A good deal of gun-control activists leap at the keyboards when a mass shooting takes place.
(for understandable reason, of course)
In the big picture, mass shootings arent really a problem. They are a tiny % of the overall murder rate. And you can talk about and show the issue without mentioning the name of the shooter, just like you can have a news article about a rape without telling the name of the victim.
And they “benefit” … how?
*Perhaps *there are other motivations at work.
Yes, you are so right, which is why the media still reports the names of rape victims, because there’s no law stopping them…oh wait…:rolleyes:
In post #140 I think I explained why the guidelines for reporting suicide might not apply to the reporting of mass murder.
Keeping in mind that any such restriction is voluntary, if being the first to get the name of a rape victim out could cause the ratings to jump, what do you think would happen?
What are the rates of new gun purchases following mass shootings over the last few decades?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the folks who are a’feared of tighter gun control would be less inclined to run out and by a gun now that Trump is not pushing gun control the way Obama was.
“We are keeping the name of the victim private out of sympathy for the victim’s family and friends” can actually make a news station look good.
“We are keeping the name of the mass murderer private out of sympathy for the murderer’s family and friends”?
Not so much.
We are keeping the name of the mass murderer private as we don’t wish to glorify this murderous piece of human waste.
ISTM that most of the perpetrators of the mass shootings die either during or right after the incident. Thus, they gain no notoriety when their name is published.
The results of describing the graphic carnage of such an incident is going to be the same whether or not the shooter’s name is revealed. Everybody remembers what happened at Sandy Hook or Vegas, but remembering the names of the shooters is probably a bit more difficult.
And they turn to the channel that doesn’t do this, the one that says “We don’t protect the names of murderers like that other station, because you have the right to know!”
And they turn to the channel that doesn’t do this, the one that says “We don’t protect the names of rape victims like that other station, because you have the right to know!”:dubious:
Already covered, remember? you can get sympathy(and ratings) for protecting victims-not so much for protecting mass murderers.
You’re not protecting mass murderers. :rolleyes: You are **protecting the American public from more such tragedies.
**
The news director that takes this tack will be fired when viewers go elsewhere, and her replacement will rescind the order, so sayeth the stockholders.
Yeah, because of course when* you* dont hear the actual name of a mass shooter, *you *wont watch that channel anymore, right?
You’re making some pretty big assumptions about the behaviors of a lot of people. Just sayin’.
Ever hear the phrases “The Firstest with the Mostest” and “If it bleeds, it leads”? News departments are expected to bring in the bucks nowadays, and the stockholders want the news department to make money, so news departments do what it takes to draw the viewers in.
Like the names of rape victims?
So, answer my question, if **your **preferred news venue wont name the mass killer, will you switch to another?
I wouldnt care.
If anyone can think of a way to implement a “no-name” policy that will convince The Media Powers That Be they that won’t take a soaking when it comes to viewers, that their non-participating competitors won’t profit from such a move, I would love to hear it.