Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Are_grits_groceries

(17,111 posts)
Mon May 26, 2014, 04:04 PM May 2014

From a forensic psychiatrist: How the media shouldn't cover a mass murder

<snip>
He says:
If you don't want to propagate more mass murders...

1-Don't start the story with sirens blaring.

2-Don't have photographs of the killer.

3-Don't make this 24/7 coverage.

4-Do everything you can not to make the body count the lead story.

5-Not to make the killer some kind of anti-hero.

6- Do localize this story to the affected community and as boring as possible in every other market.
<snip>
More:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/07/how-media-shouldnt-cover-mass-murder

Will the media ever change?
Sigh...

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
1. Sorry to disagree somewhat, we have a crisis going on in the USA, too much
Mon May 26, 2014, 04:15 PM
May 2014

Gun violence, and though polls show 85% wants some gun control and background checks the Congressional members doesn't have what it takes to make a big move on this problem. The GOP wants yet another committee to investigate Benghazi but spent very little time investigating the mass shooting in Sandy Hook or other places. They should be ashamed.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
2. You can report on it without mythologizing it.
Mon May 26, 2014, 04:20 PM
May 2014

For example, you could do a story that this is the Xth shooting since Y, and still Congress has done nothing. But that's "boring" and it's much more "exciting" to toss out speculative bullshit about the shooter.

Are_grits_groceries

(17,111 posts)
4. Nowhere in the OP does it say anything about gun control.
Mon May 26, 2014, 05:45 PM
May 2014

He is talking about specific actions the media should take when covering them. He has studied many mass killers and has some idea what they watnt. Many do want to be the center of attention.

Congress will move on gun control when people back down the NRA and it's money. That won't be easy. There has to be an umbrella group that runs message after message against them. They have to be called out on their bullshit in every state.

Further more, gun control advocates have to decide what their goals are. Make them basic to begin with. Hammer them home. You have to make clear that nobody is coming for their guns. If you reach for too much, the effort will die completely.

People get frightened and then stampede at the mention of some rules. They fully believe that background checks will lead to more control over them because that's the message they get 24/7.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
5. Whatever it takes to curtail gun violence will work. My point is the American public
Mon May 26, 2014, 06:28 PM
May 2014

Wants some action but I guess it is unimportant what the American citizens wants just answer to the NRA.

 

JJChambers

(1,115 posts)
9. Mass shootings are such a small portion of overall gun violence they're statistically irrelevant
Mon May 26, 2014, 07:52 PM
May 2014

Gun violence is an issue that needs to be addressed through socioeconomic improvements and mental health treatment -- getting rid of gangs and making suicide prevention services more common would go a long way at dropping gun death tolls.

sunnystarr

(2,638 posts)
6. I have to disagree ...
Mon May 26, 2014, 07:20 PM
May 2014

In most cases of these types of murders the killer has died of self-inflicted wounds or the police have taken him down. I've seen this opinion over and over ... downplay it, don't sensationalize it ... don't give the killer what he's seeking. But the killer is dead and isn't getting any satisfaction out of it.

However, by downplaying it the public won't be outraged. I say sensationalize it fully. Put it in the faces of everyone. Let them see the victims and their families. Let the public be emotionally affected. This could be THEIR child, husband, wife, or other family member or friend.

If I had millions I would make up ads with victims faces for TV and internet ... and push for gun control, laws demanding secure storage of all firearms in homes, limiting the sale of ammo, the removal of all assault rifles from the general public, etc.

We, the citizens of this country, need to be outraged and insist on changes from our lawmakers. When enough of us are outraged then no amount of Koch money will re-elect the bastards who are bought out by the NRA.

unblock

(52,208 posts)
8. you're missing the point. media sensationalization offers an enticing stage.
Mon May 26, 2014, 07:25 PM
May 2014

many people will do crazy things to get their 15 minutes of fame, or infamy.

the sensationalism over these mass killings is one of the many factors that help create and build the idea in the next killers' minds.



i agree that the public/government should be outraged and take action, but that can be done without constantly repeating all three names of the killer, showing his face constantly, etc.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»From a forensic psychiatr...