• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the media sensationalize (glorify?) mass shooters?

Should the media sensationalize (glorify?) mass shooters?

  • The media should continue as they have, and report everything.

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • The media should act more responsibly and restrict itself.

    Votes: 14 58.3%
  • There are pros and cons to both, so I'm not sure.

    Votes: 6 25.0%
  • This topic makes my head hurt.

    Votes: 2 8.3%

  • Total voters
    24

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
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).
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).

The media report, what you want to read (and discuss ) .
So the problem is the public buying silly stuff.
 
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.


The point should be more, why the media report such stuff. My suspicion is that that is what people buy.
 
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

The problem that I have with that idea is it then omits the emphasis on the criminal/nut leaving only the evil gun as the root cause of the situation. This tactic is used already for the anonymous urban gang thugs responsible for a good portion of gun crime; these gun crimes, while responsible for many more victims, are rarely reported except as aggregate statistics - making it appear that the guns alone cause gun crime.

Only if the specifics are reported can one ever use logic in order to determine if a proposed (or existing) "gun control" law would be (or is) effective. Knowing that the "nut" or "criminal" was not known as such, prior to the reported "super crime", makes fools of those that pretend that if we only had better "gun control" laws then these crimes could have been prevented.
 
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 don't want to know the shooters name.

After an incident like these the media repeats the name of the shooter so many times I know it just hearing it and what it is connected to.

Years later I can associate the shooter with the incident just from listening to news reports during the incident.

I don't want to know the shooters name and I don't want that stuck in my head.
 
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.

They can and must report on the incident, but they don't have to repeat the shooters name many times an hour nor do they need to dig into his background and making his name a household word.
 
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).

You might find these interesting.

The Media Needs to Stop Inspiring Copycat Murders. Here's How. - Zeynep Tufekci - The Atlantic


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/o...al-mass-killers.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=1&
 
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).

I think reporting should be balanced. There are two types of mass shootings. First is the individual who shoots lots of people and second are a mass of armed people shooting at one individual. For example, when the Boston bomber Tsarnev was in the boat, a mass of police officers fired over two hundred rounds into the boat even though they had not been fired upon. Many instances of groups of cops shooting suspects 20 or more times. I have a little trouble differentiating between these events. The cops all shoot so that only one cop won't be found guilty of a perhaps unncessary shooting. I don't think the cop shootings, of this nature, get the required press, and otoh, the individual mass shootings do get exaggerated press. I would prefer balance.
 
Resurrecting this thread in the hopes that this angle as a possible solution (at least in part) can be discussed further.

I don't want to start a new thread because I think a lot of great were made here already and they shouldn't be lost.
 
stopping the media barrage is simply virtually impossible. Because 1 network can be the "decent" one but then the viewers and the advertisers will move to a network that does show this bilge because that is what people want to see and watch and ogle at. They want the drama, the mourners, the tears, the anger, the accusations and the gossip. That is what people do and it can only be stopped if everybody started to live by that code of conduct but I doubt hell will freeze over sooner than that happening.
 
I think it's very difficult to determine what the moral position is for the media to take in this situation. You are correct that the focus on mass shootings does seem to glorify perpetrators of these tragedies, and if someone wants to spread a message, they could grab the attention of the nation by going on a shooting spree. On the other hand, if the media were to focus less on the occurrence of mass shootings, it would make many people forget that the problem exists, when it is a serious problem that our society needs to address, not try to forget about. Regardless, the media won't be factoring journalistic integrity into whatever decisions they make regarding this issue.
 
Try to imagine a mass shooting where none of the networks would tell you who did it. Would that be acceptable to you?
 
Try to imagine a mass shooting where none of the networks would tell you who did it. Would that be acceptable to you?

Yes it would be acceptable.They can bring attention to the tragedy without giving the suicidal pathetic social outcast loser who shot these people his 15 minutes of fame.
 
Yes it would be acceptable.They can bring attention to the tragedy without giving the suicidal pathetic social outcast loser who shot these people his 15 minutes of fame.

I agree! They could just say, some punk and that would be a-ok.

Other enquiring minds would start asking question, starting rumors, getting all worked up into a petulant frenzy.
 
Back
Top Bottom