbird" is a bird hunting manual?

[bobot]

Sure. You can assume anything you want, if it suits you.
Peace
Just my 2 cents

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

My point as well would be that resposible new sites, the largest of which are subsidiaries of the mainstream print and broadcast media, would follow suit. . . .

During the O.J. Simpson trial, one network (if memory serves) tried not broadcasting daily gavel-to-gavel coverage. They were trying, perhaps heroically, to wean Americans from this absurd diet of pseudo-dramatic pablum.

The result? Their ratings plunged. Americans just changed to channels that did give the coverage.

It's our fault. We like this crap.

The only way it could work would be by legislative coercion.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

During the O.J. Simpson trial, one network (if memory serves) tried not broadcasting daily gavel-to-gavel coverage. They were trying, perhaps heroically, to wean Americans from this absurd diet of pseudo-dramatic pablum.

The result? Their ratings plunged. Americans just changed to channels that did give the coverage.

It's our fault. We like this crap.

The only way it could work would be by legislative coercion.

No doubt. I have no illusuions. I work in a television newsroom everyday. As much as at least a few are conflicted, it's well out of their hands.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

Knowing you'll be Googled is a far cry from knowing every news anchor and talk show host in the country will be saying your name for months at least, that they'll be showing your picture while the President speaks at your crime scene.

I don't know why you are so fixated on the name specifically. Even if the name is redacted from coverage, the shooting will be national news, the president will speak at the crime scene, and so on and so on. And the name will be all over the web regardless. I would think that would still give the lunatic the satisfaction of knowing he'd made a splash. You have no basis for concluding that this tweak would prevent even one shooting spree. There's no basis to even suggest it. You are making some very big assumptions about the motives and logic of people who are violently insane.

-Parents might be tipped off if they recognize those parts in their kid's rooms. Same for neighbors on the look-out for potential terrorists.

People don't need to know the ingredients of a bomb for this.

-Law enforcement could be assisted if more people could spot a bomb.

Law enforcement can already do its own job and dealing with tons of false bomb reports will not help them.

-Would raise awareness about how easy it is for average people to build a bomb, enabling us to better protect ourselves.

This makes no sense at all and is counterproductive.

-I have a right to know. Plus, it's on the Internet anyway.

I don't think you do have a right to have the TV news broadcast bomb-making instructions, actually. I'd love to hear your explanation for how that falls into your right to know. I think it's pretty easy to make the case that the public needs to be informed about crimes and criminal trial proceedings since that's fundamental to our justice system. We have a strong presumption against things like secret trials, and unfortunately, John Mace is correct that you're arguing for something that points in that direction. My argument isn't so much that we need to know the names of people who do crazy things like this, it's that this should be the public's decision to make and not the decision of the press (particularly since I find your reasoning to have very little credibility) and that our commitment to an open society and the interests of 300 million people getting their news is more important than your fear that a couple of maniacs will want to get on the news by killing people.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Well yes, but the only information I'm suggesting that the news agencies voluntarily withhold is the name and photo of the accused. Just don't give his name notoriety. I'm sure it will get out via other means to those who really really want to know. That's fine. but don't splash his name and photo in huge font across the front page.

If the public does not get his name and photo blasted at them from the media 24/7 for the next 5 days, I don't think that the essential well being of the public will be damaged, or that they will be unsafe for not knowing his name, or that the justice system will be called into disrepute because CNN is not showing his picture every 10 minutes.

I don't get this. You don't think there should be any sort of legislative change, you just want people to up and start behaving the way you think they should behave, all on their own. If we're going to sit around wishing that people would just voluntarily act better, why not wish that people wouldn't go around shooting each other?

Anyway, the whole idea seems pointless, unless you're going to cover up the fact that a crime happened at all. I don't remember, off the top of my head, the name of the guy at Virgina Tech, or the two losers at Columbine, or the farmer in the '20s who loaded his truck with dynamite and scrap metal and blew up a school. They're fresh in my head now, because I've just read their names in this thread, but if you'd asked me yesterday, I might have been able to come up with the name of one of the Columbine shooters. I don't think I'm entirely atypical in that regard. They're still famous, though, through their actions, if not their names. Columbine is synonymous with violent mass murder because of Klebold and Harris. For people with that sort of mentality, that's likely fame enough. I don't think the fact that people around the country are talking about "the Batman Shooter" is a sufficiently lesser plateau of fame to dissuade someone like Holmes from being a killer. There's certainly a rich enough history of criminals becoming famous while deliberately obscuring their identities: Jack the Ripper, the Zodiac Killer, &c. Anonymity is not a proven dissuasion for attention-seeking psychopaths.

[Stanislaus]

Originally Posted by Miller

I don't get this. You don't think there should be any sort of legislative change, you just want people to up and start behaving the way you think they should behave, all on their own.

What's so strange about that? Plenty of industries have codes of practice or codes of ethics that are effectively binding without being based in legislation.

In fact, just such a code of practice for the reporting of mass-murders has been suggested by Dr Park Dietz:

Dr Park Dietz is America's leading forensic psychiatrist, and he has extensively interviewed many of the country's most notorious mass murderers, from Jeffrey Dahmer to Andrea Yates. His research found that, in a country the size of the US, "saturation-level news coverage of mass murder causes, on average, one more mass murder in the next two weeks".

Originally Posted by sugested guidelines

"If you don't want to propagate more mass murders...
Don't start the story with sirens blaring.
Don't have photographs of the killer.
Don't make this 24/7 coverage.
Do everything you can not to make the body count the lead story.
Not to make the killer some kind of anti-hero.
Do localise this story to the affected community and as boring as possible in every other market. "

Now, I don't see any reason why the media couldn't choose to report in such a way. The news (that a lot of people have been killed by a nutter) still gets out. There's no question of stealth-totalitarianism preventing people from knowing what's happening in the world. It's simply a question of choosing to present the information in a way that minimises the likelihood of the event being a catalyst for other dangerously mentally ill people.

[Stanislaus]

This is just one of those bizarre coincidences:

Trooper Phil Alexander stopped Timothy Courtois, 49, for doing 112 mph on the Maine Turnpike in York Sunday morning, authorities said. Motorists had reported seeing a speeding Mustang with its flashers on.

Upon pulling him over, Alexander found an assault rifle, four handguns and several boxes of ammunition, they said. Also found inside his car were recent news clippings of the mass shooting at the Colorado movie theater, police said.

The guns that we found in the car were reported to be similar to what the shooter in Colorado had. He had an assault rifle, a tactical shotgun, four handguns, a newspaper with the Colorado shooting as the headline story," Alexander said.

Courtois also told authorities that he was on his way to Derry, N.H., to shoot a former employer

[PrettyVacant]

It's a copycat, except this one wanted to be caught before he killed anyone?

[Stanislaus]

Originally Posted by PrettyVacant

It's a copycat, except this one wanted to be caught before he killed anyone?

He was pulled over for speeding. Not sure how intentional that was.