View Poll Results: Should the media sensationalize (glorify?) mass shooters?

Voters
26. You may not vote on this poll
  • The media should continue as they have, and report everything.

    2 7.69%
  • The media should act more responsibly and restrict itself.

    15 57.69%
  • There are pros and cons to both, so I'm not sure.

    7 26.92%
  • This topic makes my head hurt.

    2 7.69%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Should the media sensationalize (glorify?) mass shooters?

  1. #1
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your left... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:42 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,667

    Should the media sensationalize (glorify?) mass shooters?

    Should the media sensationalize (glorify?) mass shooters?

    Mass shootings seem to be increasing in frequency. As a matter of policy, not law, the media usually refrains from reporting suicides, so the precedent of self-policing is already there. Should the media adopt the same policy regarding mass shootings?

    It seems that many mass shooters believe they will become famous, though most never do beyond a few days after their event. Would lack of media attention possibly discourage potential mass shooters?

    The premise of the question presumes a voluntary policy shift from the media, not a legal restriction (and, yes, the 1st Amendment would preclude a legal restriction).
    Huntsman / Kasich 2020

  2. #2
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    35,309
    Blog Entries
    19

    Re: Should the media sensationalize (glorify?) mass shooters?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Should the media sensationalize (glorify?) mass shooters?

    Mass shootings seem to be increasing in frequency. As a matter of policy, not law, the media usually refrains from reporting suicides, so the precedent of self-policing is already there. Should the media adopt the same policy regarding mass shootings?

    It seems that many mass shooters believe they will become famous, though most never do beyond a few days after their event. Would lack of media attention possibly discourage potential mass shooters?

    The premise of the question presumes a voluntary policy shift from the media, not a legal restriction (and, yes, the 1st Amendment would preclude a legal restriction).
    It's a good question, and I don't think there'll ever be a consensus. I heard a psychologist talking about media focus on mass shootings, and he said, paraphrased, "The press runs advertisements and how-to information on mass shootings. Why would we not understand if they increased?"

    Edit: You're right, first amendment protection. But look at what the press does, practically unilaterally, with juvenile arrests. They don't publish their names. No law against it . . . probably an ethical thing.

  3. #3
    Sometimes wrong
    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,262

    Re: Should the media sensationalize (glorify?) mass shooters?

    I doubt if the media sees it as "glorifying" the mass shooter, anymore than "glorifying" an errant jet pilot when reporting an airline crash. Perhaps the headline "suicidal loser seeks high body count in lame attempt to gain fame" would make you happier.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #4
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your left... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:42 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,667

    Re: Should the media sensationalize (glorify?) mass shooters?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    I doubt if the media sees it as "glorifying" the mass shooter, anymore than "glorifying" an errant jet pilot when reporting an airline crash. Perhaps the headline "suicidal loser seeks high body count in lame attempt to gain fame" would make you happier.
    I'm sure they don't, but they don't get to choose how other people see it.
    Huntsman / Kasich 2020

  5. #5
    Gradualist
    TheDemSocialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in the Midwest
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,348
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Should the media sensationalize (glorify?) mass shooters?

    This subject (IMO) is not about freedom of the press, its more about journalistic integrity, and ratings. The whole point of for profit new media is to get good ratings. What gets stations good ratings? Sensationalism. Mass shootings and tragedies bring amazing ratings to news stations. I suspect many journalists believe that covering over and over again the shooter of these tragedies probably isnt the most honorable thing to do, but they do it anyways because they know that their jobs depend on it.
    Just a democratic-socialist in the heartland of America.CHECK OUT MY TUMBLR(BLOG)HERE "Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

  6. #6
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your left... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:42 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,667

    Re: Should the media sensationalize (glorify?) mass shooters?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    This subject (IMO) is not about freedom of the press, its more about journalistic integrity, and ratings. The whole point of for profit new media is to get good ratings. What gets stations good ratings? Sensationalism. Mass shootings and tragedies bring amazing ratings to news stations. I suspect many journalists believe that covering over and over again the shooter of these tragedies probably isnt the most honorable thing to do, but they do it anyways because they know that their jobs depend on it.
    Correct.

    But, if the premise is true, then doesn't that make the media complicit in future mass shootings?

    Not legally complicit, but morally complicit.
    Huntsman / Kasich 2020

  7. #7
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,580

    Re: Should the media sensationalize (glorify?) mass shooters?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    I doubt if the media sees it as "glorifying" the mass shooter, anymore than "glorifying" an errant jet pilot when reporting an airline crash. Perhaps the headline "suicidal loser seeks high body count in lame attempt to gain fame" would make you happier.
    That would be an accurate description. I think if the media had any morals they would refer to the shooter as suicidal loser and not air the losers name or photo
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  8. #8
    Gradualist
    TheDemSocialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in the Midwest
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,348
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Should the media sensationalize (glorify?) mass shooters?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Correct.

    But, if the premise is true, then doesn't that make the media complicit in future mass shootings?

    Not legally complicit, but morally complicit.
    Morally? That is a very good question. I do believe that when people who partake in these shootings see the media covering the shooter, many of them see that "oh i can be famous if I do this", so therefore they do this. Does this make the media morally complicit is a very good touchy subject which I believe deserves discussion. Nothing gets the for profit corporate media more ratings and more $$$ than a good old fashion tragedy.
    Just a democratic-socialist in the heartland of America.CHECK OUT MY TUMBLR(BLOG)HERE "Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

  9. #9
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your left... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:42 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,667

    Re: Should the media sensationalize (glorify?) mass shooters?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Morally? That is a very good question. I do believe that when people who partake in these shootings see the media covering the shooter, many of them see that "oh i can be famous if I do this", so therefore they do this. Does this make the media morally complicit is a very good touchy subject which I believe deserves discussion. Nothing gets the for profit corporate media more ratings and more $$$ than a good old fashion tragedy.
    There's the old saying, "If it bleeds, it leads."... and nothing "bleeds" like a mass shooting.

    I cannot say that all mass shooters have said this, but many have said or indicated beforehand the notion of becoming famous by their upcoming planned actions. But, honestly, of all the shootings we have had in the last 15+/- years, how many names of the shooters do you remember? I remember the two from Columbine, I remember the guy in Sandy Hook, but that's about it... and I'll probably forget the Sandy Hook guy before long. I don't recall the guy's name in the Aurora theater shooting, and that was high-profile and wasn't all that long ago.

    My point being that Harris and Cleibold (sp?) at Columbine became famous because they shocked the country into consciousness regarding mass shootings, but everybody else is view as a forgetful copycat. Yet, these people may not view themselves as just a copycat. Then again they usually have a huge delusional thing going on anyway. So, maybe... MAYBE... if the news stops, they won't think they will be famous, and thus won't think of becoming famous... at least in that manner.
    Huntsman / Kasich 2020

  10. #10
    Gradualist
    TheDemSocialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in the Midwest
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,348
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Should the media sensationalize (glorify?) mass shooters?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    There's the old saying, "If it bleeds, it leads."... and nothing "bleeds" like a mass shooting.

    I cannot say that all mass shooters have said this, but many have said or indicated beforehand the notion of becoming famous by their upcoming planned actions. But, honestly, of all the shootings we have had in the last 15+/- years, how many names of the shooters do you remember? I remember the two from Columbine, I remember the guy in Sandy Hook, but that's about it... and I'll probably forget the Sandy Hook guy before long. I don't recall the guy's name in the Aurora theater shooting, and that was high-profile and wasn't all that long ago.

    My point being that Harris and Cleibold (sp?) at Columbine became famous because they shocked the country into consciousness regarding mass shootings, but everybody else is view as a forgetful copycat. Yet, these people may not view themselves as just a copycat. Then again they usually have a huge delusional thing going on anyway. So, maybe... MAYBE... if the news stops, they won't think they will be famous, and thus won't think of becoming famous... at least in that manner.
    I agree 100%. But then again how do we stop them from reporting on such issues? No government can cuz it would be against the 1st amendment. If anything it will be have to be up to the journalists themselves.
    Just a democratic-socialist in the heartland of America.CHECK OUT MY TUMBLR(BLOG)HERE "Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •