Newsmedia giving lunatics' "manifestos" a public platform

In My Humble Opinion
1

I guess it’s “news,” but it sickens me when one of these lunatics goes on a rampage, and the so-called “manifesto” he* left behind is given so much public exposure. Yeah, people are curious, and when someone commits a shocking, heinous act of public murder, there is a dark curiosity to know what was in his mind. But when the videos, pictures, and web sites are given so much publicity… doesn’t this play into future lunatics’ desire for recognition-- even posthumous recognition? “They’ll remember me!” “They’ll know who I am!” “They snubbed me, but now they’ll never forget me!”

I’m not saying (get it: NOT saying) that the advance knowledge that their personal/political statements will likely receive tons of publicity actually **motivates ** or causes the killers to go off on a rampage. ***NOT **saying that. *But what if a potential lunatic killer KNEW that his personal statement of why he did it would spend one day on the front page and then vanish or that his “manifesto” would never be seen by the general public? What if he knew that his goal of infamy would never be realized?

The story would not disappear, of course, because the stories have immense impact on the victims and on the community. I’m only talking about the personal statements of the killers-- their video/photo tale of how they were wronged, or what crimes they felt they were avenging, or what historical movement they feel they have joined themselves to. Does THIS part of the story need so much coverage? Isn’t that exactly what the killer(s) want? Do we need to satisfy their need for recognition by GIVING it to them?

I was watching an old episode of Lou Grant on Hulu the other day. A gunman came into the city room and held Lou and the other staff hostage for a day (or maybe two-- I can’t remember). Lou and Charlie (the managing editor) were excited when it was all over, because they got the ultimate scoop on the story-- no other paper had all the intimate, gory details. But the publisher Mrs. Pynchon ultimately decided not to cover the story in depth. The guys were sorely disappointed, as it was their job 1) to sell papers by 2) giving The Public what it wants: sensational details, whether newsworthy or not. Mrs. P had the big picture in mind: morally and ethically, we can’t give these destructive, publicity-seeking criminals the platform they want. If we do, they are STILL holding us hostage.

Anyone else creeped out by the practice of giving these killers the posthumous platform they want by playing their videos, showing their photo collections, linking to their websites?

*I say “he,” because up to now, they’ve been male. I don’t say men, because they’re not men by my definition of a man.

2

Here’s a relevant Wall Street Journal article from Nov. 2013 saying that publicity encourages these kinds of mass killers:

“What Mass Killers Want—And How to Stop Them: Rampage shooters crave the spotlight, and we should do everything possible to deprive them of it.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303309504579181702252120052

3

I was on Reddit this morning, and some guy had posted his deep thoughts about the manifesto. While he made sure to state that he’d never shoot up a churchful of people (by golly!), he expressed agreement with the manifesto. It was clear he didn’t think that Roof was off his rocker as some people have portrayed him.

We need to decide how we’re going to portray these homegrown (read white) mass shooters. Roof is either a deranged lunatic guided only by his idiosyncratic delusions. Or he’s a fighter of an ideological cause. Deranged lunatics don’t write manifestos. They smear feces on the wall and howl at the moon. Manifestos are written by political terrorists (or revolutionaries, depending on one’s perspective). So folks need to make up their minds about what Roof is and stop treating him like he’s both.

4

I do see some signs that the media, as a whole, is struggling for a balance between making maximum (profitable) hay from incidents like these and failing to do their job as informers of the public. There are outliers, but the major media seem to have dialed back the lurid over-coverage of the killers, the scene, the weapons, the victims and so forth that turn it from news coverage into a Hollywood film script. And they tend to shut up fairly quickly instead of making headlines out of nothing much for days.

But there’s no question that incidents like this are as viral as a cat video, and promoting them tends to spark copycats and other unstable types. So maybe there is further dialing-back to be considered.

5

If you’re saying that there should be some sort of official policy that the news media, in all its myriad forms, should not be permitted to address the writings or manifestos of criminals, then I strongly disagree. That’s nothing more than censorship, plain and simple, and an affont to the freedom of the press. It’s up to the publishers of news on an independent basis to decide whether they want to give the story airtime or print space or web exposure.

Even on a less official level of whether the words of killers should be put out there or discussed or not, I still disagree with censoring it. We don’t censor Mein Kampf, or 120 Days of Sodom, or The Turner Diaries or any number of other ethically repugnant works. If anything, I’d say it’s worth knowing why these people think they’re right, because it better helps us understand why we know they’re wrong.

6

I’m not scared of information, even if it is the depraved inner-workings of a political terrorist.

If you are afraid of information, you are weak.

7

Um…no… I most certainly did not say anything like that or use the word, or even hint at the word, “official.”

“Afraid”?? You didn’t remotely come close to understanding my post. But thanks for your thoughts.

8

This is an excellent article-- thanks. From the article:

And what theater needs *to be theater *is an audience.

Dopers-- don’t take this one excerpt from the article out of context. This is NOT the whole article. So do read the whole thiing-- it’s not long, and is well worth the time.

9

But without an audience, it is impossible for bad theatre to be recognized as such.

I say it’s better to let the world see these people describe in their own words why what they think they did was right, because only by understanding their arguments can we properly refute them.

10

The supposed solutions in that article are not practical at all. The author recommends that “journalists and police” should

“Never publish a shooter’s propaganda” - How are you going to manage that? If they leave the stuff online, which these days is a given, someone will find it. If the NY Times doesn’t publish it, Drudge will. Presumably the police have nothing to do with this part - I hope.

“Hide their names and faces” - OK, so we have arrested someone for this horrible shooting but we’re not going to tell you who it is. That won’t whet anyone’s curiosity, no, and no-one will ever go hunting for this information so they can be the first to publish it, online if not in print. And how is the shooter supposed to have a free and open trial without anyone knowing the name? As for the face, that would be great if it were possible, but it won’t be.

“Don’t report on biography or speculate on motive” - I can agree on not speculating on motive absent evidence (and good luck with that). But if you can’t keep the name quiet, how are you going to prevent some enterprising investigative reporter from hunting down the family and friends, and getting their story?

There’s more, I could go on, but at every point the “solutions” provided by this article are admirable but completely impractical in the real world. He is comparing reducing publicity on mass killings to reducing publicity on public suicides, without ever noticing that they are completely different dynamics.

11

It’s the nature of the beast; squelch it and then be confronted with the argument of “where to draw the line?,” give it full coverage and “you’re encouraging others to do the same.”

I say as a general rule let the sunshine in by letting everything be exposed/made known and then pray that 100% of the population has a built-in firewall that doesn’t let their anger and other emotions get the best of them by picking up where the original SOB left off, as the tit-for-tat game going on in the world is killing us all!

It’s all problematic, to say the least. But like I posted a few minutes ago in another thread, try and not forget that Satan is in the world and he knows human nature and plays our emotions and egos like the hate-filled maestro that he is. (Take away his power by following the magnanimous and amazing example of many of those folks in South Carolina by praying and not going along with some of the angry big-mouths that are like pied pipers doing the Devil’s bidding.)

12

Not the first time this has been brought up, but pretty well put.

13

Good one, kaylasdad99!

Somehow the news media outlets need to find a balance between reporting what people need to know about the killer and delivering to him exactly OTT the level of sensational publicity he wanted and which at least partially motivated him. As in my Lou Grant example, it is the publisher or the equivalent who is responsible for exercising this judgment. I’m not advocating censorship and certainly not government intervention. I’m advocating responsible journalism. And, yeah, someone in the internet will put the info up anyway, but that doesn’t relieve each outlet of the need to act responsibly.

I don’t know the solution.

14

I agree to a certain extent. We don’t want to give the killers the spotlight that they want. But it’s important to see that some of them don’t live in a vacuum. Racism isn’t dead, there’s still work to be done. Most racists won’t go out and purposely murder people, but they can still cause damage. I’d rather acknowledge where it came from, than pretend that this was a total isolated incident.

Same with the 2014 Isla Vista killings. I don’t like that killer’s manifesto getting a spotlight, since that’s what he wanted. But it helps shine a spotlight on the rampant misogyny that’s out there.

15

If you try to minimize the public’s exposure to the bullshit that Roof wrote, you make it easier to deny his obvious motives. If nothing he said or wrote is ever reported, people could speculate that he was motivated by a personal slight or was just crazy. If his motives were described but his words were hidden, you’d have people claiming that the media was exaggerating or there was a conspiracy. I think the most responsible thing the media can do is publish quotes from his manifesto and photos of him with the confederate flag.

White supremacy is out there whether the media reports on it or not. And the only thing that avoiding thoroughly detailing Roof’s motives will accomplish is allowing people to pretend that it isn’t. If the consequence of that is he gets a little thrill as he sits in his cell while awaiting justice, so be it.

16

That’s NOT the ONLY thing. There’s more to it than that. The assurance that their hateful, misguided, destructive voices will be heard motivates the killers, according to the Wall Street Journal article cited above: "Rampage shooters crave the spotlight, and we should do everything possible to deprive them of it."So it’s not just a “little thrill” after the fact; it’s the anticipation of the thrill that is ONE of the motivating factors of the next one.

Okay… imagine the following. Note: I’m saying IMAGINE. I’m not saying this is possible or something the news media should do. Got that: I’m NOT advocating this.

But just imagine if the next disgruntled racist hater knew ahead of time that his personal history and his web site/manifesto/photo collection would NEVER get out to the public after his rampage. What if he KNEW for a fact that the news would report his name, age, the specifics of his crime, and a general statement like, “Joe Bloke left documents, which stated that his motivation was hatred of black people/Christians/Muslims/vegetarians/rich people/poor people/whatever” reported in the most general, non-sensational way possible. IOW that his screaming technicolor rants would never be heard by the public.

Just imagine it. Yeah, there’s no way, because even if the New York Times didn’t report it on the front page, someone would… I know, I know. It just makes me sick that 1) the killers get exactly the publicity they want, and 2) the next killer knows that he will, too.

Like I said, I don’t have the solution.

17

As you said, there’s no way this could happen with how things are currently. Even if they knew 100% that no major news media publications would cover the manifesto, they would hope that it would get out through Twitter and Reddit and blogs.

But even if they knew 100% that their manifestos would never get out, and therefore decided not to go do a massacre to get attention, it’s not like they’ll be living normal, productive lives. Hypothetical racist Angry Joe might not go shoot up a church for attention, but all his racist anger will keep building in him, and he might go to work and shoot his black co-worker and then some other people because of imagined offenses. Or shoot a Mexican guy who started dating a girl Joe has a crush on and shoot the girl that rejected him. And in this hypothetical world, Joe’s actions seem more random and like he just snapped. I don’t know in which world, our current one or the hypothetical one where the manifestos are no published, there are fewer murders and less racism.

Obviously I want there to be fewer murders to happen. And I do agree that things could be less sensationalized. More talk should be over racism and guns and what to do, and not thousands of articles about every single part of the killer’s life. But I think that worrying about the manifestos being published is a side issue that wouldn’t make much difference.

18

Paranoid, delusional lunatics write letters (cf. David “Son of Sam” Berkowitz).

19

In that scenario, people will be able to go on pretending that white supremacy died out not too long after the 60s and the racists that do commit violent acts do so as lone nuts totally divorced from any larger movement.

With this guy’s manifesto out there, no one having an honest discussion can do that. That’s probably what he wanted. But unlike him, we know that his ideas don’t stand up to the scrutiny of reasonable minds. So publishing his writing gets more individuals past the stage of denying or debating whether there’s a problem.

20

As I said somewhere upthread, I believe the bare bones content of his manifesto/motivation definitely should be shared with the public. But it shouldn’t be played over and over and over in every news outlet, all over the internet, 24/7, in full screaming technicolor, with pictures of the guy in his costumes, blahblahblah.

I’m not advocating censoring the news or failing to tell the public what it needs to know. I’m advocating responsible journalism, which deprives the killer of the immense publicity he craves. I’m saying dial back the sensationalism and shock effect, while still conveying the message.

I know it’s not gonna happen.