Quote (IceMage @ Jun 15 2016 12:06pm)

I was watching news coverage on CNN yesterday and it constantly showed different pictures of the shooter... I just don't understand it. I'm not surprised Anderson did that, he's a solid news host.

I'll read the actual thread later... Geez.

Quote (thesnipa @ Jun 15 2016 12:54pm)

Too long. might read later.

Quote (Beowulf @ Jun 15 2016 01:03pm)

Perhaps I am in the minority but I'm always surprised with how few mass shootings there are.

With as many people, guns, and general shittiness there are in this country and the world around us I would expect way more mass violence than there is.

There were plenty of people out there killing in large numbers before tvs and the 24 hour news cycle.

I'm pretty burnt out on bans/laws talk every time something tragic happens and I don't think regulating how the news is delivered is going to stop crazy any more than gun grabbing and walls/bans would

Quote (Surfpunk @ Jun 15 2016 05:03pm)

I've made a similar argument before, regarding how the media plasters the name and face of the perpetrators all over the 24-hour news cycle. This leads to other potential killers seeing a way to go out "in a blaze of glory", so to speak, and the cycle continues. I have to hand it to Anderson Cooper...he did a 2-hour special on the Orlando attack, and didn't use the killer's name, or show his face, a single time. Kudos to him for taking a principled stand.

Quote (brmv @ Jun 15 2016 01:08pm)

very much falls into the tl;dr category especially with so many quotes and statistics thrown in
having said that, i did read your words and scanned over some of the rest

the potential self-profiling (ie 15 minutes of fame) effect committing a 'memorable' act has been raised quite often before and it has been proposed not to release the names of those to avoid glorification (and thereby reduce potential copying)
unfortunately the media are hungry to sensationalise everything and some exploit the 'any media coverage is good' principle, as exemplified by pictures of beheadings by terrorist groups but also the ongoing american election campaign

but specific to mass shootings, the media reporting also emphasises how easy it is to obtain the necessary 'tools'
there are a lot more comments which could be made but let this be it for the moment

Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Jun 15 2016 05:06pm)

That's fucking fantastic. I love that dude.

The problem is that there's literally no way that this could ever be enforced, and we've got 'media outlets' whose entire job is making up bullshit stories in order to outrage people (i.e. National Report or Daily Currant) and so there's definitely going to be some places that are going to leap at the chance to put up shrines to the latest mass shooter coz they'll have an 'exclusive scoop' or w/e.

It's a lovely idea tho, and I'm always heartened when someone like Cooper is classy enough to pay heed.

Quote (Handcuffs @ Jun 15 2016 01:27pm)

Do you think that there's the potential, and perhaps the ethical obligation, that we as consumers and spreaders of media ought to not contribute to making shooters famous?

Quote (Surfpunk @ 15 Jun 2016 13:41)

Oh, absolutely. With the rise of the Internet, social media, and the citizen journalist, we certainly have a responsibility as well in this regard. But the public media needs to set the example, here, as they're the ones making money off the reporting.

Quote (kayeto @ Jun 15 2016 06:35pm)

The news media are businesses and should have the freedom to chase ratings. It is not their responsibility to protect people's health and safety. If it were the responsibility of business to limit their profits in order to benefit public and health safety, then fast food should not be allowed to exist.

The responsibility of protecting health lies with the consumer. If people choose to consume nothing but utter crap (like KFC or CNN) then that's their choice and they can go down in flames for it.