4 ms·

Especially since a lot of shooters end up dead by the end of the shooting, so it would be difficult to determine what they like about the reports of their amok

• filoleg 7y ago
  It is less about their enjoyment of the coverage post-factum (which they are, obviously, aware they won't be able to witness themselves), and more about "they will be talking about and covering my deeds even after I am gone, so i will go out with a splash." It is just a perverted version of "leaving a legacy" behind and being immortalized in the public eye. If you take that away, there is not much "glory" or "legacy" left behind, which certainly would discourage a giant chunk of shooters. Note: I watched the first season of that show, thought it was terrible, and was told that the second season was even worse. The writers should have presented the topic in a better and more mature way, but they ended up doing a poor job of it. While I believe that the show should not be banned and creators should not be held responsible for it (for many reasons, with the main two being the overreach of censorship and freedom of speech; it is a work of fiction, after all), I do believe that the coverage of shootings and similar events by the mainstream media should be somewhat regulated/normalized. Whether it happens through a carrot (news self-regulating themselves) or stick (gov-t imposed regulations) is up to them, but I would much rather prefer them take the carrot.