Simple way to help with the mass shooting problem: why isn't this being done? Or is it?

[obbn]

I have no problem not mentioning a killers name, but if the thought ou’d that this will somehow change someone’s mind about committing mad murder, well that’s just flawed thinking.

[kopek]

@Son_of_a_Rich

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.

Considering the number of copy-cats and want-to-be’s after each incident I have a strong feeling its at least part of the motivation or at least a contributing factor. Most look to start as “I want Person X dead” and from there go into “I may as well take as many as I can out and see what happens”. I don’t know if any specific studies have been done but IIRC a lot of these folks have referenced other mass shootings in the weeks/months before their sprees so something seems to be going on here.

[cochrane]

@Son_of_a_Rich

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.

This.

@Arrendajo

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?

This.

@obbn

I have no problem not mentioning a killers name, but if the thought ou’d that this will somehow change someone’s mind about committing mad murder, well that’s just flawed thinking.

And this. What makes you think people commit murders to become famous? People kill for various reasons, many times because of anger issues or to “right” some kind of perceived slight against them. Many are killed in an attempt to capture them, or they commit suicide and don’t get to “enjoy” the resultant fame. Those that do survive and are convicted don’t get to profit from any interviews or books or TV shows or movies about them. It seems that killing for publicity is a pretty hollow motivation.

[The_Tooth]

@Darren_Garrison

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.

I’m not troubled by it in the least.

[Beckdawrek]

CNN already does it.
I am like everyone above, I don’t think they they are murdering for fame and that’s all.
There is probably a multitude of reasons in their sick minds for reasoning ‘oh this is a good idea, I will go shoot up the school I attended’ and probably a significant ammount of jelly-like brain cells that dont think a all. I would fame about 4th on a list.
The most horrible part of this one was, it could have prevented, if any body was listening. The school, the cops, the effing FBI, and I don’t let the people he lived with off the hook. I see they have lawyered up.

[Corry_El]

The suggestion has some basis. If we agree these types of shooting are more common, there must be a reason. One plausible explanation is self perpetuating copy cat phenomenon.

Plausible IMO. Not easy to prove. And definitely not suggesting it’s the only factor. Stuff like new societal changes in recent decades and not new factors like availability of guns and basic flaws in human nature have to be looked at too. I just don’t want to side track on those. The issue here is whether the publicity accorded these killers is one factor in encouraging more of them. I think it is, and not being able to prove it doesn’t mean I have to assume it’s not true as the default.

However the problem at this point is that social media is going to go into a frenzy discussing these people whether the ‘MSM’ does or not. And often including baseless or false rumors (a righty/lefty, an illegal immigrant, a Muslim, a CIA operative, etc). It isn’t just a question of free speech for its own sake or to avoid some slippery slope of censorship*. There is an actually positive component of telling the public who these people are rather than having it just be speculated. Although a negative component in fomenting copy cats, I believe.

Also the publicity motivation in these troubled/twisted minds might not necessarily be ‘I will be famous’, but ‘my acts will be’. And there’s no way around the media covering the acts and their effects.

*the fact that the govt isn’t censoring does not solve every free speech issue. Mob or corporate coercion to get people to shut up is in a different legal category than govt censorship, but it doesn’t mean it’s healthy for society.

[cochrane]

@Beckdawrek

CNN already does it.

O rly? :dubious:

For years before Nikolas Cruz gunned down classmates and teachers at his former high school, his mother had repeatedly called police to the home to help deal with his violent outbursts, threats and self-destructive behavior, according to police documents obtained by CNN on Friday.

The article also has a photo of Cruz being arrested and a video report that mentions him by name.

[JRDelirious]

@Corry_El

However the problem at this point is that social media is going to go into a frenzy discussing these people whether the ‘MSM’ does or not. And often including baseless or false rumors (a righty/lefty, an illegal immigrant, a Muslim, a CIA operative, etc). It isn’t just a question of free speech for its own sake or to avoid some slippery slope of censorship*. There is an actually positive component of telling the public who these people are rather than having it just be speculated. Although a negative component in fomenting copy cats, I believe.

Also the publicity motivation in these troubled/twisted minds might not necessarily be ‘I will be famous’, but ‘my acts will be’. And there’s no way around the media covering the acts and their effects.

If as I speculated elsewhere many of them are harboring thoughts along the line of “let nobody feel safe, if I could not be happy let everyone live with pain and with fear”, they would not be bothered by anonymity.

[snoe]

Mark Follman at Mother Jones has been analyzing the media’s role in mass shootings for a while.

How the Media Inspires Mass Shooters – and 6 ways news outlets can help prevent copycat attacks:

**Report on the perpetrator forensically and with dispassionate language. **Avoid terms like “lone wolf” and “school shooter,” which may carry cachet with young men aspiring to attack. Instead use language such as “perpetrator,” “lone act of terrorism,” and “act of mass murder.”
Minimize use of the perpetrator’s name. When it isn’t necessary to repeat it, don’t. And don’t include middle names gratuitously, a common practice for distinguishing criminal suspects from others of the same name, but which can otherwise lend a false sense of their importance.
**Keep the perpetrator’s name out of headlines. **Rarely, if ever, will a generic reference to him in a headline be any less practical.
**Minimize use of images of the perpetrator. **This is especially important both in terms of aspiring copycats’ desire for fame, and the psychology of individuals who may be vulnerable to identifying with mass shooters.
Avoid using “pseudocommando” or other posed photos of the perpetrator. Such self-styled images are the ones they hope will get publicity. These should be avoided especially after the images are outdated, such as showing the Aurora killer again with his “Joker” hair during his trial three years later, when he was heavier and wore glasses and a beard.
Avoid publishing the perpetrators’ videos or manifestos except when clearly valuable to the reporting. Instead, paraphrase, cite sparingly, and provide analysis. The guiding question here may be: Is this evidence already easily accessible online? If so, is there a genuine reason to reproduce it in full and spread it, other than to generate page views?

And here’s another piece on the copycat effects of sensationalizing body counts.

In August 2015, a disgruntled ex-TV journalist gunned down two former colleagues as they were doing a live broadcast in Virginia. Before he struck, Vester Flanagan had written about admiring the mass murderer at Virginia Tech in 2007—and how that shooter had outdone the two at Columbine: “I was influenced by Seung-Hui Cho,” Flanagan wrote. “That’s my boy right there. He got NEARLY double the amount that Eric Harris and Dylann Klebold got…just sayin.'”

[John_Mace]

@voltaire

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.

Yeah, the idea that you can keep something that is public knowledge out of the public sphere is laughable.

[k9bfriender]

It’s not really necessary. Everyone knows the name of the last mass shooter, but do remember the name of the one before that, or before that?

As mass shootings become more common, the notoriety of being a mass murderer gets spread thin. You’re not know as “the guy that killed all those people.”, you are just “One of those mass murdering assholes.”

[Beckdawrek]

@cochrane

O rly? :dubious:

The article also has a photo of Cruz being arrested and a video report that mentions him by name.

Yes, you are correct. Anderson Cooper is continually saying that they won’t mention the name or show his face. Seriously I can’t see how they coud not do it, and call themselves a news outlet. AC surely wants to, though. Maybe it’s not a CNN thing, just an A.C. thing.

[Cazzle]

From the outside looking in, it seems a logical thing to deny these perpetrators the fame that comes with these acts. An invisible guy lives his whole life in the shadows, then suddenly the entire world is talking about the guy; sharing the photos he’s planted online for this purpose; discussing the manifesto he’s written. Groups like the Incels start cheering that one of their own has lashed out. To angry young men who feel like they are anonymous and voiceless, the media frenzy must seem like it’s own reward - Johnny Asshole finally got revenge on the cruel world that oppressed him, and now everyone knows his name and has read his posts and seen his tough guy photos.

I’d like to see the major news outlets pledge not to use the perpetrator’s name, photos or online writings unless there’s a compelling reason to do so. At this stage, and certainly judging by the comments here, it doesn’t seem like there’s a widespread public perception that the coverage itself is harmful so I don’t see how this will change.

[Ethilrist]

These companies advertise on these shows because the shows draw a lot of viewers.
They draw a lot of viewers because they broadcast sensational stories.
For the advertisers to tell them to post less interesting news would cost them a lot of money.
So, not gonna happen.

[Tim_R.Mortiss]

My opinion of the OP’s plan is this:
a) it would probably help, IF you could make it happen.
b) it ain’t gonna happen.

[Heracles]

Quoting myself from a tiny recent thread on a similar subject:

There have been campaigns to get media to stop giving the killers publicity in mainstream media (No Notoriety is an example).

There are similar efforts to get people to limit their social media retweeting, etc. so that the killers won’t get publicity that way. Those are less successful, particularly in today’s highly polarised U.S. society.

[Smapti]

What of PBS, which isn’t dependent on advertising? What of foreign media? What of Wikipedia or Drudge or the tabloids? You can’t possibly gag every media outlet in the world from reporting a matter of public record.

This is an impossible proposal that would do little to deter shootings, especially when we already know from the examples of the rest of the developed world of a way to stop shootings that works every time.

[Der_Trihs]

That sort of* damnatio memoriae *tactic has been tried for thousands of years with little success. If anything it helps spread their infamy farther and keeps it alive.

[palmer7]

The media can’t just ignore the fact that shooters have names and faces.

[Corry_El]

@JRDelirious

If as I speculated elsewhere many of them are harboring thoughts along the line of “let nobody feel safe, if I could not be happy let everyone live with pain and with fear”, they would not be bothered by anonymity.

You could speculate an almost unlimited range of thought processes of these people and perhaps be right about some of them.

The article quoted in snoe’s post puts the focus where I think it should be: what in specific about media coverage that’s not necessary for the public to be properly informed might encourage or inspire borderline people to do this? Not some hopeless proposal not to talk about about the shooters at all. The potential negative effect isn’t limited to any one narrow model of the thinking of potential future ones like ‘I want to be famous’. It includes what about the portrayal might inspire them along any line of their thinking, but doesn’t provide any really necessary info to anyone else. I agree with that article in seeing no value in constantly repeating the person’s name, especially the full middle name bit, their photo’s of themselves in combat gear, potentially perversely positive labels like ‘lone wolf’, etc.

But somehow ‘making’ news outlets not talk at all about these people, that’s just not going to happen. And again if in some unrealistic what-if it did happen, you’d have the relatively responsible established outlets not giving the basic info on the person, then less responsible web outlets and individuals making up stories about them (again, their supposed right/left politics, religion, national origin etc) with nothing to cross reference it against.