Why not put anything but rudimentary info on a mass shooter behind a paywall?

Great Debates
1

I’m perfectly happy knowing next to nothing about these ass-hats. I certainly don’t want to see photos of their face for the next two months in the news. I don’t want to know about their families, their fathers, mothers, brothers, ex-wives, their general dysfunction, mental health issues, grudges, gambling or drug problems, etc. etc, especially if there’s even the smallest chance this incentivizes similar acts in the future by turning nobodies into somebodies. Why not treat anything other than bare-bones info like “the shooter was a 32 year old male” as intellectual property and put it behind a paywall? The proceeds could go to the victim’s families. The information would be protected by copyright laws (much like purchasing a journal article online), and so copying-and-pasting would be in violation of copyright and be prosecutable. You want to know about one of these individuals? That’s fine. You pay your $30 and can get all the details you want.

Why don’t we do this? Something as simple as an EO or even just a gentleman’s agreement with the press might initiate it. Would this be considered a violation of the freedom of the press? Fears it might lead to cult-like worship of “he-who-shall-not-be-named”? Is it just not in the American DNA to do something like this? Or what?

2

  1. Because pay walls suck.

  2. Because most people want to be informed and don’t want to hide from unpleasant facts. You can always choose not to read stories about events that upset you. The public deserves to know the facts because such events affect many people, either directly or indirectly. Even if there were a gentlemen’s agreement, most news outlets would not choose to honor it.

3

I also question the assumption that if killers thought they’d get less press coverage they’d be less inclined to commit these crimes. Granted, I can’t put myself in their heads, but a bunch of negative press after death doesn’t seem to be something that would factor in.

4

The Hyoo-mans are a strange species. Unlike our own Termite Collective, each of the Hyoo-man animals often acts differently from the others. I have studied them for many of their earth-years, and I sometime still get tripped up by that.

IOW, you are asking: Why doesn’t every single media outlet in existence cater to my own personal desires?

5

:smiley:

No.

6

An executive order that mandated this would certainly run afoul of the First Amendment, as well as lead to cries from liberals about Trump’s authoritarianism, so that’s right out.

As for a gentlemen’s agreement, sure CNN, Fox, MSNBC, the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, ABC, CBS, NBC could all get together and agree to do that, but then you’ll still have people posting about it on Twitter and Facebook and small-time online media outlets that don’t agree to it that’ll post the information. Doesn’t seem terribly practical to me.

7

It is clear that some people commit crimes with the intent to gaining fame or to make a permanent mark on society. These people would be dissuaded to some degree if all the news released was “Some dumbass fuckhead shot three people last night and then was gunned down and died in a puddle of his own piss.” So unless there’s some reason to believe that other people would be emboldened by after-the-fact anonymity (which I suppose is possible) then a media freeze seems likely to reduce the incidence of spree shooting.

Which is not to say that we’d be able to get the news to agree to such a suppression of information. There’s too much morbid interest in this stuff to get people to stop putting it out there for consumption and clicks.

8

I’d say it’s questionable that people commit mass murder to gain publicity for themselves since many of them don’t survive to enjoy their notoriety from prison.

9

Waitaminute.

You believe only liberals would be upset about an executive order silencing the press? I’d expect conservatives to be equally concerned, or am I giving them too much credit?

10

I suspect everyone would be upset too. I was highlighting the fact that liberals have been expressing concerns about Trump’s authoritarianism, that he wants to shut down the free press, etc. and this hypothetical action, were it possible, would certainly play into those conspiracy theories.

To be perfectly clear: I’m a conservative, and I’d oppose any such EO, but I’m not very worried anything along those lines is going to happen. I have liberal friends who would also oppose any such EO, but they are quite animated by the belief that it’s (‘it’ here meaning ‘anything along those lines’, not this exact proposal) very likely going to happen, and soon.

11 
How is it hiding from unpleasant facts? This would be specifically geared against the shooter's background, biography, personal details, not the act itself, and certainly not the victims--by all means give news coverage to the victims and their families. What purpose does knowing facts about the shooter serve?
And regarding first amendment concerns, the information is very much available, just behind a paywall. Folks fond of all-or-nothing and slippery-slope reasoning seem too ready to link this with some kind of authoritarian news blackout. We usually pay for news anyway, even "free" news online imposes the cost of your having to put with online ads.

And the notion that these shooters don't factor in a legacy component (notoriety, alive or dead) to their commital of an atrocity (ie something very specifically designed to attract attention) is laughable.
12

I respectfully disagree with everything you just said.

13

Neither the President nor Congress have the power to order news outlets to paywall information in this manner. It’s got nothing to do with slippery-slope arguments, it’s just not a power we the people have delegated to them.

14

I’ve heard it said that there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

These drama queens are writing that novel in their head; they’re not waiting to read it published. They don’t need to… they know they’ll get the publicity that their sick mind wanted all this time.

In summary: Yes, I would agree with this paywall idea.

15

Started the thread without doing much research, but from the first page of hits from a Google search on “mass shooter psychology fame”:

APA article:
“People who commit mass shootings in America tend to share three traits: rampant depression, social isolation and pathological narcissism, according to a paper presented at the American Psychological Association’s annual convention that calls on the media to deny such shooters the fame they seek.”

Vanity Fair article:
[Cullen, the author of a book on Columbine] is “unsure exactly how we’ll be able to stop these mass murders from happening, but he has some theories, including better profiling by the F.B.I. and local police and changing the way mainstream media covers these tragedies. Wall-to-wall coverage on CNN, and other 24-hour cable outlets, only helps to inspire more people to become famous from a mass shooting, he argues.”

LA Times article:
“Hanlin’s suspicion is shared by many who probe the minds of mass shooters. In a society saturated by firearms and preoccupied by celebrity, these experts say that those who perpetrate such armed mayhem often seek to break the bonds of their invisibility and achieve what they feel life has denied them: Recognition. Glory. Respect.”

various from Adam Lankford, a U of Alabama criminologist ([cite] and [cite]):

“Lankford outlined several factors that he believes have caused this, including America’s high rate of gun ownership, the idolisation of fame among US mass shooters, and what he calls ‘the dark side of American exceptionalism’.”

’ “It’s harder to quantify it, but I’ve been struck by research that shows that being famous is one of this generation’s most important goals,” Lankford said. “It seems like Americans are growing in their desire for fame, and there is no doubt that that there is an association between media coverage that these offenders get and the likelihood that they will act.” ’

“They want to be celebrities,” said Adam Lankford, one of the lead drafters of the letter and a criminologist at the University of Alabama. “We know that some of these offenders have said things like, ‘The more you kill, the more you’ll be known,’ and ‘Someone who is known by no one will be known by everyone.’”

16

Assuming EO= Executive Order, you’re darned tooting it would be a violation of the first amendment. Is that even a serious question? Voluntary agreement by privately owned news outlets, not so much. So I guess it’s easy. All you have to do is get all the news outlets to agree with you. If you are unable to do that, I think that pretty much answers your question. No?

17

You seem to have no idea of what “freedom of the press” means. Perhaps it’s the word “freedom” that trips you up. It means the right to act as one wills to act, subject to the equal rights of other citizens. If you are saying that I can’t publish something unless a condition is met (like forcing the reader to pay for it) that is not freedom.

On a purely practical level, it only takes one person who pays for the information and then blabs it on Facebook or Twitter and in about 6 seconds everyone will know anyway. Or are you planning on trying to regulate private citizens as well as news organizations?

I’m sorry, but your idea is silly, unworkable, and contrary to the values expressed in the Bill of Rights. If you really care about doing something about mass shootings, try working on the base causes, such as the easy access of the mentally ill to murderous firearms.

18

Plus, you can’t copyright data or information, which seems to be part of the OP’s plan. If Washington Post writes an article about the shooter, that article is copyright and can be put behind a paywall.

But anyone else can go and collect the same data about the shooter and write their own article. Even if it contains the same data as the WashPo article, from the same sources, it’s not a breach of copyright for that person to publish their own article as they see fit.

19

Not to mention that executive ordrs apply to the executive branch, not news organizations.

20

With the increasing frequency of mass shootings in the US I would guess you get your 15 minutes of Fame but the news cycle will move on. Without researching how many mass shooters can you name?