Should The Media Stop Reporting Teenage Shootings?

You are now the Supreme Dictator of USofA.

You have all-ending power to do what you wish.

Would you make a decree that any and all shootings committed by teenagers, no matter how small or large, no matter the death toll, become banished from all media outside of the immediate area it happens and completely banished from all media 24 hours after incident?

If part of the reason some kids might be going to such extreme measures is the fact that they might become "famous" is true, why not put an end to the "route to fame"?

Do you think the media hype over these events plays an important role in setting up the next tragedy?

If so - would you do something to change it if you could?

Dragonfly said:

You are now the Supreme Dictator of USofA.

You have all-ending power to do what you wish.

Would you make a decree that any and all shootings committed by teenagers, no matter how small or large, no matter the death toll, become banished from all media outside of the immediate area it happens and completely banished from all media 24 hours after incident?

If part of the reason some kids might be going to such extreme measures is the fact that they might become "famous" is true, why not put an end to the "route to fame"?

Do you think the media hype over these events plays an important role in setting up the next tragedy?

If so - would you do something to change it if you could?

Click to expand...

I think the media does play a part.Any time some pathetic loser shoots up a place the media is more than happy to make that piece of **** a instant celebrity. They air his photo,tell you his name,and if possible what he does in his spare time, where he got his guns and ammo, how much ammo he has and they either read or give you the gist of what his suicide note says.Other pathetic losers see this instant celebrity and glorification of that piece of **** from the media and they want their turn, they want to be famous too.So instead of just offing themselves quietly they try to go out with bang by taking as many people as possible with them. But if someone uses a gun to prevent or stop a criminal then its cricket sounds from the media or if we are lucky there is token mention of it.


I would simply make a law that if they want to report these shootings then they have to report each every single story of someone using a firearm to deter or stop a crime and that they must give the same type of attention to those stories that they would with these mass shootings. Meaning if the media gives a soap box to someone advocating for more gun control then in the positive gun stories they must give a soap box to someone advocating for less gun control. If the media tell you where the mass shooter got his firearms then they must do the positive gun stories. If they tell you the mass shooter's name, show his photo, tell you what his hobbies are and other **** then they must do the same thing for the hero in the positive gun stories. If they tell you how many guns,magazine capacity, and amount of ammo the mass shooter had then they must do the same thing with the hero in the positive gun story. If they want to air the mass shooting stories for weeks at a time then they must do the same thing with the positive gun stories. After all if any one deserves to be a instant celeb and glorified it should be the guy or gal who used their firearm to deter and or stop a criminal not some piece of **** who decided to murder a bunch of people.

I do agree that the way the media handles these things now-a-day has some impact on the next incident.

It's instant celebrity for the shooter. History book status.

I wonder if on some level there's also a thought to "how can I do it bigger than the others"?

Dragonfly said:

I do agree that the way the media handles these things now-a-day has some impact on the next incident.

It's instant celebrity for the shooter. History book status.

I wonder if on some level there's also a thought to "how can I do it bigger than the others"?

Click to expand...

I somewhat agree, but because of the way that they are reported. When some thug shoots a couple of thugs, or even innocent bystanders, it is not national news. The school shooter, or mass shooter, not the shooting itself, makes it into national news. In the sick minds of the media, it is important to examine every minute detail of these "special" shooters and essentially eulogize them; what they did for fun, what their friends thought of them, what kind of video games they liked, what kind of gun(s) they liked and every other nit picking factoid that they can find out about them. Unless, of course, they had far left political views and are described as Socialist, then the public must be spared that part of the "motive".

jamesrage said:

I think the media does play a part.Any time some pathetic loser shoots up a place the media is more than happy to make that piece of **** a instant celebrity. They air his photo,tell you his name,and if possible what he does in his spare time, where he got his guns and ammo, how much ammo he has and they either read or give you the gist of what his suicide note says.Other pathetic losers see this instant celebrity and glorification of that piece of **** from the media and they want their turn, they want to be famous too.So instead of just offing themselves quietly they try to go out with bang by taking as many people as possible with them. But if someone uses a gun to prevent or stop a criminal then its cricket sounds from the media or if we are lucky there is token mention of it.

Click to expand...

Well I don't know about others, but I would like to know what goes on in this world, and for someone to say that they would like to see the First Amendment walked over because they actually believe if atrocious crimes aren't reported, than the crimes would automatically stop, is not only absurd, but unfounded.

jamesrage said:

I would simply make a law that if they want to report these shootings then they have to report each every single story of someone using a firearm to deter or stop a crime and that they must give the same type of attention to those stories that they would with these mass shootings. Meaning if the media gives a soap box to someone advocating for more gun control then in the positive gun stories they must give a soap box to someone advocating for less gun control. If the media tell you where the mass shooter got his firearms then they must do the positive gun stories. If they tell you the mass shooter's name, show his photo, tell you what his hobbies are and other **** then they must do the same thing for the hero in the positive gun stories. If they tell you how many guns,magazine capacity, and amount of ammo the mass shooter had then they must do the same thing with the hero in the positive gun story. If they want to air the mass shooting stories for weeks at a time then they must do the same thing with the positive gun stories. After all if any one deserves to be a instant celeb and glorified it should be the guy or gal who used their firearm to deter and or stop a criminal not some piece of **** who decided to murder a bunch of people.

Click to expand...

Want to know why there are not enough stories that depicts people preventing crimes with guns? Because there is not enough of them to sing about, James, that's why. In this report by the Violence Policy Center using analysis from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Crime Victimization Survey Data, there is most likely a chance of a person's gun being stolen than it being used to prevent a crime.

Here is an excerpt of the introduction to that report:

Guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.
In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides
1
involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Progr
am as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR).
2
That
same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR.
In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States
involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides.
3
And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives
ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (60
6) that year.
4
This report analyzes, on both the national and state levels, the us
e of firearms in justifiable homicides. It also details, us
ing the best
data available on the national level, the
total
number of times guns are used for self-defense by the victims of both attempted and
completed violent crimes and property crimes—whether or not the use of the gun by the victim resulted in a fatality.
Key findings of this report, as detailed in its accompanying tables, include the following.

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:

I somewhat agree, but because of the way that they are reported. When some thug shoots a couple of thugs, or even innocent bystanders, it is not national news. The school shooter, or mass shooter, not the shooting itself, makes it into national news. In the sick minds of the media, it is important to examine every minute detail of these "special" shooters and essentially eulogize them; what they did for fun, what their friends thought of them, what kind of video games they liked, what kind of gun(s) they liked and every other nit picking factoid that they can find out about them. Unless, of course, they had far left political views and are described as Socialist, then the public must be spared that part of the "motive".

Click to expand...

You think that attention is made out of these kids because the media is "sick"?

They get attention because, many times, the body counts are high. And unfortunately, "the media" caters to its market. If people didn't want to know every detail about every mass shooting, the 24/7 hype would go away.

An incident where 1 or 2 people are shot, even in a school, goes away quickly. The only reason we're still yammering about it here is because you guys are convinced there's some nefarious plot to cover up the fact that he's got Obama on speed dial or whatever nonsense you're cranking out lately.

jamesrage said:

I would simply make a law that if they want to report these shootings then they have to report each every single story of someone using a firearm to deter or stop a crime and that they must give the same type of attention to those stories that they would with these mass shootings. Meaning if the media gives a soap box to someone advocating for more gun control then in the positive gun stories they must give a soap box to someone advocating for less gun control. If the media tell you where the mass shooter got his firearms then they must do the positive gun stories. If they tell you the mass shooter's name, show his photo, tell you what his hobbies are and other **** then they must do the same thing for the hero in the positive gun stories. If they tell you how many guns,magazine capacity, and amount of ammo the mass shooter had then they must do the same thing with the hero in the positive gun story. If they want to air the mass shooting stories for weeks at a time then they must do the same thing with the positive gun stories. After all if any one deserves to be a instant celeb and glorified it should be the guy or gal who used their firearm to deter and or stop a criminal not some piece of **** who decided to murder a bunch of people.

Click to expand...

In other words, you don't believe in Freedom of the Press, and you would like the Fairness Doctrine reinstated. You want the government to tell the press how to do their jobs.

Mighty "conservative" of you.

In what way are mass shooters "glorified"? Do you think the mass media portrays spree shooters in a positive light?

Kobie said:

You think that attention is made out of these kids because the media is "sick"?

They get attention because, many times, the body counts are high. And unfortunately, "the media" caters to its market. If people didn't want to know every detail about every mass shooting, the 24/7 hype would go away.

An incident where 1 or 2 people are shot, even in a school, goes away quickly. The only reason we're still yammering about it here is because you guys are convinced there's some nefarious plot to cover up the fact that he's got Obama on speed dial or whatever nonsense you're cranking out lately.

Click to expand...

Amen! Sir! The media is the media. They didn't pull the triggers on those guns in those crimes.

Bob N said:

Amen! Sir! The media is the media. They didn't pull the triggers on those guns in those crimes.

Click to expand...

The conservative mantra (and, often, the liberal one) is when you don't like the facts that are being reported, blame the media. It's a tale as old as time.

FUN FACT: The "media" was several times accused of UNDER-REPORTING Columbine. People wanted to know every lurid detail, and finally less scrupulous outlets caved in. That's how Marilyn Manson got dragged into it.

The media gives the American people what they demand. And the vast majority of them want sensationalism. Much like government, the people get the media they deserve.

Kobie said:

The conservative mantra (and, often, the liberal one) is when you don't like the facts that are being reported, blame the media. It's a tale as old as time.

Click to expand...

Yes. I agree.

Do you think news is actually reported in this world????

Dragonfly said:

Do you think news is actually reported in this world????

Click to expand...

Of course it is. It's always through SOME kind of filter, but the facts are nearly always there.

Kobie said:

Of course it is. It's always through SOME kind of filter, but the facts are nearly always there.

Click to expand...

No degree of sensationalism?

There's no outward interest in selling the news with sensationalism?

The "news" isn't marketed these days?

Dragonfly said:

No degree of sensationalism?

There's no outward interest in selling the news with sensationalism?

The "news" isn't marketed these days?

Click to expand...

Of COURSE it is. Doesn't mean it's not reported.

Kobie said:

You think that attention is made out of these kids because the media is "sick"?

They get attention because, many times, the body counts are high. And unfortunately, "the media" caters to its market. If people didn't want to know every detail about every mass shooting, the 24/7 hype would go away.

An incident where 1 or 2 people are shot, even in a school, goes away quickly. The only reason we're still yammering about it here is because you guys are convinced there's some nefarious plot to cover up the fact that he's got Obama on speed dial or whatever nonsense you're cranking out lately.

Click to expand...

Care to do a quick search and note how many national news outlets jumped on this Arapahoe school shooting? Then count the number of other local shootings with two victims in those same national media sources. Obviously, for a national news story to "go away quickly" it must exist in the first place. The mindset of too many is - we put up a gun free zone sign and that didn't work so we need a gun ban. This story plays to that crowd.

Dragonfly said:

You are now the Supreme Dictator of USofA.

You have all-ending power to do what you wish.

Would you make a decree that any and all shootings committed by teenagers, no matter how small or large, no matter the death toll, become banished from all media outside of the immediate area it happens and completely banished from all media 24 hours after incident?

If part of the reason some kids might be going to such extreme measures is the fact that they might become "famous" is true, why not put an end to the "route to fame"?

Do you think the media hype over these events plays an important role in setting up the next tragedy?

If so - would you do something to change it if you could?

Click to expand...

I think it plays an extremely minimal role. These killers do seem to be motivated by extreme egotism. They seem to feel like the world isn't paying them the type of attention they feel they deserve, and this is their solution (the world will never forget me now!). But anybody who does something as awful as killing innocent children for no reason is going to be remembered in his community and by the families of the victims in an intense way forever, regardless of the media coverage. I don't see prohibiting media coverage having much of an effect in that respect.

If you really want to use the media to deter these killers, have the media go after the people they cared about. And instead of having the media talk about "what made the killer do it?" "he seemed like such a nice boy," etc., they should compare the kid to other kids who experienced the same triggers, whether it be bullying, harassment, etc., and didn't go shoot up a school. Emphasize how extraordinarily cruel, selfish and lazy the decision to take out one's own issues on innocent people is. I believe this kids want to be remembered as mysteries, enigmas, martyrs even. But they aren't mysterious or martyrs at all -- just petulant brats.

ttwtt78640 said:

Care to do a quick search and note how many national news outlets jumped on this Arapahoe school shooting? Then count the number of ohter local shootings with two victims in those same national media sources. Obviously, for a national news story to "go away quickly" it must exist in the first place. The mindset of too many is - we put up a gun free zone sign and that didn't work so we need a gun ban. This story plays to that crowd.

Click to expand...

Yes, they jumped on it, because it happened Friday. Every school shooting, be it Columbine or Arapahoe, gets picked up on day one. You think people will still be talking about it on, say, Tuesday? The media cycle works fast. One person died in that shooting, and it was the shooter. This thing will be long gone by mid-week.

I'd decline the position of dictator.

If you want to know my opinions of a free press, check out any of about 300 quotes from Thomas Jefferson. I agree with him 100% on it.

Bob N said:

Well I don't know about others, but I would like to know what goes on in this world, and for someone to say that they would like to see the First Amendment walked over because they actually believe if atrocious crimes aren't reported, than the crimes would automatically stop, is not only absurd, but unfounded.

Click to expand...

The poll question assumed I am supreme dictator and have never ending power to do as I wish.This means I can change the constitution.

Want to know why there are not enough stories that depicts people preventing crimes with guns? Because there is not enough of them to sing about, James, that's why. In this report by the Violence Policy Center using analysis from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Crime Victimization Survey Data, there is most likely a chance of a person's gun being stolen than it being used to prevent a crime.

Here is an excerpt of the introduction to that report:

Click to expand...

The VPC is a anti-gun group of course they are going to say that.

Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US
Gary Kleck, Ph.D. is a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee and author of "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America" (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991), a book widely cited in the national gun-control debate. In an exclusive interview, Dr. Kleck revealed some preliminary results of the National Self- Defense Survey which he and his colleague Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993. Though he stresses that the results of the survey are preliminary and subject to future revision, Kleck is satisfied that the survey's results confirm his analysis of previous surveys which show that American civilians commonly use their privately-owned firearms to defend themselves against criminal attacks, and that such defensive uses significantly outnumber the criminal uses of firearms in America. The new survey, conducted by random telephone sampling of 4,978 households in all the states except Alaska and Hawaii, yield results indicating that American civilians use their firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year defending against a confrontation with a criminal, and that handguns alone account for up to 1.9 million defenses per year. Previous surveys, in Kleck's analysis, had underrepresented the extent of private firearms defenses because the questions asked failed to account for the possibility that a particular respondent might have had to use his or her firearm more than once.

Dragonfly said:

You are now the Supreme Dictator of USofA.

You have all-ending power to do what you wish.

Would you make a decree that any and all shootings committed by teenagers, no matter how small or large, no matter the death toll, become banished from all media outside of the immediate area it happens and completely banished from all media 24 hours after incident?

If part of the reason some kids might be going to such extreme measures is the fact that they might become "famous" is true, why not put an end to the "route to fame"?

Do you think the media hype over these events plays an important role in setting up the next tragedy?

Click to expand...

If so - would you do something to change it if you could?

Click to expand...

I have never seen a study which found that ignoring anything made it stop happening.

Kobie said:

In other words, you don't believe in Freedom of the Press, and you would like the Fairness Doctrine reinstated. You want the government to tell the press how to do their jobs.

Mighty "conservative" of you.

In what way are mass shooters "glorified"?

Click to expand...

Do you think the mass media portrays spree shooters in a positive light?

Click to expand...

If any mass shooter was ever 'glorified' I missed that incident.

Kobie said:

The conservative mantra (and, often, the liberal one) is when you don't like the facts that are being reported, blame the media. It's a tale as old as time.

FUN FACT: The "media" was several times accused of UNDER-REPORTING Columbine. People wanted to know every lurid detail, and finally less scrupulous outlets caved in. That's how Marilyn Manson got dragged into it.

The media gives the American people what they demand. And the vast majority of them want sensationalism.

Click to expand...

Much like government, the people get the media they deserve.

Click to expand...

The media doesn't make the men bite the dogs, it just reports on it.

Dragonfly said:

No degree of sensationalism?

There's no outward interest in selling the news with sensationalism?

The "news" isn't marketed these days?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Did you ever take a look at Yahoo News?

Kobie said:

In other words, you don't believe in Freedom of the Press, and you would like the Fairness Doctrine reinstated. You want the government to tell the press how to do their jobs.

Mighty "conservative" of you.

In what way are mass shooters "glorified"? Do you think the mass media portrays spree shooters in a positive light?

Click to expand...

Yes. They are often portrayed as insane, in need of mental health help, products of their environment, bullied, loners or suffering from other forces beyond their control. They are rarely, if ever, portrayed as evil, scummy, barely human, monsters that prey upon the weakest showing their inability to even pick, let alone win, a fair fight.

Gipper said:

I'd decline the position of dictator.

If you want to know my opinions of a free press, check out any of about 300 quotes from Thomas Jefferson. I agree with him 100% on it.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If you want to have a free country you have to have a free press.




"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers