This column is too late after the New York Daily News published the shooting photos on the front page. Also, every cable news channel had wall to wall coverage.
She says, "This may seem unrealistic." She is right. Everything she suggests is totally unrealistic. I didn't see her mention freedom of the press, which seems an enormous oversight.
She says, "This may seem unrealistic." She is right. Everything she suggests is totally unrealistic. I didn't see her mention freedom of the press, which seems an enormous oversight.
2
Seems unlikely that we'll change human nature by giving up press freedom...
4
Oh, the irony. All these media people saying we shouldn't talk about it. You're all part of the problem. It's the same people creating the Trump buzz while marveling that he's such a big story. Yeah, because you're making him one. Follow your own advice and we'd hear less about both of these tragedies.
30
What we have here are failed people - people who can't get the good life that they think they are entitled to and are frustrated with their lives. The real problem is the easy availability of guns - these people are looking for a way out of life, they are intent on suicide but with guns they can take out their perceived slights on others. If they had just a knife, they might injure a few but they would be caught and forced to face a trial, spend time in jail etc. But armed with a gun, they can kill and can be pretty sure that either they will be killed or can turn the gun on themselves
5
It's not that I don't follow the argument in the column or think that it doesn't have factual merit -- I can understand that less coverage might make future incidents less likely to occur. But I don't think that response is necessarily all that we can learn from this perverse use of TV broadcast, social media video, and even manifesto faxing to a network. To me part of what we learn is similar to what we learn from computer hacking or even from Iran's apparent quest for a nuclear bomb: technology in the wrong hands amplifies the trouble. How do we come to grips with that?
3
Agree wholeheartedly. See also NoNotoriety.com. From its website:
The quest for notoriety and infamy is a well known motivating factor in mass killings and violent copycat crimes. In an effort to reduce future tragedies, we CHALLENGE THE MEDIA – calling for RESPONSIBLE MEDIA COVERAGE FOR THE SAKE OF PUBLIC SAFETY when reporting on individuals who commit or attempt acts of rampage mass violence thereby depriving violent like minded individuals the media celebrity and media spotlight they so crave.
NO NOTORIETY CHALLENGE TO THE MEDIA
◾Limit the name and likeness of the individual from reporting after initial identification, except when the alleged assailant is still at large and in doing so would aid in the assailant’s capture.
◾Refuse to broadcast/publish photos and/or self-serving statements made by the individual. Elevate the names and likenesses of all victims killed to send the message their lives are more important than the killer.
◾Recognize that the prospect of infamy could serve as a motivating factor for other individuals to kill others and could inspire copycat crimes. Keep this responsibility in mind when reporting.
◾Agree to promote data and analysis from experts in mental health, public safety, and other relevant professions to support further steps to help eliminate the motivation behind mass murder. Recognize that the individual’s name and likeness is irrelevant to media coverage of such acts unless the alleged assailant is at large.
The quest for notoriety and infamy is a well known motivating factor in mass killings and violent copycat crimes. In an effort to reduce future tragedies, we CHALLENGE THE MEDIA – calling for RESPONSIBLE MEDIA COVERAGE FOR THE SAKE OF PUBLIC SAFETY when reporting on individuals who commit or attempt acts of rampage mass violence thereby depriving violent like minded individuals the media celebrity and media spotlight they so crave.
NO NOTORIETY CHALLENGE TO THE MEDIA
◾Limit the name and likeness of the individual from reporting after initial identification, except when the alleged assailant is still at large and in doing so would aid in the assailant’s capture.
◾Refuse to broadcast/publish photos and/or self-serving statements made by the individual. Elevate the names and likenesses of all victims killed to send the message their lives are more important than the killer.
◾Recognize that the prospect of infamy could serve as a motivating factor for other individuals to kill others and could inspire copycat crimes. Keep this responsibility in mind when reporting.
◾Agree to promote data and analysis from experts in mental health, public safety, and other relevant professions to support further steps to help eliminate the motivation behind mass murder. Recognize that the individual’s name and likeness is irrelevant to media coverage of such acts unless the alleged assailant is at large.
34
This is going to come across as being in rather poor taste, but about two months ago, when the media was falling all over itself giving another attention seeking shooter all the attention he could ever have dreamed of, I don't remember any calls for restraint.
I'm referring of course to Dylann Roof -- who, oddly, wasn't included in this op-ed's roll call of media inspired killers. Roof's killings were racially motivated, and the media found this enormously, endlessly significant. Vester Flanagan's killings were also racially motivated, but the media -- certainly the Times! -- sees no significance in this, and talks about it as little as it can get away with.
Would this be the case if Flanagan had been a racially motivated white man who shot two black coworkers on live TV and posted it on Facebook? Or would the exact same case, with the races simply reversed, suddenly take on profound meaning, and reveal deep and bitter truths about America? Again, I know this is in poor taste, but can you really blame me for suspecting that I would be reading a very different op-ed right now if Flanagan had been white and his victims black?
I'm referring of course to Dylann Roof -- who, oddly, wasn't included in this op-ed's roll call of media inspired killers. Roof's killings were racially motivated, and the media found this enormously, endlessly significant. Vester Flanagan's killings were also racially motivated, but the media -- certainly the Times! -- sees no significance in this, and talks about it as little as it can get away with.
Would this be the case if Flanagan had been a racially motivated white man who shot two black coworkers on live TV and posted it on Facebook? Or would the exact same case, with the races simply reversed, suddenly take on profound meaning, and reveal deep and bitter truths about America? Again, I know this is in poor taste, but can you really blame me for suspecting that I would be reading a very different op-ed right now if Flanagan had been white and his victims black?
21
Don't give a name, don't run a picture. Just say "some loser with a lot of resentments."
10
Unfortunately, since social media now predominates much of how we get information, the idea that the mainstream press can censor the reporting of such individuals and the crimes they perpetrate is inconsequential to the discussion. As heinous as his crime was, to think this maniac could make a video of his actually committing the crime and posting it on the web is not really the main issue here.
The fact is America has far too many guns along with the ability for pretty much anyone to easily secure such weapons, even a mentally disturbed individual. That is and always has been the problem.
The fact is America has far too many guns along with the ability for pretty much anyone to easily secure such weapons, even a mentally disturbed individual. That is and always has been the problem.
10
Wrong Wrong Wrong
These shooters have friends and relatives and co-workers. We need to understand the pathology. Notoriety is rarely the motivation.
Hiding the ugliness only makes the matter worse.
Want sane gun control?
Show the video of this latest murder.
Show the crime scene photos from Sandy Hook.
Make the NRA terrorists face the results of their insanity.
Don't keep it abstract (people kill people not guns), but make the horror absolutely clear and uncensored.
A phalanx of folks with crime scene photos outside a gun show...outside of an NRA coven.....
Progress.
So no "denying" murderers their "media moment" is NOT a solution.
These shooters have friends and relatives and co-workers. We need to understand the pathology. Notoriety is rarely the motivation.
Hiding the ugliness only makes the matter worse.
Want sane gun control?
Show the video of this latest murder.
Show the crime scene photos from Sandy Hook.
Make the NRA terrorists face the results of their insanity.
Don't keep it abstract (people kill people not guns), but make the horror absolutely clear and uncensored.
A phalanx of folks with crime scene photos outside a gun show...outside of an NRA coven.....
Progress.
So no "denying" murderers their "media moment" is NOT a solution.
12
The only problem with trying to ignore murderers like this is that it also squashes discussion and action on the real problem which is getting rid of the US gun addiction.
14
Rebecca, I believe we are ignoring murderers and have been for years. We need to try something different, as past practice is not working at all.
There has been no discussion and even less action. Blame it on our politicians and the NRA.
There has been no discussion and even less action. Blame it on our politicians and the NRA.
6
I have little doubt that sufficient detail of this atrocity can be discussed without either contributing to the contagion of mass killing or squashing discussion of sensible gun safety regulations.
3
"The Virginia Shooter Wanted Fame. Let’s Not Give It to Him."
What a stupid comment, Ms. Tufekci.
In a country where anyone, children, the mentally ill, criminals, terrorists, can buy arms, the problem is NOT the fame a murderer acquires via social media.
The problem is our liberal policy toward gun ownership because the right to own a gun is the de facto to use that gun to commit murder.
I say give the murderer his "fame" because the reality is that with social media, NO ONE is giving the murderer fame. Social media, like gun violence, fueled by capitalism, is what gives the murderer his "fame."
It helps to highlight our SHAME as a gun-crazed society.
Have a nice day!
What a stupid comment, Ms. Tufekci.
In a country where anyone, children, the mentally ill, criminals, terrorists, can buy arms, the problem is NOT the fame a murderer acquires via social media.
The problem is our liberal policy toward gun ownership because the right to own a gun is the de facto to use that gun to commit murder.
I say give the murderer his "fame" because the reality is that with social media, NO ONE is giving the murderer fame. Social media, like gun violence, fueled by capitalism, is what gives the murderer his "fame."
It helps to highlight our SHAME as a gun-crazed society.
Have a nice day!
3
It's not the media's job to make a story about a double murder somehow more appetizing to some of its readers, divine and thwart the wishes of the killer or anticipate future events, but to be accurate and thorough: who, what, when, where, why and how. To do anything less is to trivialize the event and neglect the media's basic mission in a free society.
9
It appears from clear scientific evidence that the challenge is to find a way to convey the important facts of an atrocity like this without encouraging like-minded individuals to create another one.
10
The people who created Facebook, Google, Airbnb, Uber, etc are proud of their technology being "disruptive". This is one of the consequences of their disruptive technology. I don't believe that the killer was mentally ill. I believe that he was merely very, very angry.
5
It's too bad Arizona State University only focused on what the main-stream media wants to believe, that certain crimes inspire copycat crimes. We all know it does, so ASU wasted everybody's time with a pointless study. Instead, what ASU should have done was a study on whether states with lax gun laws have higher violent crime rates than states with strict gun laws. Of course they will never consider doing that because they are based in Arizona, where it is very easy to get a gun permit.
3
Excellent article and obvious to anyone. We don't need photos of the murderers, because, well, why? We don't want to read their "manifestos", or know their backgrounds. An "investigation" is now taking place regarding the killer's motives, I suppose, a waste of time and money. He was deranged and out of control. Would therapy have helped? Who knows? Sometimes it does, but there is every likelihood it wouldn't have. Until politicians do their job and help to save the lives of the 30,000 victims of gun violence each year, America will be thought of as a backward country. Two pieces of positive news from this incredible and sad tragedy: it brings gun violence to the forefront (again) and the murderer murdered himself.
7
My great-great-grandfather, the family story goes, was the editor for the newspaper in Kansas during the great depression. At the time Wichita was suffering from a series of suicides. My great-grandfather made the editorial decision to stop reporting them - and was credited for a dramatic drop in the suicide rate.
14
Interesting, considering how the NYT and the rest of the MSM gave the South Carolina shooter all the fame he craved for just a month ago. Funny how that works.
19
This article makes an excellent point about discouraging copycat mass murderers. It will be hard to implement. There are so many news outlets. In addition, some of the spectacular stories are propagated by social media. In order not to inspire copycats, the best thing that the media could do is not to report on the motives of the killers. This is not in the cards. The public wants to know, and they are going to tell them.
1
Gun culture is very prominent in USA. Gun Industry is one of the most powerful Lobbies in USA. Along with Pro Israeli Lobbyists it controls the Congress.
No Senator or Representative dare question why getting gun is as easy as buying chewing gum.
Another interesting thing with US Media and much of Puditry is that if act of terror is committed by someone other than a Muslim, no one rush to find what was the faith of the perpetrator.
In these cases the usual reason put forward is that the individual was either marginalised or had mental ailment.
As if Muslim perpetrators do not must not have these problems!
No Senator or Representative dare question why getting gun is as easy as buying chewing gum.
Another interesting thing with US Media and much of Puditry is that if act of terror is committed by someone other than a Muslim, no one rush to find what was the faith of the perpetrator.
In these cases the usual reason put forward is that the individual was either marginalised or had mental ailment.
As if Muslim perpetrators do not must not have these problems!
Seriously, NYT? You offer us this truly incoherent "opinion" with everything that must be available to you? We can't either give or deny to this murderer what he wanted or wants because there is no killer now. He does not exist. There is no perspective or consciousness that has whatever desires that murderer had while he existed. His worldview, his world, ceased to be when he died.
The only people you deny or give information to is us, the living. This is a matter of information flow, of transparency. None of us, the living, benefits by your hiding the facts. If this is porn, like all porn, each of us can choose to watch or not watch. And if it's not porn to me, I may learn something or be motivated to take some corrective action or write a scathing letter to my congressperson demanding rational gun laws or whatever. But censoring reality always goes in a bad direction
And don't publish these opinionators who fantasize an omniscient perspective. Those only exist in fiction.
The only people you deny or give information to is us, the living. This is a matter of information flow, of transparency. None of us, the living, benefits by your hiding the facts. If this is porn, like all porn, each of us can choose to watch or not watch. And if it's not porn to me, I may learn something or be motivated to take some corrective action or write a scathing letter to my congressperson demanding rational gun laws or whatever. But censoring reality always goes in a bad direction
And don't publish these opinionators who fantasize an omniscient perspective. Those only exist in fiction.
5
I agree about the danger of stimulating copy-cat crimes. But, unfortunately, even the evening news programs of the major networks have become copies of what used to pass for our local evening news -- mostly lurid stories of one type or another, both foreign and domestic. That's what their audience wants to hear. Wish I could offer solution, but I have come up short.
3
There are several sides to this argument. One is that the shock of the horror of the Roanoke TV station video could shock voters out of their complacency about gun violence and encourage them to pressure their elected representatives and to vote for sanity.
That said, I take Ms. Tufekci's point, and the studies she cites, that the suggestive copycat harm might outweigh any public benefit generated by the shock of witnessing horror. For this reason, I am removing the WDBJ-7 video from the home page of my End the Madness blog, but leaving the link on a subsidiary page.
Like Ms. Tufekci, I now feel that more people might be motivated than outraged. I thank her for her perspective.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
That said, I take Ms. Tufekci's point, and the studies she cites, that the suggestive copycat harm might outweigh any public benefit generated by the shock of witnessing horror. For this reason, I am removing the WDBJ-7 video from the home page of my End the Madness blog, but leaving the link on a subsidiary page.
Like Ms. Tufekci, I now feel that more people might be motivated than outraged. I thank her for her perspective.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
14
Another tragedy again! The author is suggesting not to give ant media coverage to deny the killer fame for his infamy. Wonderful suggestion except that will never happen. These days people manipulate the media to promote their own agenda - be it sensational killings, the more brutal and bizarre, the more air time. It has become the staple of broken political system ( Trump! ) smart enough to get free publicity by making statements that are unbelievable, the more the better. Notice all the Senators and House Representatives trying to get their two-minute camera-time denouncing policies when they should be in-house debating and voting for the said policies. ISIS posts their grotesque killings and it goes viral propagating their inhumanity and finding recruits. All these coverage ends with more coverage asking the same questions - who where, what, why, how could etc.,etc. The causes are known, the solutions are known. This exposure does not become an eye-opener. Instead we have the same story repeated over and over again. Tragedy happens, appropriate polite sounds are made, duty done, feel good and disperse - until the next time! The media keeps saying, " we should ignore " but then they go ahead and NOT do just that! How else can you explain Trump's lead especially with no superPACs and no money from special interests?
Too late! And your column doesn't help!
1
The media didn't seem to have any qualms about rewarding with fame the white South Carolina shooter who murdered black churchgoers. Now, a black gay Virginia shooter all worked up by conventional identity politics murders two straight white people, and it's time to hush up about his motivations?
5
She is correct. This is the only way to end these tragedies.
3
'The framework necessary to dampen the copycat effect is nowhere as severe as such a blackout. Instead, it requires not giving the killers the fame they most likely seek for their face or for their words or videos, while reporting on the news with a focus on victims and the brutality of the crime.'
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for writing this article. Thanks to NYT for
publishing it.
I have never understood why the killers become famous and those murdered
get little or no remembrances in the media. This is exactly backward. These
cowardly and mentally deranged killers should be placed in the dust bin of
history for their brutal acts. The media must stop glorifying the killers and
the killings.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for writing this article. Thanks to NYT for
publishing it.
I have never understood why the killers become famous and those murdered
get little or no remembrances in the media. This is exactly backward. These
cowardly and mentally deranged killers should be placed in the dust bin of
history for their brutal acts. The media must stop glorifying the killers and
the killings.
4
I agree with this 100%. These guys are heroes in their own minds. We need not to feed into their fantasy. Don't give them air time.
5
The expanding availability of the internet showed such promise. The rise of social media has instead made the internet a societal curse. It seems the people who use social media the most -- pornographers, terrorists, psychopaths, stalkers -- have forever poisoned the well. The genie is out of the bottle and I have no idea how or when the madness that has ensued will slow or stop. Very discouraging.
2
The only novelty of these killings was that they were committed by a (former) local TV reporter and that they occurred on-camera (although, to my knowledge, the actual killings were not captured on video, either by the killer or by the murdered TV cameraman). This was just another disgruntled employee, a mentally unstable man who may or may not have been pushed over the edge by allegedly racist behavior by his former co-workers. It has occurred in parking lots and offices (and not just post offices) for many years.
It's a sign of how backward American culture has become in comparison to much of the rest of the world that such killings -- combining volatile elements of race, public personae, employment/money and handguns -- have become so commonplace, even mundane, no matter how much they are sensationalized by and for "intended audiences" trying to convince themselves that they feel something.
It's a sign of how backward American culture has become in comparison to much of the rest of the world that such killings -- combining volatile elements of race, public personae, employment/money and handguns -- have become so commonplace, even mundane, no matter how much they are sensationalized by and for "intended audiences" trying to convince themselves that they feel something.
2
The media lives for spectacular news stories. The amount of advertising the media sells is dependent on eyeballs viewing their product.
No mentally ill people running amok, no career criminals let out early on parole, fewer eyeballs on eye grabbing stories. Lower advertising revenue.
Smaller paychecks for journalists. Never happen.
For the same reasons we have lenient prosecutors and judges. More business for law enforcement and the courts with more career criminals returned to the streets early.
Not to mention the closing of the large state mental hospitals. Having most of the mentally ill out on the streets with little more than a bottle of pills and a pat on the head creates all kinds of opportunities for expensive, fragmented government activity.
It's not cynical to follow the money in a media environment saturated with run of the mill content.
No mentally ill people running amok, no career criminals let out early on parole, fewer eyeballs on eye grabbing stories. Lower advertising revenue.
Smaller paychecks for journalists. Never happen.
For the same reasons we have lenient prosecutors and judges. More business for law enforcement and the courts with more career criminals returned to the streets early.
Not to mention the closing of the large state mental hospitals. Having most of the mentally ill out on the streets with little more than a bottle of pills and a pat on the head creates all kinds of opportunities for expensive, fragmented government activity.
It's not cynical to follow the money in a media environment saturated with run of the mill content.
1
Well thought out and articulated. Thank you for an excellent and moving piece. Let's hope your ideas gain some traction
6
Freedom implies responsibility. It is time for Congress to do their job and discuss how the gun violence can/must be prevented by laws. Those who have mental disorders must be prevented from owning a gun. There needs to be a law that requires gun owners to register all the guns that they own. In addition every gun owner must be required to carry a license that indicates how many guns that person has. I agree with other commenters that I was sure that the carnage at Sandy Hook Elementary School would at the very least result in a discussion in Congress. I hope some brave Senators and some courageous members of the House of Representatives will insist on discussing the issue of gun violence soon.
6
Canada has gun regulations that are somewhat more restrictive than the US but that does not prevent guns being used in crimes. In 2015 Canada's courts ruled against the registration of non-restricted guns, however gun owners are registered. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada
Hunting is big business in Canada and it is easy for a US citizen to bring a rifle and ammo into Canada to go hunting - if it pays it stays. Canadians resent US folks telling them what to do, I get that as our cultures are different A.
Hunting is big business in Canada and it is easy for a US citizen to bring a rifle and ammo into Canada to go hunting - if it pays it stays. Canadians resent US folks telling them what to do, I get that as our cultures are different A.
The "well regulated militia" clause in the second amendment is obviously a clarion call to Congress to use its Article I Section 8 powers to regulate militias to protect the rights and liberties of the unarmed.
4
About 1/3 of the US population has a mental illness of some kind. Some are more severe and persistent than others. How will a gun dealer know when someone has a mental illness and how severe it is and when a gun can be sold to a person or not. If the illness is untreated, how would anyone know the individual even has a mental illness. Can you tell someone is a diabetic just by looking at him or her?
It's time to limit gun ownership, period, through thoughtful and strong legislation, and good enforcement. What that looks like, I don't know, but I do know that singling out those with mental illness will not work, and further stigmatize people who suffer from mental illness.
The poor father of the murdered girl keeps saying that "crazy" people shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Perhaps he should turn his ire towards the NRA rather than "crazy" people. Just wondering - is Donald Trump included in the definition of "crazy"? I would include him.
It's time to limit gun ownership, period, through thoughtful and strong legislation, and good enforcement. What that looks like, I don't know, but I do know that singling out those with mental illness will not work, and further stigmatize people who suffer from mental illness.
The poor father of the murdered girl keeps saying that "crazy" people shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Perhaps he should turn his ire towards the NRA rather than "crazy" people. Just wondering - is Donald Trump included in the definition of "crazy"? I would include him.
4
Excellent suggestion and recommendation. Copycats abound, just waiting for the chance of a minute, or two, of evanescent glory, as they try to escape irrelevance and oblivion. Mental illness, specially in a society living in chronic unrelieved stress, ought to deserve our full attention for possible remedy. This, irrespective of the urgency in shutting down the constant flow of guns by unscrupulous suppliers...and the nefarious influence of the N.R.A.
5
The day JFK was shot, I was a college student majoring in journalism. It would never have occurred to anyone that Lee Harvey Oswald shouldn't be identified, examined, publicized, and discussed. It's true that the media and society are very different now, but that doesn't mean we should give up the freedom to report real news, or for that matter to televise dramas about criminals, which is what such self-censorship would probably stretch to. What we need is better gun control, better oversight of mental health, better prisons that don't double as mental institutions, and more awareness of the ways people become violent. Those are difficult and often expensive responses, but far better than refusing to recognize a murderer because it might inspire others.
17
the chances of all of the above reforms happening are nil.
this is not proposed self-censorship. it is a call to stop glorifying murderers.
this is not proposed self-censorship. it is a call to stop glorifying murderers.
4
And who will pay for the better oversight of mental health? And how can one identify these individuals?
Just for these incidents, don't waste time and money with a needless trial.
How about throwing them in a dark hole. No trial. No media coverage. No attention.
Do, however, track down who got them their gun. Follow that enabler around. Hound them. Shame them. Make them responsible.
How about throwing them in a dark hole. No trial. No media coverage. No attention.
Do, however, track down who got them their gun. Follow that enabler around. Hound them. Shame them. Make them responsible.
13
The I-95 corridor through North Carolina and Virginia, are known for the easy access of guns
Wait, there was *just* a mass killing of 9 people in a church. No mention of keeping that quiet. In fact, it's not even cataloged in the authors list of mass killings.
3
Everyone seeks meaning to their lives. Some find it in relationships or work or service to a larger purpose or religious belief. Increasingly in America either money or fame are seen as the best or only ways to find self worth. We are a sick bunch.
6
Finally someone is saying this. We could prevent a lot of killings if we just as a society refused to publish this stuff. The news media could agree that they would spend no more than a single brief sentence on the event ("50 people were shot yesterday at X mall/college/wherever"). NO MENTION at all of the shooter's name. Plenty of follow-up discussion, though, about the availability of guns and/or the problems with dealing with the mentally ill (or what to do about ISIS, as the case may be). Social media sites would also write in to their terms of service that the sharing of images/names of killers is forbidden and gets you booted off. None of this would be perfect, and yes the names and images would still get out. But by reducing the overall amount of coverage, many lives would be saved. The media need to act more responsibly than they do. Guys, there is more to life than making a buck. There actually is.
57
The media attention is a real problem. It's not as much of a problem as the easy access to guns or identifying and treating mental illness. However, the coverage of the Virginia TV shootings was constant and incessant. The fact that the shooter himself disseminated video and written accounts makes it clear that he was looking for, and getting, attention. Maybe with less coverage the next guy (or gal) will have less incentive to commit such acts and the rest of us (and our kids and grandkids) won't have to watch them live.
7
It is interesting to note that Alison Parker, the reporter who was murdered, and according to her Dad (CNN interview, 8/27/15), had gained significant respect from law enforcement because she voluntarily withheld news reports that might compromise investigations. As a result, she was the first beneficiary of breaking news from law enforcement that was later passed on to other media outlets. So, taking a responsible approach to how and when news is delivered can be professionally, as well as socially, beneficial. In the long term, I can't imagine that such benefits would not prove "profitable" for all who do the right thing instead of the expedient thing.
1
What I have found interesting about this tragedy is that when news and media personalities are involved in a crime like this, the news media suddenly develops a "conscience" and sense of decency about how they report these acts of violence.
If this had not been two journalists murdered, and video of this horrific act had been available, you can bet the footage would have found its way on to the cable news shows. I really believe that.
Let's hope that the media community learns an important lesson from this terrible tragedy and the positive feedback many media outlets have received by not showing the videos. Every victim of these crimes was a human being. They had a family and were loved. To show footage of violence against other human beings just to feed some perverse curiosity of viewers (and bump up ratings) demeans the victims and has a negative impact on their loved ones.
If this had not been two journalists murdered, and video of this horrific act had been available, you can bet the footage would have found its way on to the cable news shows. I really believe that.
Let's hope that the media community learns an important lesson from this terrible tragedy and the positive feedback many media outlets have received by not showing the videos. Every victim of these crimes was a human being. They had a family and were loved. To show footage of violence against other human beings just to feed some perverse curiosity of viewers (and bump up ratings) demeans the victims and has a negative impact on their loved ones.
42
It demeans not only the victims but all of us who exploit, post and consume these images. And yet, that's the culture the killer and the victims were deeply involved in promoting. The killer himself was a local TV news vulture who circled around death scenes (car accidents, house fires, murders) and suitably characterized them in shocked, "what-a-shame" language as "horrible tragedies" or the like. The pathetic creature just decided to steal focus by staging his own.
1
I think there was too much coverage, not too little.
Well, as much as one can criticize CNN as a news organization, they do some things extremely right. Anderson Cooper is one who has been following the dictates of both his own conscience and, now, it appears, the best science. Certainly, he is probably under some pressure by CNN management, but his work is among the most exemplary in this respect. And if CNN management supports it fully, so much the better.
3
Couldn't agree more. Indeed we should not even report murders at all......
We should expunge Lee Harvey Oswald from all history books.
John Wilkes Booth? Only encouraged subsequent assassinations of Presidents.
The fact that xxxxxx inspired other movie theater murder attempts had NOTHING TO DO with the identity of the shooter.
In the same way, the identity of officer XXXXXX, murdered of Eric Garner has not encouraged or discouraged homicidal and racist police officers (I'm not ignoring the white kid who was murdered by a police officer, but he is exceptional).
The anonymity of civilian murders and censoring their motives is as serious a mistake as the withholding the name of killer cops.
The publicity/fame genie is way out of the bottle. It may provide a useful map to spot another crazy person prior to the bad act.
We have brutally violent movie scenes. We have brutally violent video games.
You want gun control: show the murder victims and the video.
You want gun control: show the crime scene images from Sandy Hook.
Keep it abstract and the NRA and their camp followers can argue the abstract.
American Exceptionalism: We sell guns to anyone....even crazy people!!
We should expunge Lee Harvey Oswald from all history books.
John Wilkes Booth? Only encouraged subsequent assassinations of Presidents.
The fact that xxxxxx inspired other movie theater murder attempts had NOTHING TO DO with the identity of the shooter.
In the same way, the identity of officer XXXXXX, murdered of Eric Garner has not encouraged or discouraged homicidal and racist police officers (I'm not ignoring the white kid who was murdered by a police officer, but he is exceptional).
The anonymity of civilian murders and censoring their motives is as serious a mistake as the withholding the name of killer cops.
The publicity/fame genie is way out of the bottle. It may provide a useful map to spot another crazy person prior to the bad act.
We have brutally violent movie scenes. We have brutally violent video games.
You want gun control: show the murder victims and the video.
You want gun control: show the crime scene images from Sandy Hook.
Keep it abstract and the NRA and their camp followers can argue the abstract.
American Exceptionalism: We sell guns to anyone....even crazy people!!
6
At the intersection of easy availability of guns, unstable people with a persecution complex, and the opportunity to gain notoriety through social media are the friends and family members of those who pull off these stunts. Just like on the train in France, individuals need to pay attention and intervene.
11
Hey, look at me! I'm talking about a current event! I want to tell you to stop publicizing this current event! Look at me!
11
So you’re saying the proper way to plead that the media stop giving so much airtime to the perpetrators of such horrific tragedies as we saw yesterday is to not suggest it at all? Isn’t this how positive change DOESN'T happen?
Ironically, it’s sometimes necessary to make a loud “Shhhh!” sound in order to stop people from making noise.
Ironically, it’s sometimes necessary to make a loud “Shhhh!” sound in order to stop people from making noise.
2
I think the title "The Virginia Shooter Wanted Fame. Let's not give it to him." is an incorrect attempt at mind reading. "The shooter" was apparently suffering from his own perceptions of how he was being treated. I expect it was a culture shock moving to Virginia as much as anything else including the possibility that he was mentally ill or suffering from PTSD. Its a lot easier to be off and weird and angry in the "Open Ward" some affectionately call Berkeley/Oakland.
The point is he was taking revenge and the videos in spite of his rhetoric were part of that revenge not an attempt to be infamous.
The correct focus here is why was this man so alone in the world?
Why did his employers people in direct contact with him not openly speak to him about his anger trying to help him work it out instead of formally telling him that people were afraid of him?
I expect it was that impersonal "you make people afraid of you" instead of the more humane "I can see you are angry can you please explain why?"
Of course he went off the edge and that's on him for choosing to, but one has to ask why was this employer so impersonal and distancing when that impersonal distance may be the reason he felt there was bigotry.
They don't have to do therapy but being common sense decent human isn't very hard. Oh yea you have to be that way all the time you cannot just start acting chummy when a problem comes up.
The point is he was taking revenge and the videos in spite of his rhetoric were part of that revenge not an attempt to be infamous.
The correct focus here is why was this man so alone in the world?
Why did his employers people in direct contact with him not openly speak to him about his anger trying to help him work it out instead of formally telling him that people were afraid of him?
I expect it was that impersonal "you make people afraid of you" instead of the more humane "I can see you are angry can you please explain why?"
Of course he went off the edge and that's on him for choosing to, but one has to ask why was this employer so impersonal and distancing when that impersonal distance may be the reason he felt there was bigotry.
They don't have to do therapy but being common sense decent human isn't very hard. Oh yea you have to be that way all the time you cannot just start acting chummy when a problem comes up.
3
What you say may be true, but it does not negate Tufekci's point that the killer was seeking attention.
12
" I expect it was a culture shock moving to Virginia". I know, Virginia must be a gulag. Show pity for this poor man.
1
Tufekci reveals stark ignorance about the reality of the Virginia news reporters murders. The murderer was clearly severely mentally ill yet Tufekci claims this person (although conceding he was possible mentally ill) committed this terrible crime because he wanted 'publicity'. Lets get real. The shooter had a history of untreated serious mental illness. It was the mental illness that drove his deranged act - not some overriding need for 'publicity'. Does Tufekci really believe if it was not for iphones and the possibility of instant mass attention that this deranged man would have not committed his violence but would have stayed within his incoherent isolated self destructive world? Unless and until this nation acknowledges the sad and distressing reality of the thousands of untreated sufferers of untreated serious mental illness who are a threat to themselves and others, these terrible events will only continue - regardless of the 'publicity'.
11
He was obviously influenced by prior sensationalized acts. He said so.
5
It's always UNTREATED, isn't it. Families are not going to "turn these people in" for treatment. We have to be politically correct, after all. And that's what we get.
1
You can be mentally ill and still crave publicity. In fact, an intese craving for publicity can be a clear sign of mental illness. Don't believe me ask Reagan's would-be assassin; I'm not going to do him the favor of mentioning his name.
6
After years of this fact being obvious and the media continuing coverage of each murder, it takes media personnel being murdered for an article stating that coverage of the shooter is bad to be published in the New York Times? The fixation with guns and attempting to limit them seems to lead to the media publicizing these type of actions.
Kudos to the writer!
Kudos to the writer!
12
I agree. For instance look at the absolutely disgusting detail with which the NYT reported the testimony of the young lady who was raped at Saint Paul's school in Concord. Over time she will find that she has been victimized by this more than by the rape itself.
2
From your lips to God's ears. We should never give these killers a platform or notoriety, as that is what they seek.
To influence change, take a minute and write the mainstream stations and news outlets that aired the footage and make your disgust known. I did.
To influence change, take a minute and write the mainstream stations and news outlets that aired the footage and make your disgust known. I did.
47
I'm on social media a lot and I'm one of the few people that never wrote the killer's name or shared (let alone viewed) his horrific video and social media sites. I was more concerned about the victims and the future ramifications of this tragic act of violence.
13
So it's all about you?
4
Why be nasty, Blue State? I think the writer might have been conveying that very few people stop to think about the impact of sharing that footage. You are entitled to your thought but try some kindness, give the writer the benefit of the doubt, and keep it to yourself.
7
Therefore, our focus and attention regarding prevention, if that's even possible, might in addition to toning down coverage which probably won't happen, would be to create specific guidelines for how to get help for family or friends or those in our workplace who are showing unhealthy symptoms and signs. But doing that would require walking a thin line regarding their rights v our rights to lessen this kind of violent usually grievance based acting out behavior.