Coverage of mass shootings/bombings/terrorist activity.

A comment made by someone caused me to reflect a little on how the media covers these events.

For instance, within a few hours of the recent shooting in California we knew everything there was to know about the shooter. Who his parents were, his life history, his inner thoughts as expressed in his videos and manifesto, every single gory detail. From my informal observation it seems that about 90% of the coverage is about him, with tiny snippets of the innocent victims.

The same was true in the Boston Marathon bombings. We know everything there is to know about those two brothers, but what about those killed and maimed? There has been some coverage, but the proportions are very heavily weighted towards the perps, not the victims.

Same with the Newtown shootings, the Colorado theater shooting, etc.

I could count back through all of the major killings over the last few years and I see two connecting threads that tie most of them together. One, the person(s) typically showed signs of mental instability, sometimes for many months/years. Two, the story afterwards primarily revolved around them, including letting the whole world hear/see their whacked out opinions and why they felt justified in murdering innocent people.

It made me wonder if the two are tied together, at least in some cases. Mentally unstable person doesn't get attention they want in real life, thus they go out in a murdering blaze of 'glory', ensuring everyone finds out about them.

That makes me wonder if we'd be better of if the media made a fundamental change as to how they cover these events. On a much smaller, less deadly scale, they do it all the time. At a sporting event, when someone runs on the field, they avert the cameras. The commentators may let the audience know an idiot ran on the field, but only a fraction of the time do we see video or have all the details repeated endlessly on Sportscenter. Rape victims' names are typically not reported unless they themselves push for it, as an ethical courtesy. Child criminals are often not named for ethical reasons. Embedded journalists will not report certain details about the military for security/ethical reasons. What if the media changed the way they reported these instances for ethical reasons? What if we barely heard about the perpetrator? What if the story revolved around the victims, around the law enforcement personnel who finally stopped the crime, around the first responders that might've risked their lives or taken heroic steps to save lives? What if, instead of broadcasting every bit of the crazy killer's manifesto, we heard about the volunteer groups or charities that now needed extra help because they were supporting those who lost loved ones or were injured? Or about the causes that the victims held dear? What if the media made an ethical decision to flip the script on these killers and make their story a mere footnote compared to the victims?

Do you think it would make a difference? Why or why not?
Do you think it would be a positive change for some other reason?
Do you think we as a society thrive on what bleeds too much to allow that change?

I'm not sure it would make a profound difference. But I sure would like to see what happened if we did make those changes.


Kind request - please don't turn this into a gun control thread. We have plenty of those elsewhere. My main focus is on media coverage of these events.

 

I don't know that it would make a difference, but I would like to see the narratives around these events change. I'd like to see a shift away from the kind of violence porn these things become. I think your question about our society thriving on violence is a great one. Think about the fact that the ratings system for movies focuses far more on sexuality than it does violence. A PG-13 movie can be incredibly violent, but if there is sexual nudity, that's an R rating (supposedly; the ratings system is very, very broken).

Events like these are complicated, and I think the media focuses on the perpetrators in order to simplify the narrative. The killings in Isla Vista illustrate just how complicated it is, that it isn't as simple as just a crazy guy with a gun. There are lots of other things to focus on and talk about, but at the same time, the media wants to reassure us that all this really comes down to is some wacko who went off the deep end; fundamentally, that's the lowest common denominator of the narrative that everyone can understand, and media caters to the lowest common denominator.

 

Does that say more about them or about us?

 

I'd say, that could be a factor wrapped up in everything.
There are 7+ billion people in this world.
300+ million in the US alone.
Cities of upwards 2 million and more...

Many do much to stand out.
Sometimes it is from being ignored...but often just from the desire for the attention itself...not because of neglect.
Flamboyant.
Public displays.
Organizing like minded angry people.
And so on...

It's not the ONLY thing...but it could be part.

How do YOU want to be remembered??
Some go for famous...some go for infamous...some just react...and the chips fall where they lie.

And the media doesn't help by wanting to find out "why"?
But they aren't interested in Why...they're interested in their OWN attention...which sells and adds business and watchers.

I truly wonder who is really "concerned"
And who it simply fulfilling their own agenda...

As far as the perps go...it all comes down to if they were taught how to handle their frustrations.
Because, if it's done right...they get their attention in a more productive way...like Theater, a Rockband, Politics, Sports and so on...

 

A lot of bad things happen to good people all the time, but the media doesn't go haywire on it because it's an everyday kind of thing. (Facts of life.)

However, mass shootings, bombings, and terrorism are spectacles. They tap into our greatest fears, tied mostly to the idea that there is evil in this world and we never know when it will rear its ugly head. This is why we focus on perpetrators rather than victims. We don't typically trump out the intimate lives of the victims but we do the perpetrators. Why not? I think it would be distasteful to poke and prod around the private lives of the victims immediately in the aftermath. On the other hand, I think it's perfectly natural to want to know everything we can about those who commit these acts.

So for me, it's a matter of decorum: Don't pry into the victims' lives and paste it all over the place, especially when their friends and families are still in shock—remember the Internet talks about everything, and there are a lot of jerks—and a matter of curiosity: Why did this person do this thing? What is the cause and effect behind this? Could it have been prevented? Are there wider underlying problems?

I don't think that this is all "violence porn." I think people are legitimately horrified and intrigued by this kind of thing, and I think it's probably been the case for millennia. The difference is merely in the ease and volume of communication.

 

That's why I tried to include other directions the story could go in. Though some people would definitely take the opportunity to celebrate what their fallen family member or loved one had accomplished, or take advantage of the platform to get publicity for charities or other causes they supported.

The problem I guess comes in expecting the modern media to have any decorum or sense of what is appropriate.

The volume of news coverage is absolutely a major factor. I remember when it was a big deal that CNN was a 24 hour/day news channel and people wondered how they'd fill all that time. Now I think I have 87 ESPN channels, let alone trying to count all the 'real' news channels. Anymore every one of them appears to be driven by ratings over substance. If it bleeds, it leads. Be first, worry about being right later.

 

I never really engaged much in popular culture. The way things are now, I see that it's hopeless to keep up with everything. I hear names thrown around—band names, celebrities, TV shows, etc.—and I have very little clue what they're talking about. I see there is now such thing as a "reality TV celebrity." Do you realize how fucking ironic that is? Kim Kardashian got married recently, and everyone knows it—even me somehow. Why is she famous again?

My point is that the news media has to compete with all of this. What do you do? You feed curious minds.

Hey, media folks, some kid shot up a bunch of people: Go.

You gotta do what you gotta do when you're competing with Honey Boo Boo.

 

Also, I find that good satire often strikes a chord: ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

But is that because it didn't happen in some sleepy suburb of Bristol?

I tend, overall, to conclude that we spend too much time on the specific details and not enough on the broader implications. Once enough time passes, nothing much will have changed outside of the parties involved. It's just one event, right?

 

I was hinting (albeit subtly) that perhaps BBC England/UK would cover it a lot if it had happened near Bristol, though I admit I don't know that much about how the BBC covers the news outside of World News.

 

A relevant snippet from this piece: Judd Apatow's Angry Tweets Nail What's Wrong With How the Media Covers Tragedy - PolicyMic:

 

Do the families of the victims really want news coverage? Or do they want to grieve in peace?

 

Some of each, judging by how different families react currently. Reporters do follow up with them today. Some agree to be part of the story, some do not. Those that do maybe deserve more of the story IMO.


The fact that some victims/families may not is part of why I also suggested expanding the story to law enforcement, first responders, charities that assist the victims/families/community, etc.