Page 1 of 1

Media Coverage of Mass Shootings

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:39 pm
by arvcat2
Sadly, another mass shooting and there will no doubt be more. Like clockwork, all the media proceed into the predictable wall to wall coverage and analysis of whom, why, and what’s to blame. Blame on assault rifles (or all guns), lack of mental health treatments, law enforcement failures, and all the way to not having teachers and administrators armed to the teeth to defend the school. These are all complex and arguable issues, but rarely does the media hold up a mirror and address, what I believe, is their culpability in these terrible shootings.

Every massacre, front and center in the media’s coverage is the shooters name, picture, and anything that anyone knows or remotely has heard about the perpetrator. I am not a physiologist, but common sense tells me that however ill, deranged, angry, lonely, etc. these murderers may be, notoriety is something they know they will receive (and probably crave). Conventional wisdom is that the media will give their audience what they want. Perhaps I am out of touch or lack in the curiosity of mass murderers, but I could give a rates a#s knowing what these killers look like and as little as possible about their lives. I can only wish that our media deny these killers the notoriety they give them and to hell to any of an audience that is intrigued with these killers. How about wall to wall coverage of the victims?

I’ll spare you my thoughts on what I would have done to this captured nameless POS.

Re: Media Coverage of Mass Shootings

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:17 pm
by Bobcat4Ever
As I read your first paragraph, my mind was already thinking what you wrote in the second. I think you are right, and the media coverage promotes the copycat effect as well. Let's put a moratorium on media coverage of terror activities, mass shootings and grizzly football for four years and measure the change — I suspect all would be greatly reduced. Sounds like a great project for a journalism school which is also a flagship research institution.

Truly, actions like eliminating media coverage should be tried. Condolences to the victims.

Re: Media Coverage of Mass Shootings

Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:33 am
by hokeyfine
no media coverage of a mass shooting will never prevent or diminish the chance of another. There will be more, coming soon to a school or a place near you and killing a loved one of yours or you. Thats the reality.

Re: Media Coverage of Mass Shootings

Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:54 pm
by Grizlaw
Bobcat4Ever wrote:As I read your first paragraph, my mind was already thinking what you wrote in the second. I think you are right, and the media coverage promotes the copycat effect as well. Let's put a moratorium on media coverage of terror activities, mass shootings and grizzly football for four years and measure the change — I suspect all would be greatly reduced. Sounds like a great project for a journalism school which is also a flagship research institution.

Truly, actions like eliminating media coverage should be tried. Condolences to the victims.
Censoring the media HAS been tried...in places like China and the Soviet Union. There may well have been fewer school shootings in those places, but limiting the media also has other consequences that you might not like...

Re: Media Coverage of Mass Shootings

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:15 am
by cats2506
Grizlaw wrote:
Bobcat4Ever wrote:As I read your first paragraph, my mind was already thinking what you wrote in the second. I think you are right, and the media coverage promotes the copycat effect as well. Let's put a moratorium on media coverage of terror activities, mass shootings and grizzly football for four years and measure the change — I suspect all would be greatly reduced. Sounds like a great project for a journalism school which is also a flagship research institution.

Truly, actions like eliminating media coverage should be tried. Condolences to the victims.
Censoring the media HAS been tried...in places like China and the Soviet Union. There may well have been fewer school shootings in those places, but limiting the media also has other consequences that you might not like...
So you are saying that our fundamental rights are codified by amendments to the constitution for a good reason.

Re: Media Coverage of Mass Shootings

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:53 am
by WeedKillinCat
Instead of guns maybe the media should focus on the psych medications that these killers were on. I saw something the other day that the past mass killers in our country have been on some sort of psychological medications that make people do bad things. Is it true?

Re: Media Coverage of Mass Shootings

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:02 pm
by RickRund
WeedKillinCat wrote:Instead of guns maybe the media should focus on the psych medications that these killers were on. I saw something the other day that the past mass killers in our country have been on some sort of psychological medications that make people do bad things. Is it true?
I think it is absolutely true. But because the media will not give us that news we will probably never know. Those stats will surely never be released by anyone in the know.
Ever heard the side effects of depression drugs that are advertised on tv. Yeah right, I want to take that garbage!!

Re: Media Coverage of Mass Shootings

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:59 pm
by hokeyfine
psychiatric medications don't make people do bad things, they generally mellow most people. Claiming that its the medication's fault is a red herring. Mental health facilities don't pump you full of mind altering drugs, contrary to some articles on the internet.
gun regulation and mental health access are a great place to start.

Re: Media Coverage of Mass Shootings

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:36 pm
by WeedKillinCat
Check out the side affects of ambien

Re: Media Coverage of Mass Shootings

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:06 pm
by hokeyfine
WeedKillinCat wrote:Check out the side affects of ambien
unfortunately, information like that is terribly misleading. when a drug goes through a clinical trial everything that a patient experiences while participating has to be recorded and put as a possible side effect. even if only 1 patient has a extreme negative side effect, it must be recorded and said to be a side effect from the drug. eventhough you have no idea if its caused by the medication or not.
Read the MSDS for salt,http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927593, again, misleading information to the average person.