Well, here’s what Flyer said:
I certainly interpreted his comment to mean that when kids could carry guns to school, there were no shootings.
I believe that assertion has been disproved.
Just a quick look at many of the events documented show “shootings” that didn’t happen at schools, were perpetrated by police stopping a crime, were suicides, or did not involve firearms at all. Using that source, I’m not sure if anything was proven or disproved.
It’s news reporting. I don’t see any glorifying. Glorifying of guns by the NRA, yes, I see that.
This isn’t about “glorifying the shooters”-This is about “exposing the problem”. If this was about “glorifying the shooters” then they would be upset about other violent media, like television and movies. The fantasy world that actually glorifies gun use, that deliberately pushes guns as a solution, seems to be a blind spot.
‘Glorifying’ may not be the best term, but the media lavishes attention on the killer - who is he, why did he do it, what was his background and motives, etc. etc. and thus gives strong psychological motive to some people with a certain mindset to go out with a blaze of glory or achieve lifelong fame.
Take Elliot Rodger for instance. Prior to his death, nobody knew who he was; now a Google search of his name yields millions of hits and he is one of the most well-known individuals of the year 2014.
And you, presumably by the slant of your post, would prefer to not know anything?
2.4M hits, yes.
Barely-known Presidential candidate Seth Moulton, who missed the cut for next week’s Democratic debates, got 3.9 million hits.
Just providing a yardstick here.
“Death Wish”- 6,940,000 results
“Rambo”- 59,800,000 results
“No Country For Old Men”- 3,860,000 results
About that yardstick?
“yardstick” has 8,940,000 results.
“Results” has 10,810,000,000 results-Yardstick officially broken.
Do you believe the Werther effectis real and has analogues to mass shootings? The way information is reported can have an impact on the behaviors of those consuming the message. It’s not a panacea for sure, but changing the way that these events are reported has a real chance of reducing their occurrence.
What realistic solution do you propose?
The words are in English, but the message is still unclear.
I’ve got a proposal: do nothing.
These shootings have become such a frequent event that they’re only briefly making the news any more. Take the Virginia Beach shooting - a dozen people killed, and it was on and off the news in a day. Clearly the posthumous notoriety anyone can expect from being the shooter in a mass shooting is diminishing.
So any time now, we should see fewer such shootings, if the infamy that attaches to the shooter is a significant influence on the frequency of subsequent shootings.
What solution do you propose? I’m not convinced you are following what I’ve written and it’s not demonstrated by the question.
Here’s a quick fact sheet and a longer article that talk about media reporting. I’d say media guides for reporting on mass shooting similar to these may be helpful.
Voluntary guidelines that call for news departments to cut their own throats ratings-wise? Without across the board enforcement via all popular media these suggestions are useless, and with across the board enforcement you run into Freedom Of The Press problems. I noticed that your second link is to a Hong Kong study where they have different standards pertaining to Freedom Of The Press, and both of your links pertain specifically to the problem of suicide reporting.
Here’s NAMI(the leading mental health organization in the US) that basically says the same thing.
There’s no law or enforcement that blocks media from reporting the names of victims of rape either. But generally media self limits their reporting. Certainly people can find out if they seek it out, but it is clear that the way reporting is done matters. You asked for a suggestion and I’ve offered it.
There are of course those that benefit from the blood dance that is done whenever a mass shooting tragedy occurs, so of course they are motivated to sensationalize them when they happen.
The liars and manipulators benefit, no matter their political bent. This could include media figures, for whom sensationalizing can increase ratings. Amoral fundraisers and merchants/manufacturers can use these kinds of events, and hypothetical threats to rights that these kinds of events supposedly motivate, as the meat for fundraising pushes and marketing pushes to sell products.
That’s a lot of rich and powerful people motivated to sensationalize mass shootings.
Fascinating. Do please tell us who and how.
One can justify to both ones self and to one’s customers the withholding of a victim’s name and the private circumstances of her/his death out of sympathy, but you cannot use the same justification when it comes to withholding the name of a killer because we have no sympathy for killers and the events are already made public for the most part. This makes applying guidelines designed for the reporting of suicide to the reporting of mass murder rather problematic.