The one measure that most everyone agrees could help reduce mass shootings is to stop giving these assholes instant fame by plastering their names and faces all over the news.
This doesn’t seem that hard to me, and it’s an obvious step. Someone must be trying to make it happen, so what’s the problem?
Get a bunch of major advertisers to get together and tell the big media companies that if they show the faces or mention the names of mass shooters, they’ll pull advertising.
Also get a petition going around social media getting signatures from the millions of people who agree that this needs to be done that they will boycott media that shows shooters.
Obviously, the names will still get out if people want to look for them, but if it’s only fringe outlets, that would be much better than the current situation.
This seems so obvious that I’m wondering why it isn’t happening. What’s the deal?
Public curiosity and the media feeling they are fulfilling the public’s right to know. If you simply reported on the event but not the perp everyone would still want to know “who and why”. And with the internet today the speculation and information would still get out there. So the press feels its part of their job and feels they are best qualified to do it.
I really don’t feel like this is a first amendment issue. I don’t think boycotts of institutions that are making problems worse is violating their first amendment rights. I also think you could discuss the details of these massacres without the specific names and faces of the perpetrator.
Do you guys not think it would help at all for these guys to not get insta-famous for their crimes?
Again, I think they should be reported, heavily. I just think the reporting should be more like: White male, 17, from Wherever, did this. Motivation and political leanings could and should be discussed. Just not specific names and faces.
This is a measure I’ve seen suggested from both left and rightwing sources. I’m honestly surprised that people are disagreeing that it’s a good idea.
I agree, they could let his face and name be used Day 1, after that, go look it up on the web!
And it’s not unprecedented either. You don’t hear about every suicide by subway or swan dive off local bridge for a reason. If you publicize them it increases the numbers.
But I think it would just turn the media to christening each as the ‘hillside horror’, or some other stupid title, that will also stick like glue and bring the notoriety they seek. I’m not sure that’s a step forward.
Responsible journalism is a hard sell in a dying market seemingly racing to the bottom.
I find the whole idea of trying to destroy the business of people who say things you disagree with deeply troubling. It is the “nuke it from orbit” doomsday option, not the first move.
Everything else in your post aside, I don’t get the impression that petitions on social media are very effective at all. It’s easy to sign a petition and think that you’re really contributing to an issue, but all you’ve done is sign your name to something that goes…where? Who’s following up on these things? What’s the actual impact? I think it’s pretty small.
I think in combination with major advertisers getting behind the push, it could be an effective way for the public to let media companies know that the would like a change in the way these things are handled.
However, it seems that I was wrong in thinking that this sort of thing would have broad support…seems like most people are just fine with making mass shooters famous.
Sure. You could also say that when 100,000 internet sources do tell the name, you are encouraged to close your eyes, plug your ears, and chant “lalala I’m not listening, I’m not listening.”
Even if you could get major media outlets to do that, you’re forgetting that social media would just pick up the slack. And the internet never forgets.
I don’t see anyone saying they’re just fine with making mass shooters famous, so much as they are showing why your proposal hasn’t happened yet and what the potential downsides are.
Getting people to sign a petition might qualify as “simple”, but getting them to follow through? Not so much.
Plus, I don’t know where this idea comes from that if the names of these shooters wasn’t publicized that it was prevent future, potential shooters from shooting.
You can’t personally do the 1st item, but have you done the 2nd item? If not, why not?
Is fame really the motivation for these murderers? What fame they gain is pretty short-lived anyway. They’re pretty quickly forgotten, except by those people whose lives they impacted.
I don’t know why you assume that instant fame is the reason behind the shootings, or that not publishing their names would inhibit these psychopaths from committing mass murder. It’s not obvious at all to me. What if we did that and mass murders still occurred? Would you ban all reporting of mass murders?
Major advertisers having any influence over news content is undesirable. I know of course they do already, as do the private corporations that own the news services; but it’s something to resist in principle, even if the advocated purpose might be noble on this occasion.