View Full Version : ?Media Contagion? is factor in mass shootings..
I?ve been saying for years that if they stopped printing the names and photos of shooters that mass shootings would be greatly reduced due to the removal of the primary motive of fame. Now a study by the American Psychological Association agrees.
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contagion.aspx
?Johnston and her coauthor, Andrew Joy, BS, also of Western New Mexico University, reviewed data on mass shootings amassed by media outlets, the FBI and advocacy organizations, as well as scholarly articles, to conclude that ?media contagion? is largely responsible for the increase in these often deadly outbursts. They defined mass shootings as either attempts to kill multiple people who are not relatives or those resulting in injuries or fatalities in public places.
The prevalence of these crimes has risen in relation to the mass media coverage of them and the proliferation of social media sites that tend to glorify the shooters and downplay the victims, Johnston said.
?We suggest that the media cry to cling to ?the public?s right to know? covers up a greedier agenda to keep eyeballs glued to screens, since they know that frightening homicides are their No. 1 ratings and advertising boosters,? she said.?
This research has been done before. The one that really sticks out is suicides that follow celebrity suicides. Contagion applies to other things too. Tony Hawk and his 720, X-games motorcycle stunts. Roger Bannister did the unthinkable by breaking the 4 min mile. These are all things that were unimaginable until they became standard fair. Once something becomes a thing, it is. Mix in a sprinkle of narcissism and it becomes easy enough to see it as an option. Buy any account they should knock off the reporting.
I don't think it matters if they never said the shooters name or not, the whole event still gets wall to wall coverage for a few days/weeks.
ChickNorris
11-16-2018, 03:26
Years
It's a problem without a solution. It is without a doubt a large contributor. But we cannot control the press, and if we passed legislation e.g. prohibiting the identification of a shooter - ever - then the conspiracies would grow to exponential levels, among a plethora of other diverse issues. It is truly something without any viable solution, as far as media coverage is concerned.
The media already chooses not to release the names of rape victims and even the race of people accused of crimes. The shooters name would still be accessible via court documents to someone that just had to know but with the lack of media hype and having their faces and stories plastered on TV and online people that are thinking of committing such an act would likely think much longer and harder before going that route if they did at all.
I don't think it matters if they never said the shooters name or not, the whole event still gets wall to wall coverage for a few days/weeks.
It wouldn’t stop all of them but I think it would stop most. The thought of no one ever knowing who you were or what your grienences were would be a big deterrent to these guys. It was the columbine guys that on video said “we’re going to be famous” and almost every shooter since has stated in some way that they were going to do a better job than x, y, or z.
Rucker61
11-16-2018, 07:47
It's a problem without a solution. It is without a doubt a large contributor. But we cannot control the press, and if we passed legislation e.g. prohibiting the identification of a shooter - ever - then the conspiracies would grow to exponential levels, among a plethora of other diverse issues. It is truly something without any viable solution, as far as media coverage is concerned.
Oh, they have "solutions" all right.
It wouldn’t stop all of them but I think it would stop most. The thought of no one ever knowing who you were or what your grienences were would be a big deterrent to these guys. It was the columbine guys that on video said “we’re going to be famous” and almost every shooter since has stated in some way that they were going to do a better job than x, y, or z.
With the internet, everyone can find out very easily, and independent bloggers, and Reddit, and 4Chan, etc will happily provide that info anyway. Every famous shooting ever is referred to by the location that it happened, and not the shooter. I think it's a bigger problem then just the names.
Great-Kazoo
11-16-2018, 09:24
easiest solution.
We'd like to report another shooting. However until justice is served and the execution date is published. We will not be discussing this again. Thank you and good night.
easiest solution.
We'd like to report another shooting. However until justice is served and the execution date is published. We will not be discussing this again. Thank you and good night.
On one hand, I agree.
OTOH, the shooting will be used to take away my rights. The media and interested parties will spin the occurrence/stats to support a narrative.
But the other side of this equation is that the negative publicity/consequences are missing, so media is tipping the scale and it's out of balance. It isn't so much that we would want to control media, but stop letting media operate in a vacuum.
How many times have I said this... Put James Holmes on YouTube livestream and ask him for his last words. Watch him look into that camera knowing his actions have forced a conformation with his own mortality as he forced on others. Tie him to a post in front a firing squad and run rounds through him (repeating as necessary) to end his life through violence. Let everyone watch the little monster die on society's terms, having no control, and in the same manner as he murdered.
Media can put the monster's name in lights, but then society sees this consequence. It balances and serves as a disincentive. Will be kind of hard for the next little monster who seeks notoriety/validation to go through with a similar attack knowing this will happen to him.
Media isn't inherently evil/bad, it's a thing. It's bad because the people in it are almost entirely (few exceptions) bad people and have evil intentions. Practically celebrating a mass murderer in one segment to support gun control, while demanding an end to the death penalty in the next.
I just want the little monster destroyed, as is our duty. Is that too much to ask? ;)
We have the civil courts system as well which I think has been underused to address cases where parents supported said little monsters and knew they were trouble.
And I wonder if the new red flag laws will impart more liability? You knew and did nothing?!?
Just returned from a Sheepdog seminar about church security. Media is definitely a factor by publishing names and making the murderer a cult hero and encouraging copycats. Violent video games, movies etc are also a factor.
How are violent video games and movies a factor?
Younger persons vs adult brain are different. The fight or flight areas of the brain are stimulated by the violent videos, movies, etc. It stays with them for two full days. The third day those areas calm down.
Adults, much less so. Inhibitions are reduced. one example specifically cited was the New Life Church murderer.
His mother took away violent videos, he had been binging on and the young man killed two at a denver youth center, got away and killed two at the church the next day before being stopped. There have been recent killings by violent video game players in florida iirc.
Millions of children play violent video games and watch violent movies every single day since both have existed without killing anyone. Can you cite more than a single example?
Sure, that is true. But it will tip some over the edge. i was at the seminar yesterday and couldn't write everything down. I have to wait for the presenters to transmit the slide info. I might suggest you look up sheep dog seminars and look at their info. to see if you can find some of the info you are interested in.
I'm just trying to make the point that blaming video games and movies is just lazy finger pointing. Same thing when as when everyone blamed Marilyn Manson and NIN for Columbine. I'm not picking on you, since you didn't give the presentation.
No worries. There are a host of things that go into the psychology and behavior influences of individuals committing these terrible crimes. We all wish it was one simple answer and solution.
Zundfolge
11-17-2018, 13:48
When it really gets down to it the main problem with the "mass shooting problem" is that people on both sides are desperate for a policy solution to what is a cultural problem (bonus points if the policy solution actually achieves your other, unpopular goals).
There is only one legal policy that might slightly impact the situation and that's banning of "gun free zones" (or at least demanding that private businesses that implement gun free zones are held civilly responsible for any murders that happen there). Otherwise there are zero things government can do to reduce the (frankly minuscule) numbers of mass shootings, and the truth is they shouldn't even try because they'll do more harm than good (which is often the real goal of those demanding government "do something").
This is not the place for government action.
People that walk around muttering about how "there oughta be a law..." about every little thing should be held down and repeatedly kicked in the junk until they are no longer capable of reproducing (or walking without a limp).
I think the whole "gun free zone" thing is just another talking point that won't have the affect that people think that it will. The amount of people that CCW is so low that it won't make much of a difference. Of the people that do CCW, I'd think a high percentage of them, but certainly not all, carry where they are not supposed to already. Also, how is this different than saying that "there should be a law"?
I do agree with you that generally when someone starts a sentence with "There should be a law..." the rest of the sentence isn't worth listening to.
I recently saw something about training police dogs to attack active shooters. Seems like a great idea to me and I wonder why it hasn't been suggested in any of these discussions before (that I can remember). I don't know about you guys, but a fast moving dog coming at you through a crowd of soft targets is going to be both difficult to ignore (if you're even aware) and difficult to hit. Either way, more than likely a great distraction that can buy time if anything. Not saying that's the ultimate solution, but trained dogs are much more likely to aggressively move on an active shooter than most people would be. Dogs plus people to act sounds like a great solution.
Edit: Here is a dumb liberal article about using dogs, but it has some video. https://www.scarymommy.com/attack-dogs-schools-active-shooter/
Hell, seems like a dog that sniffs ammo (I kind of laughed at that part, but I'm sure they can) would be more effective, and be less stressful than metal detectors. I'm sure some kids would occasionally run into trouble with having used their backpacks during range trips or something just like when we accidentally take range bags through the airport. In a realistic world, a single loose round could easily be explained away, but in a world full of zero tolerance BS, we know that won't happen.
Zundfolge
11-17-2018, 14:13
Also, how is this different than saying that "there should be a law"?
Context, Irving, I said:
There is only one legal policy that might slightly impact the situation and that's banning of "gun free zones"
and
People that walk around muttering about how "there oughta be a law..." about every little thing ...
But my over-riding point is that this is not a policy problem but a cultural one (and when it comes down to it not an actual serious problem) and policy "solutions" will at best do nothing, and at worst make things worse.
I'm mostly busting your balls about the "there should be a law" thing. I do strongly contest your assertion that it's not a serious problem. People get carried away with statistics on this. Is a mass shooting a rare occurrence compared to other crimes? Yes. Does that mean it's not serious? Absolutely not. There have been zero nuclear attacks or EMPs on US soil, yet people worry about prepping for that event. We often have discussions about the best home defense options yet most of us never have, nor ever will have a home invasion. What's the difference?
Zundfolge
11-17-2018, 22:50
I do strongly contest your assertion that it's not a serious problem.
I choose to respond to you with a cartoon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AQByC2CdTY
Uhhh yep, doesn't have any bearing on my point though.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.