Is the Media largely to blame for mass shootings? Based upon the fact that they give posthumous glory and fame to psychotically deranged individuals? Before the media made such a sensation out of such events, these types of shootings were rare.
25 largest mass shootings. Note the oldest is from 1949
I’m inclined to blame the asshole who pulls the trigger.
I’m inclined to blame those who make it so easy for the asshole to get a gun.
yeah, about half of those are 1999 and before…
I don’t know where the “glory” part comes from. Infamy, sure, but glory?
Yeah, me neither. If you’re going to blame the media, you’re going to have to show some evidence that a significant number of the shooters were actually motivated by the media attention.
It’s possible that some of the shooters wouldn’t have done what they did if they hadn’t gotten the idea from hearing about other incidents; but I think you neither can nor should censor media coverage and prevent people from knowing about incidents.
no, the blame largely rests on the person who thinks it’s a great idea to take other people’s lives for no particular reason.
any secondary blame lies with our collective stigma towards mental illness and the concomitant lack of options for those with mental illnesses (or those who have kids with mental illnesses.)
I don’t think the media coverage helps when it comes to some people who want to go out “in a blaze of glory” and “be remembered” like Charles Bishop did in Tampa. But I don’t think squelching media coverage is going to make anything better. When something happens, it’s their job to report it.
Tim McVeigh killed 168 people and maimed 600 more all at once, and without a single bullet.
When someone hates people enough to kill them, I think media coverage isn’t really at the forefront of his mind.
I blame the guys firing the guns.
False. Just look at Wikipedia. The recurring themes are romantic problems and arguments with school authorities.
I would say yes, and think the media needs to stop covering mass shootings. I would be okay with them quickly mentioning that it happened, but creating a massive frenzy after a shooting is giving the perp exactly what he(Why is it always a he?) wants.
The OKC bombing was planned over WEEKS and took that long to prepare. No one can do that kind of bombing on a whim. Not the case with guns. If we could make it AT LEAST just as difficult to do them with guns, I’d consider that progress.
I agree, the media doesn’t help but seeing as how these kind of shootings have become routine, media coverage of them is going to be less and less sensational. This latest one in Maryville has gotten about the LEAST coverage yet. As a matter of fact, in the coverage I saw, after the initial news, most broadcasts were still devoting most of their time to Ebola.
It’s hard to say that I blame the media exactly - clearly the blame rests with the people who do these things.
However, I do believe that there are unstable people who are going to do something crazy. They have a whole range of options they might choose to express that craziness. And I think the temptation of being talked about non-stop for a week around the world is a pretty attractive idea for someone who’s already on the verge of suicide. So I think it’s fair to say that the media can be blamed for rewarding a specific expression of the pre-existing craziness.
I say we blame the media anyway.
As mentioned upthread, mass killings predate our media culture. This shotgun massacre took place in 1915, with 8 dead and 32 wounded.
(The other “Brunswick massacre” mentioned at the start was the 2009 killing of 8 people in a trailer park- who were beaten to death).
The media reports on things that get ratings and sell ads. We as a society tune in to things like mass shooting coverage in big numbers for any number of reasons. Morbid curiosity, the fact that we all like a good righteous indignation now and then, whatever. But as noted a few times already, mass shootings pre-date the 24 hour news cycle, and I doubt that any of them have been perpetrated by some idiot doing it because he wants to end up featured on all the news channels.
TV sports broadcasts stopped showing dumbasses that ran out on the field in the middle of a game years ago because they didn’t want to encourage that type of behavior. And yet, somebody still runs out on the field in the middle of a game from time to time. Go figure.
The first 24 hour news network started in 1980. Only 2 of the 25 deadliest single day mass shootings in that article were earlier than that.
Some people consider them interchangeable. Consider Herostratus, who destroyed the Temple of Artemis back in 356 BC. Something that was rather before the existence of the mass media I point out.
And his attempt to gain fame worked despite it being made punishable to mention him with death; I rather doubt that modern attempts to keep people from seeking infamy will work any better.
But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument.”
…because its a LOT easier to lock up reporters than to have dumb-asses lock up their guns. :dubious:
A lot of people might complain about this, but personally, I think its time.