I think ABC was wrong to air a show about the sociopath who murdered people at UC Santa Barbara.

[Clothahump]

@Hippy_Hollow

I usually confine my recreational outrage to bad commercials, but I was extremely upset with ABC’s 20/20 episode last night focusing on the misogynistic sociopath who murdered his roommates and a number of people around UC Santa Barbara. This is going to sound really anti-First Amendment of me, but I wish we would no longer name killers. Kind of like how when someone is accused of a crime, or is the victim of violent crime like rape, there’s often anonymity afforded to them. I used to think that people in national media press rooms operated on a level of common sense and decency… ABC is clearly not in that number.

Can’t argue this. Giving them their “15 minutes of fame” is feeding right into the delusional fantasies that made them go out and commit the crimes in the first place.

Unfortunately, there isn’t any anonymity awarded to people arrested for crimes. They are immediately tried and convicted in the media, which is a violation of their right to a fair trial. I think the media should be limited to reported that an arrest was made, period. No pictures, no names, no nothing. Once a conviction is obtained, then the name and pictures can be used, because by then it’s a done deal and a matter of public record.

[GusNSpot]

Two points:

1. They are crazy, not stupid. Guns shows? They would not last long enough & they know it. These folks are not defenseless kids but armed adults who’s weapons are unloaded but they know how to load them & would do so I think.

2. The World Cup already does this. They broadcast the announcer who says that a spectator is being a naughty person but they will not broadcast his picture or his name… I am sure they actually have a lot of good footage for enforcement & legal needs but they won’t just broadcast it. I think FIFA is the biggest reason behind this practice.

[Nema98]

It was beneficial to show girls the danger of what could happen if you don’t put out for every guy who asks for it. Virginity could be deadly!

[Isilder]

well the show does work to say “people who murder other people are remembered as being crazy !”

[Guinastasia]

@Octarine

I agree that the media focus on the mass shooters is one of the main motivations for these individuals in the first place. I read something a while back - I forget what it was - that made the argument that the opposite of love isn’t hate; it’s indifference. If you hate someone, at least you care.

There’s a reason so many of the school shootings we’ve seen end with the final casualty being the perpetrator. Many of the shooters are people who otherwise would have just committed suicide, but then realized that if they take other people out with them when they go, people around the world will know about them. They’ll be famous. Sure, they can’t hope to ever achieve positive fame - write a bestselling novel, record a great album, discover a cure to a disease - but this is a way to make sure that, in some small, horrible way, their name won’t be forgotten.

Do you honestly believe that the concept of a murder suicide is a new thing? :dubious:

[Magiver]

@monstro

There was nothing about Rodger that distinguished him from the millions of other troubled people who never turn into mass shooters, though. There were no warning signs that his parents missed or hand-waved away. They did all the “right” things (if we are to believe the father…and I do). And unlike many people, they had the financial means to put him in intensive therapy and move him around to different schools. These were not neglectful parents.

I disagree with these statements. He was in therapy since the age of 9 and had all kinds of bizarre run-ins with people. Read the “earlier incidences” section of wikisite on him.

@monstro

So the parents get him involuntarily committed for two weeks. Elliot says all the right things and he’s released. Then what?

It’s damn near impossible to get someone locked up. They have to be in the middle of a psychotic episode babbling to themselves before it will happen. I’ve known parents who tried unsuccessfully. what happens after the kid turns 18 is so frustrating there isn’t any way to really express it in this thread.

[monstro]

@Magiver

I disagree with these statements. He was in therapy since the age of 9 and had all kinds of bizarre run-ins with people. Read the “earlier incidences” section of wikisite on him.

I don’t know what you could possibly be disagreeing with me about. Unless you think Elliot Rodger is the only young person who is well-acquainted with a psychiatrist’s office. With the prevalence of ADD diagnoses in the millenial generation, having a shrink is pretty darn common.

And the fact that he was in therapy at such an early age indicates that his parents were not in denial, that they knew something was wrong with him.

If you have evidence that the parents didn’t do all they could to help this kid, I’d like to see it.

[BigT]

I still don’t think the guy killed for notoriety. He killed for his cause, the thing he ranted about in his videos. He was punishing these people for being “evil” to him. I don’t think he even considered the idea that his name would be on the news or that there would be specials about him.

I’m not saying no one ever kills for notoriety. That’s why Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy, for example. But I don’t think it fits here, and I don’t think people will see the talk about him and think they want the same thing. I don’t think you have to be all that rational to realize that you won’t reap the notoriety if you are dead. The killers who want notoriety will be like Oswald and try to get away with it, not shoot people in the open.

Now, if there’s more about the videos I haven’t heard (as I am absolutely not watching them), then maybe I’m wrong and he did want to be (in)famous. But, even then, I think that cause is rare enough that we don’t need to bend over backwards to acquiesce to it.

[monstro]

BigT, why would anyone write a 141-page manifesto if they didn’t want any notoriety?

[sara20]

@Hippy_Hollow

I usually confine my recreational outrage to bad commercials, but I was extremely upset with ABC’s 20/20 episode last night focusing on the misogynistic sociopath who murdered his roommates and a number of people around UC Santa Barbara. This is going to sound really anti-First Amendment of me, but I wish we would no longer name killers. Kind of like how when someone is accused of a crime, or is the victim of violent crime like rape, there’s often anonymity afforded to them. I used to think that people in national media press rooms operated on a level of common sense and decency… ABC is clearly not in that number.

I didn’t dignify or lend them the ratings by watching the show. Really… what is to be gained by airing a cool (yes, the title card for the show was cool - reminiscent of Pacino on the Scarface poster) title card with this person’s face? Snippets of his rantings and so on? Essentially, I believe ABC has inspired some number of mentally unstable people to go for fame and immortality - maybe they’ll get a show too.

Ugh, I sound like a Pollyanna. But I’m the first to assign blame to individuals, and of course ABC isn’t responsible for profound mental illness. But it seems to be incredibly irresponsible to focus on giving this individual a post-mortem platform of any kind. I’d like to forget that he ever existed. It’s not like we haven’t had mass shooters before, and we haven’t learned a damn thing about preventing these tragedies by airing their personal stories. What I think we should do is focus on the lives lost… that’s far more compelling to me. And it might make us actually do something, to know that we’ve lost a future cheerleader, doctor, teacher, or whatever. (I’m being serious. The ordinariness of the victims is what pulls at my heartstrings.)

I know this is tantamount to shouting at windmills, and I can stop watching the shows, etc. that put forth this crap. Hey, I feel bad for the shooter’s dad, but really, I would much prefer to hear from Christopher Martinez’s dad. Sure, shooter’s dad can say some words - that’s really not the issue, it’s more the glamorization of this deeply disturbed individual. Someone that off kilter and narcissistic is not going to care that it’s “bad attention,” they’re just going to care that they might get a national TV show about their rants.

There’s an old maxim from classroom management I relied upon when I was a teacher. If you want to eradicate behavioral issues, ignore the bad stuff, and focus on the positive. We should report on events like the UC Santa Barbara shooting. But we don’t have to mention the names (as much) of the perpetrators. Or we can at least mention the victims more.

I hate the fact that I know the names Adam Lanza, Elliott Rodger, and ‎Seung-Hui Cho - but not the names of those they killed. Sure I bear some responsibility, but responsible media should, in my opinion, make that a lot less possible.

I didn’t see it on ABC, do you know what the title of the show was or if it’s on their website?

[jtur88]

I don’t think any network is ever “wrong” to present factual material that raises public awareness of anything, provided that:

a) the material is gathered and presented compliant with recognized standards of professional journalism,
b) an advisory is present warning viewers about any content that might be offensive in any way,
c) there is no material that is libelous or slanderous.
d) maybe one or two other exceptions I cant’ think right off hand, but which would be applicable regardless of anybody’s personal opinion of the subject matter…

The network might produce the show, then decline to air it for other reasons, but not because iot is “wrong” to do so, in any moral or ethical sense of the word.