Does Media Coverage Inspire Copy Cat Mass Shootings?

Maybe it wouldn't be as bad if the media didn't engage in an aggressive 24/7 bombardment compaign. I first noticed this when I was younger and the OJ Simpson thing happened - the news media broadcasted repeated footage of his SUV driving away from a zillion cop cars. We saw this during wartime, Saddam Hussein in 91. We saw this basically for the past 30 years at least via broadcast media and CNN. We see it during wars, but we also see it when media personalities are broadcast repeatedly due to a scandal or perhaps (like the useless Royal Family) due to some human interest thing. We see it on scary things -- the Murder Hornets have arrived. Avian flu is here. Etc. Is there a kernel of truth in some of those things? Sure. But my concern is the repetition and the cycling.

Now we see the mechanism at work in social media and online news media.

This is not new. It was called propaganda in WWI and WW2, and one tactic (this is discussed in Manufacturing Consent) is repetition. "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”. Except we can add to the American news media, perhaps a new, Repeat an image and it becomes numbing.

Should we report on mass shootings, on racist actions and everything else. Sure. But ask yourself, are we doing a service or a disservice with a relentless bombardment compaign. Does this affect mental health? Is this useful, productive for society? Have you ever obsessed over anything? Is the media tapping into a frailty?

It does inspire copy cat suicides.

In hindsight of what has happened in the past 40 years, I wonder if we wouldn’t be better off without video-based mass media. It seems better discussion can happen without the distraction. (this is esp. true for those of us who have lived in a media whirlwind and seen the blatant and lazy manipulation of facts)

There is an idea I've been playing with for years that I think would be useful in this sort of situation, though sadly I think its a bit too clever to get traction amongst not-nerds.

In the webcomic Digger[1], one of the main characters is an exiled hyena. I'm a bit lazy right now to go digging through the archive for the exact panels that explain the situation[2], but there's a twist on just plain exile. The character's name was "eaten". This is expanded on a bit more in the comic if you're in the mood for an archive binge, but the key phrases are, "Name eaten, gone. It an it now, not a real person," "Of course it remembers [its name]. It remembers the rabbit it ate yesterday too, but rabbit still gone. Memory not life. Name eaten, dead, gone".

Someone who goes and massacres a church, school, theater, grocery store, in doing so has renounced their humanity. AFAICT, across all cultures in history, there's a fairly consistent group of things that are Shit What You Just Don't Fucking Do, and massacring a defenseless group of your fellows seems to fall under that heading. So you want to go shoot up a bunch of people? Okay, your name is eaten. May you die an unknown forgotten unperson, instead of the immortality the news grants to such killers now.

Like i said. I think it's a bit too clever to really catch on. But I do wish the news would stop granting a sort of immortality to people who commit such horrific acts.

1. Start here at the beginning of the archive, the front pages shows the last panel -- http://diggercomic.com/blog/2007/02/01/wombat1-gnorf/ 2. Okay, fine, I found it: https://diggercomic.com/blog/2007/02/28/digger-26/

Perhaps one day we'll not publish the names of assailants of these kinds of crimes, just as we don't publish the names of victims of certain other crimes.

I recall that NPR took some advice from psychologists who talked to mass shooters.

They made a point to not emphasize the shooters name, not go into detail about their manifesto or ideology. They tried to avoid sounds and videos of chaos. They didn't completely ignore those things, but they choose to limit them.

They did talk about victims, their names, stories of communities, stories about people helping each other after the event.

In short they emphasized things the shooters don't like to think about and deemphasized things shooters like.

It's not clear if it helps, but I sure liked the coverage.

These are generally mentally unstable people.

I liken it to a young child that wouldn't have come up with the idea - of stealing candy - let's say, until someone tells them specifically not to steal any candy - i.e. it expands their field of what's possible. Then it's their notion of morality (right vs. wrong) that dissuades them.

I don't know.

What I do know is that many countries have massive media coverage of mass shootings.

But I'm not sure if there is any country besides the US which has such massive problems with mass shootings.

So even if it might amplify thinks it seems unlikely to be the root cause.

If it bleeds it leads. I don’t think there is anything we can do about it. For profit news companies will always be a thing.

Basically unrestricted access to guns causes mass shootings. Maybe we can do something to stop bad people from getting guns?