I already told you. Broadcast media is already constrained by the FCC, perfectly within the limits of the 1st Ad, and has been so since the 1950’s and before. Did we turn into North Korea when the FCC was established? Was there a great scream about 1st Ad violations when the media “voluntarily” agreed to not name victims?
And pretty much every “free society” has limits on what can be published.
Why do you think the media reports on mass shootings? Do you also think its wrong to report on hurricanes or other natural disasters? Do you think its wrong to report when famous people die? What newsworthy events, in your mind, are ok to report about and which ones should be banned? Who would do the banning? How would it be enforced on all media outlets?
You need to flesh this out. You keep hammering on the media, the media, the media, but what I fail to see is any practical way to control all of the media without turning us into a dictatorship. What if the next president decides that right wing news is a threat to America, can they just ban Fox News, Breitbart etc? Think this through and flesh out your ideas, you’ve identified what you view is the problem, but there is no actual solution to that problem being presented here.
So?
You mean I know how to use Search on Google? Horrors!:rolleyes:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0002764217730854
Prior research has shown that many mass shooters have explicitly admitted they want fame and have directly reached out to media organizations to get it. These fame-seeking offenders are particularly dangerous because they kill and wound significantly more victims than other active shooters, they often compete for attention by attempting to maximize victim fatalities, and they can inspire contagion and copycat effects. However, if the media changes how they cover mass shooters, they may be able to deny many offenders the attention they seek and deter some future perpetrators from attacking. We propose that media organizations should no longer publish the names or photos of mass shooters (except during ongoing searches for escaped suspects), but report everything else about these crimes in as much detail as desired. In this article, we (1) review the consequences of media coverage of mass shooters, (2) outline our proposal, (3) show that its implementation is realistic and has precedent, (4) discuss anticipated challenges, and (5) recommend future steps for consensus building and implementation.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0002764217739660
Oh, and where are* your* cites that the media isnt having a effect?
Cool then when the next Democratic president is in office he or she should label Fox News as enemy of the people and force them off the air with this FCC power you are talking about. Sound like the result you want?
Let’s try a little exercise called: Premeditatio Malorum
I wave my magic gun and your wish is granted - mass shooting reporting is muzzled. (pun intended)
Unfortunately, the rate of mass shootings and resulting victims does not change as expected. What went wrong? Who/What do you blame? What do you propose be done about it?
The problem is that this is not what I’m arguing. See my cite for the NIJ-funded study. You are going in a different direction, in that you’re saying it is NOT the guns.
Let me make an analogy: let’s say a researcher does a study on whether there’s a link between asbestos and lung cancer. The fact that a study is published finding a link between those two, does not mean that smoking does not cause lung cancer. This is where you are going wrong.
I dont think that hurricanes listen to the news and decide that they can beat the last hurricanes death toll.
I dont wish to stop the reporting of ANY newsworthy events. Just dont name the killer. Just like these scientist propose:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0002764217730854
Don’t Name Them, Don’t Show Them, But Report Everything Else: A Pragmatic Proposal for Denying Mass Killers the Attention They Seek and Deterring Future Offenders
I have no idea the names of the last several mass killers.
So problem solved then?
So, the fact that the FCC already bans swear words, nudity, tobacco ads and such on broadcast TV, and has done so for decades is the same as forcing a channel off the air due to it’s politcal bias, right? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Trump says that reporting bad is not free speech.
Your side is already trying to move us in this direction. You are trying to give them more power.
I thought the right was always warning about unintended consequences.
Also, I think something is wrong with your eyes. Did you get some grapefruit juice in them or something?
Let’s try it and see. Maybe all the experts are wrong.
We could try the reduction in CO2 to fix climate change too.
We have tried gun control and “the rate of mass shootings and resulting victims did not change as expected.” But what the gun grabbers want then is to double down and want more and further reaching.
So, do you plan on banning coverage honoring victims?
Do you plan on banning coverage of the trial when the shooter isn’t killed?
The El Paso shooter was motivated by racist stuff coming from the White House and other places. Plan on banning that also?
Like I said “* Don’t Name Them, Don’t Show Them, But Report Everything Else”*
Which experts? Can you be more specific? What is the nature of their expertise?
We could all try holding our breath. Solve both the climate and gun violence problems.
I frankly don’t think gun control is sufficient. Your own statistics bear that out. What we need is significant gun reduction. But we are not likely to agree there. Let’s not belabor it.
Importantly, you avoided answering my question. I’ll repeat: Media has been sufficiently muzzled. Numbers not going down. What went wrong? What/who’s to blame?
You lost me with “Other countries don’t have the social media we have”
I feel like mentioning that the debate isn’t (or shouldn’t be) “Which is to blame for mass shootings: mass media, or guns?” It could easily be both: Mass media/social media providing a motive, people like DrDeth insisting that everybody* should have access to murder weapons providing the means.
I actually agree that if we shut off the internet, burned all the newspapers, and bombed the television stations, that would curtail mass shootings quite a bit. There is no part of that statement that says that that’s a better idea than severely curtailing private gun ownership.
I just did, numerous cites. where are your cites?
Like I said, I dont know, lets try it and see. We have tried gun control and it didnt work, so apparently the gun grabbers think we need more of it.
**And what is wrong with you guys? Why do you NEED to see the names of the killers? Why do you need to read their names at the cost of more dead? **
Let’s say that what you want is done but the shootings don’t lessen.
What is your next step?
Hey man, I don’t even watch the news. I don’t know the names of any mass shooters.
But I’m not sure that the level of media discretion you describe would actually be enough to stop mass shooters, because they can blog their own manifestos. Social media makes everybody a movie star. They have a platform - so why not put on a show? And sure, you could maybe (maybe) get the top twelve social media platforms to try and do a slipshod and censorship-filled job of intercepting that sort of material, but there will be other, darker webs where they can boast unimpeded. They may not be able to get you to hear about it, but they’ll get an audience nonetheless - one prone to praising them for it, even.
I answered this in the other thread. I’ll repeat it, if that helps: