Your cite seems to have less to do with naming the individual and more to do with the fact that news coverage of a shooting in general inspires copycats. Unless you’re proposing a total newas blackout on all violent crimes, I don’t see how that’s going to change.
Like I said above I’d prefer to know the details but even law enforcement agencies are in favor of eliminating the use of names. Here’s another article on why you’ll see shooters names intentionally withheld in most news coverage any more.
To a certain extent you’re correct it’s social science so there are no exact answers. Unfortunately this leads the fearful to do something that makes them feel better but won’t work rather than do the difficult work that might make a difference. There are more non-gun murders in the US per capita than total murders per capita in the UK but no one wants to solve the issue of why we kill so much
Saying the names of killers is real low on my list of problems with the way the media sensationalizes crime. Naming them is just basic journalism. Creating names for them is rank tabloidism. I guess it’s helpful to have a name of sorts for an unidentified killer, but once they have been identified, there is no reason to keep referring to them by their comic book supervillain names like Night Stalker or BTK.
I liked how Paul Harvey handled it on his radio show decades ago. After talking about a killer, he would end the story with, “the shooter would like us to tell you his name. Page two.” And then go to the commercial break.
I actually think the media handle it relatively well, but maybe it’s just because I only see the major news networks, not local news?
I mean, they’ll mention the name, but not dwell on the photo, showing the victims photos more, and interview the victims’ families and bystanders more than people who knew the killer. And if the killer left a manifesto or whatever, they usually just say it was white supremacy or Islamic terrorism and not actually read the thing.
Again, in my view, I don’t agree that the media handling is anywhere near to a primary cause.
I can’t be the only one who doesn’t remember most of these names anyway. Once you start getting two mass shootings a week, how can you even keep up with them? I often can’t even remember the cities they happen in after a couple of weeks. The last two that I can recall, all I could say about the shooters names was one was a European type name and one was an Arabic type name. I have no idea what the actual names are or even how many people they shot.
If we can’t say the names we’ll be saying “hmm, hmm, hmm” has been charged with murder. Like Edith Bunker and the Cling Peaches in heavy syrup.
Or the Crash Test Dummies.
Sorry for the hijack, but I LOVE THAT EPISODE! 555-3152 yeah!
I’d not thought about the heavy syrup routine in years. I always loved that one. Thanks for that reminder although I didn’t watch the linked vid.
But it did make me think of some of the dialog. I just now noticed the name of their priest “Reverend Feltcher” is a really great joke. Not one I’d ever picked up on before.
In my defense, I was a teen through AITF’s run. And feltching wasn’t exactly common household terminology then and there.
But still a great joke!
"Now, Reverend Fletcher… "
“That’s Feltcher.”
“Whatever.”
No. In fact, saying the names of Killers may be the cause of increased school and mass shootings.
People want fame. Many people who want to die want to go out “in a blaze of glory”.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0002764217730854
Sure, a Ban by the Government isnt, except perhaps on Broadcast media.
But note the media, by and large- has agreed to stop printing the names of rape victims. Without any Government “bans”.
So it has worked, so why wont it work?
Do we say the names of rape victims or minors accused of crimes?
- Media is not national.
- Rape victims are sympathetic symbols that elicit protection, and murderers are the exact opposite.
Those names are a matter of public record and suppressing them is an affront to the rights of the press, the public, and the accused.
If you want to reduce the number of shootings, do something about the number of guns.
Can we not turn this into a gun control debate?
Moderator Note
Gun control is a rather deep topic. I don’t have a problem with this statement in the thread but let’s not take it any further than this. We have enough to discuss here already. Let’s not drag the entire overwhelming issue of gun control into this thread or the OP is going to get swamped and lost.
If you want to get into gun control that’s fine. You know where to find Great Debates.
Name the victims of rape? Srsly?
Name minors accused of crimes? Yes, that happens.
What either has to do with what you replied to is a mystery to me.
No, not “Srsly”?
We dont do that. And the media doesnt do that by general agreement, no law has been passed, afaik.
We dont name minors, unless charged as adults.
The thing is, the media has voluntarily agreed not to name certain people involved with crimes. The media could also agree not to name mass murderers.