I find it infuriating how after every mass shooting in the US, the US media (at least the few US papers I tend to follow/read) scramble to get out info about the shooter, with pictures, names and background-stories. Why give such a person a platform? I do realize that it generates clicks and people love to soak up that kind of stuff, but it feels terribly wrong on so many levels.
A man was called in by his girlfriend to her house, who she broke up with. He then pulled out a gun and held her and her best friend hostage for days at gunpoint. Police was called in, of course, and they spent days trying to negotiate with him so he'd let them in.
Of course, this is all the media talked about while it happened. One show host specifically, called Sonia Abrão, somehow managed to call the guy ON LIVE TELEVISION and had the most casual conversation ever, trying to get him to turn himself in.
Some time later, he let her friend go and police decided to raid the place. Only the friend survived.
This resulted in a documentary called Quem Matou Eloá? (Who Killed Eloá?) where her family and feminist figures talk about how her death was more than just a jealous boyfriend, and the media had a significant part of the guilt.
They are looking for someone who says it was nice guy and how shocking it all was. Usually some neighbour whose "hello" was answered by "hi". If he is young, he was definitely bullied.
Then, few months later if you follow it, it turns out the killed was causing issues last multiple years, had history of domestic violence and abuse, restraining order against him, beaten up few people and his own friends actually say "he was rough around the edges". Oh yeah, and what was called bullying was actually kids in school avoiding him, cause he was insulting them, stealing their stuff and beating them.
I'm not even white, but it seems to me that there is a very concerted effort by the media in the United States to push a race angle on everything, with whiteness being specifically stigmatized.
It did lead to the Unabomber's arrest. But in that case of course the newspapers only published the manifesto at the request of the FBI.
In that case, the killer's identity was unknown, but with so much text authored by him, the FBI figured (correctly) that someone would recognize the killer by his writing, and that outweighed the negatives of giving him more publicity; he already had plenty of that.
Unfortunately, you answered your own question. If a news outlet doesn't cover it, people will switch to one that does, affecting their bottom line.
Because people have a right to know, and I don't want big corporations to decide what kind of information to hide from me.