
How the Media Can Help Prevent Mass Shootings - Reedx
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_the_media_can_help_prevent_mass_shootings
======
hirundo
> Sensationalized TV coverage of mass shootings may encourage more of them

Sensationalism sells ads. You're asking the media to act against their own
interest in order to serve a greater public interest. But if one outlet
doesn't do this, another will. Therefore such coverage is inevitable with a
competitive free press.

A non regulatory solution would involve making such coverage _not_ sell more
ads. That means making sensationalized murders less attractive to viewers.
That means reshaping human character in a fundamental way. Quite a project.

~~~
rale00
Maybe the solution is to go after the advertisers. If there was backlash from
the public towards companies whose products were advertised next to programs
that sensationalized murder, those companies would cut funding in a hurry. The
media would reform itself in a hurry in that case.

~~~
squarefoot
A hundred times this. Nothing is going to change until they're hit where it
hurts more: profits. Enough people taking note of all products showed during
or very near mass shootings coverage and then refusing to buy them, possibly
informing the companies about the choice, would send quite a message.

------
zachguo
“When it comes to covering mass shootings and gun violence, we want to
emphasize the victims, we want to tell the stories of the community, and
recovery, and resilience, rather than focusing on the perpetrator.”

This is the solution proposed in the article.

~~~
hirundo
Two channels, one showing a story of a victim, another of the perp. I'll watch
the perp, because their story is more relevant to me. I might learn about how
they select their victims, or some detail about how it could have been
prevented, something I could get behind. Maybe I can at least salve my psychic
pain by categorizing the murderer and so feeling a measure of control over the
chaos.

But when I watch the victim I just get to relive the horror from my own life
and so many past media circuses. My own experience is that I don't get a lot
of motivation from wallowing in that kind of loss.

I want to know why, and the perpetrator has more to tell about that than the
victims.

~~~
imtringued
Watching the perpetrator will also tell you how to be a better one.

Innocent people get swatted and killed meanwhile with just this weird trick
you can take the lives of many people and your reward will be a warm meal in a
prison.

------
ddtaylor
It's not much but what I have done is began marking Not Interested in the spam
of mainstream news coverage after each event. I also only watch coverage from
places that refuse to name the shooter or show their face and avoid "body
count" style coverage, Philip Defranco is one example.

~~~
merpnderp
This is absolutely a step in the right direction.

------
RobertRoberts
The media makes /entertainment/ that glorifies mass murders. Cease glorifying
insane people is the most obvious and easily actionable course.

Edit: I want to emphasize the media makes content that is intended to be /fun/
to watch that is based on mass murder.

~~~
coolspot
Also actual entertainment industry glorifies mass murder.

See John Wick, GTA5, etc. First mission in the GTAV is to kill unarmed
constrained cop to teach player how to aim [1].

[1] - [https://youtu.be/vMXq-4UDZ4c?t=104](https://youtu.be/vMXq-4UDZ4c?t=104)

~~~
haunter
I love when people blame video games yet they forget that the majority of mass
murders are happening in the US.

People play GTA in Bulgaria, Israel, Russia, Egypt, Thailand, Australia etc.
Everywhere. Switzerland even where 70% of the population has weapons at home
yet they don't kill each other every single week.

You know what's the difference? The access to weapons. But I guess that's the
founding fathers wanted so it's all good

~~~
coolspot
Before GTA and “No Russian” [1] there was simultaneously easier access to guns
(including full-auto) and less mass murders.

[1] -
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G7vBol8wud0](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G7vBol8wud0)

------
whatshisface
> _Their results were robust using both definitions of a “mass shooting”:
> either four or more individuals shot and four or more individuals killed._

Well that's a new logical predicate, the either-and.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
It doesn't help either that one is a subset of the other. Or maybe I'm parsing
that wrongly.

~~~
mikeyouse
I think you both are -- They're saying it holds up with either definition of
'mass shooting';

1\. Four or more people killed in a shooting.

or

2\. Four or more people shot in a single incident.

It's just an either-or, but the 'or' is listed as an 'and' since they're
enumerating the two definitions of mass shooting. E.g. It holds up with
definition 1, and it holds up with definition 2. I agree a CS major would
write it differently but I wasn't confused fwiw.

------
Pils
Interesting experiment design. However, I wish the paper explored seasonal
effects more. "# of deaths from extreme temperatures and wildfires worldwide"
probably has large seasonal variance, and the graph in the paper suggests that
mass shootings do as well.

------
mynegation
How about shaming politicians who offer nothing more than useless “thoughts
and prayers”?

------
cat199
response: media doesn't kill people, people kill people?

~~~
csours
Means, motive, opportunity. Remove as many as you can. The media can help with
motive.

~~~
krapp
Unfortunately, the Second Amendment makes it infeasible to remove means and
opportunity.

~~~
kristopolous
Well we could stop ignoring the first half, the "well regulated Militia" and
"security of a free State" part.

That clause doesn't sound like they mean "unlimited guns for all".

Using the context before the comma, the "people" clearly means polis, as in
society, not as in the "every human with a pulse" way we use it today.

The word "person" is used twice in the BoR, both times referring to
individuals. The other 3 uses of "people" clearly refer to the collective
polis.

This distinction, as people not merely being a plural of person, is laid bare
in the fourth amendment: "the right of the people to be secure in their
persons", that only makes sense if "people" means the abstract composition.

~~~
jjeaff
What's your point? Every human with a pulse can't get a weapon. You have to be
the right age and pass a background check. And in some states, go as far as
provide evidence that your life is in potential danger and you need it for
protection as well as a letter of recommendation from the local police chief.

~~~
kristopolous
It means the second amendment gives no individual right of gun ownership, at
all. Zero, zilch, nada, nothing.

It's absolutely absent, it's not there. There is no right.

Perhaps there ought to be an individual right, but the second amendment
doesn't have it.

~~~
inagfbdfys6a3nf
The whole point is that the right to self-defense, which means the right to
bear arms, _pre-dates_ the Constitution and the formation of our nation. The
2nd Amendment only makes it clear that the government is _not infringing upon
the right which already exists_.

For a deeper look at the issue dive into the positive rights vs. negative
rights discussion which has been going on for ages. Sometimes it's phrased as
positive vs negative liberty.

The short version, or my understanding of it, is negative rights means your
rights were not given to you by your government, they are inherent, or given
to you by God, or they are somehow a part of your very existence. This means
your government can only take rights away from you but it doesn't have the
power to ever _grant_ you a right.

Positive rights on the other hand is the idea that rights _are_ granted by
your government. And since they are granted to you they may also be taken
away.

~~~
daenz
Bingo. Only clarification I'd make is to this:

>This means your government can only take rights away from you but it doesn't
have the power to ever grant you a right.

My understanding is that the government is unable to grant nor deny you the
right, only infringe upon it. The right is always there by virtue of your
existence, so it can only be infringed upon.

~~~
inagfbdfys6a3nf
Right, I misspoke. Thank you. It's a subtle difference but the implications
are massive.

For anybody following along (since daenz seems more informed than me already),
the 9th Amendment and the discussions that led up to it flesh out the idea
that the Bill of Rights merely guarantees that certain rights won't be
infringed even though many other rights also exist but were not explicitly
mentioned.
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution))

The biggest modern example I can think of is the non-enumerated yet
Constitutionally guaranteed (according to the Supreme Court) Right to Privacy
which played a pivotal role in the Roe vs. Wade decision.

------
gojomo
This 'contagion effect', also supported by research in relation to media
coverage of suicide, has often been discussed after mass shootings. Yet,
little tangible action has been taken.

Maybe it's time for some new federal laws. Some possibilities:

• make reporting about mass shootings subject to a mandatory "cooling off"
waiting period, of 48 hours to 1 week, to reduce the sensational allure of
such "hot" stories to the mentally-unstable

• ban the reporting of salacious details, like a shooter's name & motivations,
or specific weapons & actions – specialized information which is mainly of use
to deranged individuals, rather than normal citizens

• set up a government office which would "fact-check" & approve stories about
mass shootings before they're published/broadcast

• require reporters to receive official training about responsible reporting,
and mandate reporting licenses to exclude careless or sketchy/unstable people
from risky reporting activities

~~~
henryfjordan
All of these suggestions violate the 1st amendment. Also there are no
"reporting licenses".

~~~
TallGuyShort
We infringe on the 2nd and 4th in the name of safety. Why stop there?

~~~
jessaustin
Both infringements are invariably outrageous overreaches. If there is any
greater danger to the average citizen than the evisceration that 4A has
suffered, it could only be your proposed destruction of 1A.

~~~
TallGuyShort
Just to be clear, I was being sarcastic. I don't think rule of law actually
exists with regard to the US Constitution anymore.

~~~
jessaustin
Haha I wasn't sure...

