The media is messed up. The way the media reports on mass shootings and tragedies needs to change because in a way, they could have some influence on these shootings. The most prominent example that I can think of, especially in this area, was the Boston Bombings. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's face and name was all over the news, and it even got to the point where people were supporting him because he was "hot." That's disgusting (LA Times). It's not fair to the families of the victims of these tragedies to show the perpetrator on the news, especially as often as it happens. If a depressed person or someone who is desperate for attention sees all the attention these people get on the news, they might be swayed to do something similar.
Most recently, there was the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. The shooting killed nine people and wounded several others (New York Times). The shooting itself is a huge problem, as are all mass shootings. But what really bothers me is how the media covers it. The biggest problem I have is the showing of the face and all the coverage of the name. If this was lessened, would the number of mass shootings decrease?
It's not a guarantee, but I feel like if the media did not post the face and name as much as they do, it could potentially lessen the number of mass shootings. Chris Harper was responsible for the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. The New York Times and CBS News are two prime examples that I found that give what I believe is too much information about the shooter. In fact, they wrote articles about the shooter. The New York Times article is titled "Oregon Killer Described as Man of Few Words, Except on Topic of Guns (New York Times)." This article is all about him; it almost seems like a biography. It talks about his life and how his parents split. It also talks about what his parents do for a living. This quote in the NY Times article baffles me: "The entry continues, “Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.”" Why does this man deserve the limelight? The media has full control over how it handles these situations. The problem is, people are curious. Whichever news source is relaying the most specific information is going to be the most popular. Unfortunately, most news sources are not willing to sacrifice viewers for the sake of doing the right thing.
The CBS News article is similar to the New York Times article in the sense that it's all about Chris Harper Mercer. This article is titled "What we know about Oregon shooter Chris Harper Mercer (CBS News)."
This article has pictures of Chris Mercer and it even goes in depth about the quote from the NY Times article. In reference to the killings of the news reporters, Chris Mercer said this: "I have noticed that so many people like [Flanagan] are alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are. A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems like the more people you kill, the more you're in the limelight." And who controls how much limelight these people get? I am confident that if the media did not cover murderers as much in the past, I believe that this shooting would not have happened (based on this quote).
I'm sure Chris Harper Mercer is not the only one to be influenced by seeing mass killings on the news. Actually, I know for a fact he is not the only one. "A month before the Tucson rampage, Loughner posted what he called "a foreshadow" of his attack in comments on his MySpace page: "I'll see you on National TV!" He got what he wanted—and then some (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/media-inspires-mass-shooters-copycats)." Of course, there is a fine line between too much coverage of a mass shooting and not enough coverage. Everyone needs to be informed about what a big problem this is. But if you cover it too much then crazy, messed up people might want the same attention. It's nearly impossible to find the right amount of coverage for these tragic events. It's a lose-lose.
Works Cited:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/10/news/la-ol-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-free-jahar-fangirls-20130710
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/us/chris-harper-mercer-umpqua-community-college-shooting.html?_r=1
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/umpqua-community-college-shooting-chris-harper-mercer/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/media-inspires-mass-shooters-copycats
Matt, nice article. I think your idea that if we cover mass shootings to much then the people who strive for this attention are more likely to commit them. They do deserve to be broadcasted on television and the radio but if we toned the coverage down a bit it could help.
ReplyDeleteGreat article Matt. I also believe that people committing these atrocities are getting way too much attention as it is, which is something is they were looking for when they were committing these atrocities. Do you think it would be possible to even report on tragic events like these without glorifying the that commit the crimes?
ReplyDelete