I really don't see how you are going to force mass media to not report on it like they do. You can bet the news coverage and viewership major news companies got this recent week of this event was great for the bottom line of $$$.

You can't rely on mass media to have the ethics to stop when the money they make from what they do is as high as it is.

The only way things will change is federal government getting involved and dictating how mass murders and tragedies are reported but that becomes a slippery slope because you just give the government power to control the news even if it has good intentions, it could lead to bad things.

I'd say the best chance we got is to just compete against mass media to educate people the sky isn't falling. That's part of how the media gets so much out of these things. They can push the narrative that things are so bad. But the reality is that violent crime is down and the media is pushing a false narrative all in the name of profit.

Well, I agree that we can't "force" media to do anything. I wouldn't want to see direct government involvement dictating media reporting. However, there has been quite the historic success in changing the paradigm of how media reports on suicide. Obviously even then, on the topic of suicide, media is not where it should be, but progress has been made there. Ideally speaking, it means that there's the potential, through guidance, to change the media paradigm on mass shootings.

Additionally, if media is going to continue as-is and be concerned with solely and primarily ratings/money, then it is our responsibility as consumers of media to change our consumption habits and demand a change through both our words and our wallets.

The source of the violence is a deranged individual. Keeping quiet about the aftereffects treats the symptoms, not the underlying conditions. I don't see this making a difference.

Unfortunately mass shootings are one of the hardest things to study because the sample size is so small and sporadic. Inconsistent.

I think that it's not necessarily about keeping things quiet, but rather, talking about things in intentional ways. To me, our media doesn't talk about mass shootings in any intentional way outside of generating profit because our society wants to know every little detail about mass shootings. In recent years, the idea of media contagion of mass shootings is continuing to amass believers of all sorts, with studies arguing that there is a connection and articles being written in the hopes of illuminating to this connection to the general public.

There have been studies that have found that "The rate of mass shootings has escalated to an average of one every 12.5 days, and one school shooting on average every 31.6 days, compared to a pre-2000 level of about three events per year". We also know that there's been a massive increase in the media coverage of mass shootings too, and earlier in this thread I gave very specific examples of mass shooters finding inspiration from past mass shooters as a result of the coverage and notoriety that they received.

If such connections exist, why shouldn't the media have intentional strategies/recommendations for reporting on mass shootings like they do with suicide?

That specific statistic about mass shootings is fake because its based on false criteria. They include and exclude events that are/arent relevant to buff the numbers.

The population has also grown over time. What matters is the per capita rate.

Youre using confirmation bias for the rest.

Confirmation bias for which part?

I would be curious on the legality of implementing a 72 hour ban on reporting on the shooter. Talk about the travesty all you want but the shooter's name/picture cant be reported on for 72 hours.

highly illegal


this paints an incredibly misleading and inaccurate picture of what actually happened. mass shootings haven't gone up much at all.
which throws a wrench into the commentary, solutions and conclusions based off of it

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Nov 5 2017 08:08pm

Not a surprise coming from you, care to explain why? Speech is allowed to be restricted when it causes harm. The theory makes sense and the data supports it, the restriction is to eliminate harm. Its the same reason you cant scream fire in a movie theater but I wouldn't be surprised if you think that should be legal.