• Guns are not the problem. It's the Media.
    101 replies, posted
Mass murderers kill for fame and attention. The media should NEVER mention the names of shooters or more massacres will happen. After 4/20/99, the Columbine shooters were talked about more than the victims. The media made the Columbine shooters look like celebrities. I believe this eventually inspired the 5/20/99 Heritage school shooting. Columbine happened on 4/20/99, a month after Columbine, the Heritage school shooting happened on 5/20/99 [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_High_School_shooting[/url] After Columbine, there are some mass murderers that looked up to the Columbine shooters as heroes. It's confirmed that the Virginia Tech shooter and Jokela school shooter were inspired by the Columbine shooters. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokela_school_shooting[/url] When a loser feels insignificant, who hates the world and wants revenge on the world. That loser will shoot up a public place to get instant fame and attention from the media. Attention is the main reason for shootings. Being a victim of bullying and access to guns are not the main reasons. It's confirmed that the Columbine school shooters and Virginia Tech shooter had been bullied during their lives. Which gave them a reason to hate the world. Sometimes victims of bullying can become bullies themselves. There are victims of bullying that commit suicide without harming others. School shooters are victims of bullying that commit murder then commit suicide. Killing people in a movie theater will cause national attention. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_shooting[/url] Killing children in an elementary school will cause national attention. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting[/url] We can never know the full story since most of them suicide.
Would you prefer that everything regarding incidents like these were silenced? Better yet, let's silence and censor all mediums by which someone can come to understand violence - that will prevent people from killing each other. This is the same argument that's presented for the case of video games making people violent, and it doesn't stand up to real facts, like the point that the UK has had guns banned for a long while, and their homicide rate is far lower than that of the United States. These are simple things that only require us to put two and two together: media, in any variety (not just news outlets), do not make people violent; guns, however, give people the means by which to be violent.
[QUOTE=SystemGS;38847229]Would you prefer that everything regarding incidents like these were silenced? Better yet, let's silence and censor all mediums by which someone can come to understand violence - that will prevent people from killing each other. This is the same argument that's presented for the case of video games making people violent, and it doesn't stand up to real facts, like the point that the UK has had guns banned for a long while, and their homicide rate is far lower than that of the United States. These are simple things that only require us to put two and two together: media, in any variety (not just news outlets), do not make people violent; guns, however, give people the means by which to be violent.[/QUOTE] This is totally different. He doesn't mean that we shouldn't mention that it happened, but it shouldn't be sensationalized and covered for a full week, they shouldn't treat the body count like a score, and they shouldn't show the gunman because these are all incentives that make shootings appealing to sociopaths. He's not talking about government censorship, he's talking about the responsibility of the media. I'm in favor of gun control too, but it's just one piece to the puzzle in a collective effort to prevent shit shootings.
[QUOTE=SystemGS;38847229]Would you prefer that everything regarding incidents like these were silenced? Better yet, let's silence and censor all mediums by which someone can come to understand violence - that will prevent people from killing each other. This is the same argument that's presented for the case of video games making people violent, and it doesn't stand up to real facts, like the point that the UK has had guns banned for a long while, and their homicide rate is far lower than that of the United States. These are simple things that only require us to put two and two together: media, in any variety (not just news outlets), do not make people violent; guns, however, give people the means by which to be violent.[/QUOTE] He doesn't mean for the media to not report on school shootings , he is talking about not releasing their names because people do it for fame. He proposes that if someone knew that they would just be known as an anonymous shooter they wouldn't do it because they wouldn't be credited.
[QUOTE=fenwick;38847286]This is totally different. He doesn't mean that we shouldn't mention that it happened, but it shouldn't be sensationalized and covered for a full week, they shouldn't treat the body count like a score, and they shouldn't show the gunman because these are all incentives that make shootings appealing to sociopaths. He's not talking about government censorship, he's talking about the responsibility of the media. I'm in favor of gun control too, but it's just one piece to the puzzle in a collective effort to prevent shit shootings.[/QUOTE] Huh, sounds exactly like Morgan Freeman's response to all of the hubbub surrounding this event. I can agree with that, definitely. An excellent point was made elsewhere that we should promote mental health awareness as well, which I most certainly agree with. There are a lot of factors, but I think the OP manages to make a few good ones - he just needs to clean up his rhetoric a little bit.
Damn I read Morgan Freeman's thing earlier today, and the stuff he talked about was something I brought up in a research paper about gun crime I did for a class last year. Man, now I regret not publishing it. Then again no one reads college journals anyways.
I'd also like to point out how Cho sent his photos to NBC with him trying to pose like a badass, and they played right into it and showed his photos when the shooting happened at Virginia Tech. They need to think before they act on these sort of things.
[QUOTE=SystemGS;38847229]Would you prefer that everything regarding incidents like these were silenced? Better yet, let's silence and censor all mediums by which someone can come to understand violence - that will prevent people from killing each other. This is the same argument that's presented for the case of video games making people violent, and it doesn't stand up to real facts, like the point that the UK has had guns banned for a long while, and their homicide rate is far lower than that of the United States. These are simple things that only require us to put two and two together: media, in any variety (not just news outlets), do not make people violent; guns, however, give people the means by which to be violent.[/QUOTE] That's not what he was saying at all, he's saying the media needs to stop treating serial-killers/mass-murderers like celebrities because them doing so makes school-shootings seem like an attractive means of becoming famous. Also, guns are by no means the only means for people to be violent, since you were so quick to jump to the UK as an example allow me to point out how often they have knife-related crimes, and you can't ban or even monitor something as common as knives. Or how about bombs? Plenty of bomb recipes are easier to make than guns are to buy. If people want to be violent, they'll find a way, it just so happens that because of the media, mass-shootings are made to seem like the best way of being violent.
[QUOTE=GunShard;38847064]The media should NEVER mention the names of shooters or more massacres will happen.[/QUOTE] Thing is, even if the media were to publish a shooter'(s) name(s) or not, it would still become an inspiration for mass shooters regardless just because the shooting happened. If one had to restrict a detail, it'd have to be the motive that would need to be restricted from broadcast/publishing.
The media has every right to mention and talk about cases like these, but they do not have to right to obsessively feed off of these tragedies for viewership/etc. By giving all this attention to the aggressors, it inspires others who have some sort of depression and psychological desire of attention to do shit like this. I couldn't find it, but there was a really great clip of a short interview with a psychologist regarding shootings. He said some pretty interesting stuff. If someone could post it that'd be cool.
I didn't post this but I got to say it really sums up my thoughts on the topic very well and presents a good argument [quote]"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why. It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody. CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next. You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news." [/quote]
Let's look at Switzerland. Switzerland has one of the world's lowest violent crimes rates, but it has gun laws in place. Every man from 20-34 (sometmes up to 50) is conscripted into the Military, given some pretty damn good training, and then made to take his gear, gun included, home. When every man owns a gun and knows how to use it, you feel less inclined to rob them. However, if every man in any country were just given a rifle, it'd be a recipe for disaster. Switzerland, on the other hand, enforces responsibility, respect, and knowledge of their weapons. Their troops don't posses weapons so they can invade whoever or so its people can kill if needed, they possess them because they're a last line of defense of their homes and families. If the media would actually start teaching to -respect- your weapons and to take -responsibility-, that's what is needed. I'm Liberal in my ideas but I don't support gun control to a large extent. I do support making sure every man and woman who owns one is fully aware of its risks, uses, and respects it as such.
[editline]16th December 2012[/editline] Actually Morgan Freeman never said that it was just a rumor. Well whoever [I]did[/I] say it I agree with them
I've been feeling the same way as the poster; Every time i see mass coverage of a shooting (be it school, theater, etc) it gets me all bent out of shape. Not because of the person took X number of lives, that makes me sad, but because of how the media treats it. I believe it only encourages more school shootings by making these shooters out to be some low-life celebrity. Everyone hates them, but none the less they have their face all over the news. For months here in Colorado all anyone seemed to talk about was the state of mind of Mr. Holmes (the shooter). Now shift your thoughts to a potential future shooter of some unnamed public place. Someone who is angry with society, who has had a troubled past and wishes to send a message to as many people as they can. Every couple of years, though now every year it seems, there is a mass shooting which draws world-wide attention. News crews from around the world showed up for the Colorado and Connecticut shootings. It drew the attention of the WORLD. I'd say that makes for a pretty appealing means to spread one's message. I understand the Media tries to be an encompassing median to share news and information, a unit that distributes all information equally. However, I think there is a certain level of responsibility that we all have to pick up. Not just the media corporations. Instead of focusing on the superficial aspects of the events and the unimportant details, we should focus more on the damage done and the source of it. Hold a memorial event, construct a memorial, and tend to the survivors/affected but don't treat it like the return of Christ. [u]It is a tragedy, not a Drama.[/u] Then, instead of debating why he dyed his hair red or why he used 9mm instead of 44mm; we should be focusing on why Society has produced something so horrible, and what we can do to rectify the error in ourselves. [i]Oh wait, i'm sorry we live here on Earth... I thought I was somewhere else for a second... Nevermind.[/i]
The media will do whatever gets them more viewers. To make the media change you either have to force them through law (censorship) or change society to not want that kind of thing.
-snip-
I feel strongly that there is no [I]one[/I] thing to blame. It's frustrating that everyone runs to something to blame, whether it be gun control, media, violent movies, etc., when in reality the problem originates in the killer's head. The first reported school massacre in U.S. history was in 1867, before media existed in any form. However, I do believe there is credence to the idea that media worsens the issue. Not cause, but worsen. Here's an excerpt from Roger Ebert's blog which sums it up pretty well: [quote]Is this a heartless cynical way to approach Newtown? No doubt it is. In my opinion the most useful way to "analyze" is to repeat. I would like to quote the following words from an article by me that was excerpted under another byline, as follows: "From his review of Gus Van Sant's 'Elephant', a fictionalized account of a Columbine-like school shooting, here's Roger Ebert on the media's behavior while reporting these kinds of events: "Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" "The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it. "The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory." "In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. "I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy." This is Ebert again. I gather my point is what goes around, comes around.[/quote]
[QUOTE=seroyal223;38855419]I feel strongly that there is no [I]one[/I] thing to blame. It's frustrating that everyone runs to something to blame, whether it be gun control, media, violent movies, etc., when in reality the problem originates in the killer's head. The first reported school massacre in U.S. history was in 1867, before media existed in any form. However, I do believe there is credence to the idea that media worsens the issue. Not cause, but worsen. Here's an excerpt from Roger Ebert's blog which sums it up pretty well:[/QUOTE] It's not blaming, it's finding a solution. While it's probably impossible to cease all shootings, it is possible to reduce them. Media not turning criminals into celebrities might help.
pretty sure stuff like this happened before mass media, just nobody knew about so nobody had any reason to get upset.
I am in full agreement with the OP. The news is supposed to be factual, a way to inform the nation of goings on elsewhere. However, it has instead become a moneymaking machine that does not give a damn what it does to the facts, as long as the ratings go up. I reckon putting an end to news outlets surviving based on ratings would quell this. I'm just not sure how one could go about funding the news networks without ratings AND without tying them to government funds, which would incentivise them to compromise neutrality. [QUOTE=SystemGS;38847229]Would you prefer that everything regarding incidents like these were silenced? Better yet, let's silence and censor all mediums by which someone can come to understand violence - that will prevent people from killing each other. This is the same argument that's presented for the case of video games making people violent, and it doesn't stand up to real facts, like the point that the UK has had guns banned for a long while, and their homicide rate is far lower than that of the United States. These are simple things that only require us to put two and two together: media, in any variety (not just news outlets), do not make people violent; guns, however, give people the means by which to be violent.[/QUOTE] Silence? No. It is relevant to report the news when things like this happen. HOWEVER, artificially inflating the story for ratings and focusing on the guy that did it is the problem. If they just factually stated "x people were shot at Y. Police have the guy in custody/the guy shot himself afterwards. Our prayers go out to the families.", never once mention by name the perp, and focus on the victims themselves, all would be good. The problem is how the media reports it, not that they report it at all. They treat it as a way to boost ratings, not inform the nation of what's going on.
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/22-kids-slashed-in-china-elementary-school-knife-attack/[/url] This knife attack proves my point that you don't need a gun to get national attention. The news media gives these losers instant celebrity status. At least most of CNN are focusing on the victims instead of the loser. After 4/20/99, the Columbine shooters were talked about more than the victims. The media made the Columbine shooters look like celebrities.
I fully agree with the OP, I have heard about this before and think it would be good if the media never released information about the shooter, in this way it would remove him from history and he will always be known as a thing, something rather insignificant with a weapon. Not go down in history as some kind of anti "hero" glorified by the media in a sense.
[QUOTE=GunShard;38860261][url]http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/22-kids-slashed-in-china-elementary-school-knife-attack/[/url] This knife attack proves my point that you don't need a gun to get national attention. The news media gives these losers instant celebrity status. At least most of CNN are focusing on the victims instead of the loser. After 4/20/99, the Columbine shooters were talked about more than the victims. The media made the Columbine shooters look like celebrities.[/QUOTE] It's the reason why tragic events get way more attention than good ones, or why "popular" events get more attention. Back on December 13th, while national crimes were going on, and other impotant worldwide events took place, CNN did a segment covering a [B]couple who got married on 12/12/12[/B] as their top story. Bullshit, fucking bullshit. In many ways, the media -is- the problem.
Media is not the absolute root cause to these shootings. I don't think there is any absolute root cause, or if there is, it's a combination of many factors, most of which are environmental. I think that, if only your eyes saved all the footage you have gathered during your whole life, up till the point where you shot up a school and yourself, reviewing that footage might explain some things. But that's just some weird thinking, reminds me of some sci-fi film but I can't recall its name. Also, on a pretty related note, we all seek for information. We're curious like that, aren't we? So we kind of like give the media all the reason to keep doing what they do, even if they are bad it. So I definitely agree that being a runner of global-wide media should be a VERY fucking responsible job.
I think this is entirely missing the point. A sane person would not go on a shooting spree for attention. The media may at times trigger similar events to occur in a disturbed individual but it's not the root cause at all. This is like saying guns are the cause. They aren't, and neither is the media. They contribute to some degree but at the end of the day it's not the real reason. I also find it ironic how quick people are to oppose gun bans, yet this would be like basically banning media coverage of said event.
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;38866975]basically banning media coverage of said event.[/QUOTE] wrong, it's basically changing how it's covered. There's always mentioning about what might have influenced the shooter, what weapons they used (I mean really, do you have to describe this?), all the scenes of terror, etc. It definitely plays into an insane person's fantasies. Also sometimes with the dramatic music in the background and the hysterical weeping it's like they're airing a fucking movie.
I don't think we should ban the media reporting it, just make them feel guilty and voluntary agree not to show the perpetrators face or name
All of the [I]news[/I] stations are still airing the same thing five days after it happened.
I think these people commit these acts partly because: They want revenge They want to be remembered They want to die Since the person is going to kill themselves anyway, they try and get revenge while trying to teach society a lesson by committing these controversial mass murders before killing themselves. The media plays a few roles: The killer will be remembered. It will spread the message the killer was trying to make. This is probably exactly what they are looking for. I mean every situation is different. I'm sure there are situations where the killer is just drowning in anger and doesn't give a shit about anything but getting revenge.
we should stop the glamorization of mass murderers. Why is it the killers are not called terrorists? Terrorism doesn't requires a bomb but instilling terror.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.