4 ms·

The Batman Killer – a prescription for murder?

19 points by ljf 9y ago

smcl 9y ago
Giving mass murderers like this high-profile articles discussing their motivations, describing the details (closeups of the guns, the bit about booby trapping the house), portraying them as some anti-hero is EXACTLY what they want, and will only serve to nudge more people who are disturbed and have access to guns to do the same. Media will claim that it's not their responsibility to decide what's published. But they're essentially saying "if you kill enough people, we will probably give you a platform and talk about your message"
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  See also: subsequent terrorist actions after high profile incidents; suicide sprees after high profile incidents; etc. Whilst I don't particularly want a shackled press, it would be nice if they did a little more reflection on what they're publishing. (See also: "but her emails")
  - smcl 9y ago
    Yeh it's hard - law restricting what they publish is absolutely not the way to go, but a bit more responsibility from editors would be good. It will never happen though, especially as some organisations are desperate for the extra eyeballs and the advertising $ they bring. Which makes it weird that the BBC wrote this ...
- Hasknewbie 9y ago
  What's more, evidences that perpetrator-obsessed media coverage does influence other would-be mass shooters has be known and published since the 1970s: http://fair.org/home/media-coverage-is-a-sort-of-advertisement-to-mass-murder/ http://fair.org/home/media-coverage-is-a-sort-of-advertiseme... https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/are-mass-shootings-contagious-some-scientists-who-study-how-viruses-spread-say-yes/2016/03/07/be44866a-df31-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/are-mass-shootings-cont...
maxehmookau 9y ago
As someone who loves the BBC and 99% of their output, this programme was utterly awful. There were numerous factual inaccuracies and many groups including the Royal Society of Psychiatrists came out to condemn the documentary. This sort of sensationalist nonsense belongs on commercial TV, not the BBC. Please submit a complaint to the BBC trust if you're minded to do so: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact_us/making_a_complaint.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact_us/making_a_complaint....
libeclipse 9y ago
The comments here are pretty much geared towards not giving the attacker publicity, but even ignoring the fact that having a conversation is better than blindly letting emotion guide you, the part about anti-depressants was quite a significant point, and I feel as though it was somewhat shadowed.
empath75 9y ago
There has been a connection with anti depressants and mass killings almost since columbine.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  A decade earlier, even - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Gravure_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Gravure_shooting "In August 1989, less than a month before the shooting, Wesbecker had started taking Prozac. The wounded and the families of those killed filed a lawsuit against the drug's manufacturer, Eli Lilly and Company, claiming that Wesbecker's use of Prozac contributed to his actions."
- DanBC 9y ago
  There hasn't. There has been a clear link between the US's deranged gun laws and mass murder and mass shootings. The dishonesty of the gun lobby is shameful.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    There's a connection -- but whether it's a valid, proven, causal connection is another matter.
    - DanBC 9y ago
      The BBC documentary programme Panorama is clearly unambiguously saying that SSRIs cause violence. They've been widely criticised for that, because it's fucking idiotic.
ourmandave 9y ago
This from the 1996 Port Arthur mass shooting wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australi... Bryant's motivation for the massacre remains a closely guarded secret,[24][25] known only to his lawyer, who is bound not to reveal confidences without his client's consent. The lawyer later released a book outlining that Bryant was motivated largely by the media reports of the then-recent Dunblane school massacre. From the moment he was captured, he continually wanted to know how many people he had killed and seemed impressed by the number. But also the killer plead guilty to 35 murders and there was apparently no trial. At least two variants of a conspiracy theory about the massacre have been promoted.[33] Interviewed in 2006, Tony Rundle, Premier of Tasmania from 1996 to 1998, admitted that, because there was no trial, the evidence made public was possibly insufficient to support that Bryant had been the gunman: "At the time, the view was that a trial could do no good for the victims and their families. Now I think maybe that wasn't the case. If all the evidence was heard, then maybe it would have provided some closure and stopped the proliferation of conspiracy theories that sprang up over the years."[34]
DanBC 9y ago
This is a nice rebuttal: https://inews.co.uk/essentials/culture/television/last-nights-panorama-antidepressants-propaganda-not-journalism/amp/ https://inews.co.uk/essentials/culture/television/last-night... The BBC's sensationalist reporting will cause harm. Suicide is the leading cause of death for everyone under 35 and men under the age of 49 (in the UK) and untreated depression is an obvious significant risk. This kind of pill shaming will cause people to avoid seeking help and to stop taking meds, both of which cause considerably more harm than the single case of murder linked to AD meds. Indeed, in the UK rates of SSRI prescription have increased dramatically (probably being overprescribed) while rates of violent crime have been falling. The BBC editorial guidelines about harm.have pretty clearly been breached with this programme and the adverts for it, and a bunch of people in England are pushing the BBC to issue corrections and retractions.

19 points by ljf 9y ago

smcl 9y ago

Giving mass murderers like this high-profile articles discussing their motivations, describing the details (closeups of the guns, the bit about booby trapping the house), portraying them as some anti-hero is EXACTLY what they want, and will only serve to nudge more people who are disturbed and have access to guns to do the same. Media will claim that it's not their responsibility to decide what's published. But they're essentially saying "if you kill enough people, we will probably give you a platform and talk about your message"

zimpenfish 9y ago
See also: subsequent terrorist actions after high profile incidents; suicide sprees after high profile incidents; etc. Whilst I don't particularly want a shackled press, it would be nice if they did a little more reflection on what they're publishing. (See also: "but her emails")
- smcl 9y ago
  Yeh it's hard - law restricting what they publish is absolutely not the way to go, but a bit more responsibility from editors would be good. It will never happen though, especially as some organisations are desperate for the extra eyeballs and the advertising $ they bring. Which makes it weird that the BBC wrote this ...
Hasknewbie 9y ago
What's more, evidences that perpetrator-obsessed media coverage does influence other would-be mass shooters has be known and published since the 1970s: http://fair.org/home/media-coverage-is-a-sort-of-advertisement-to-mass-murder/ http://fair.org/home/media-coverage-is-a-sort-of-advertiseme... https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/are-mass-shootings-contagious-some-scientists-who-study-how-viruses-spread-say-yes/2016/03/07/be44866a-df31-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/are-mass-shootings-cont...

maxehmookau 9y ago

As someone who loves the BBC and 99% of their output, this programme was utterly awful. There were numerous factual inaccuracies and many groups including the Royal Society of Psychiatrists came out to condemn the documentary. This sort of sensationalist nonsense belongs on commercial TV, not the BBC. Please submit a complaint to the BBC trust if you're minded to do so: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact_us/making_a_complaint.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact_us/making_a_complaint....

libeclipse 9y ago

The comments here are pretty much geared towards not giving the attacker publicity, but even ignoring the fact that having a conversation is better than blindly letting emotion guide you, the part about anti-depressants was quite a significant point, and I feel as though it was somewhat shadowed.

empath75 9y ago

There has been a connection with anti depressants and mass killings almost since columbine.

zimpenfish 9y ago
A decade earlier, even - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Gravure_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Gravure_shooting "In August 1989, less than a month before the shooting, Wesbecker had started taking Prozac. The wounded and the families of those killed filed a lawsuit against the drug's manufacturer, Eli Lilly and Company, claiming that Wesbecker's use of Prozac contributed to his actions."
DanBC 9y ago
There hasn't. There has been a clear link between the US's deranged gun laws and mass murder and mass shootings. The dishonesty of the gun lobby is shameful.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  There's a connection -- but whether it's a valid, proven, causal connection is another matter.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    The BBC documentary programme Panorama is clearly unambiguously saying that SSRIs cause violence. They've been widely criticised for that, because it's fucking idiotic.

ourmandave 9y ago

This from the 1996 Port Arthur mass shooting wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australi... Bryant's motivation for the massacre remains a closely guarded secret,[24][25] known only to his lawyer, who is bound not to reveal confidences without his client's consent. The lawyer later released a book outlining that Bryant was motivated largely by the media reports of the then-recent Dunblane school massacre. From the moment he was captured, he continually wanted to know how many people he had killed and seemed impressed by the number. But also the killer plead guilty to 35 murders and there was apparently no trial. At least two variants of a conspiracy theory about the massacre have been promoted.[33] Interviewed in 2006, Tony Rundle, Premier of Tasmania from 1996 to 1998, admitted that, because there was no trial, the evidence made public was possibly insufficient to support that Bryant had been the gunman: "At the time, the view was that a trial could do no good for the victims and their families. Now I think maybe that wasn't the case. If all the evidence was heard, then maybe it would have provided some closure and stopped the proliferation of conspiracy theories that sprang up over the years."[34]

DanBC 9y ago

This is a nice rebuttal: https://inews.co.uk/essentials/culture/television/last-nights-panorama-antidepressants-propaganda-not-journalism/amp/ https://inews.co.uk/essentials/culture/television/last-night... The BBC's sensationalist reporting will cause harm. Suicide is the leading cause of death for everyone under 35 and men under the age of 49 (in the UK) and untreated depression is an obvious significant risk. This kind of pill shaming will cause people to avoid seeking help and to stop taking meds, both of which cause considerably more harm than the single case of murder linked to AD meds. Indeed, in the UK rates of SSRI prescription have increased dramatically (probably being overprescribed) while rates of violent crime have been falling. The BBC editorial guidelines about harm.have pretty clearly been breached with this programme and the adverts for it, and a bunch of people in England are pushing the BBC to issue corrections and retractions.