7 ms·

How the Media Can Help Prevent Mass Shootings

51 points by Reedx 7y ago

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
whatshisface 7y ago
>Their results were robust using both definitions of a “mass shooting”: either four or more individuals shot and four or more individuals killed. Well that's a new logical predicate, the either-and.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  It doesn't help either that one is a subset of the other. Or maybe I'm parsing that wrongly.
  - mikeyouse 7y ago
    I think you both are -- They're saying it holds up with either definition of 'mass shooting'; 1. Four or more people killed in a shooting. or 2. Four or more people shot in a single incident. It's just an either-or, but the 'or' is listed as an 'and' since they're enumerating the two definitions of mass shooting. E.g. It holds up with definition 1, and it holds up with definition 2. I agree a CS major would write it differently but I wasn't confused fwiw.
  - jMyles 7y ago
    In extraordinary cases, perhaps some people in a mass shotting are killed without being shot, but yes, in the normal course of things, the latter is surely a subset.
- rgoulter 7y ago
  Well, "Either four or more P or four or more Q" is a bit hard to parse. Perhaps "works for both four or more P and four or more Q" avoids the issue.
cat199 7y ago
response: media doesn't kill people, people kill people?
- csours 7y ago
  Means, motive, opportunity. Remove as many as you can. The media can help with motive.
  - krapp 7y ago
    Unfortunately, the Second Amendment makes it infeasible to remove means and opportunity.
    - wavefunction 7y ago
      >the Second Amendment makes it infeasible that's only if you accept as default the interpretation favored by firearms activists. And in any case, even if the Founding Fathers had mass shootings in mind when they wrote the Constitution it doesn't mean it's correct or something to simply go along with. The 3/5ths of a human being bit has been dispensed with, for example.
    - kristopolous 7y ago
      Well we could stop ignoring the first half, the "well regulated Militia" and "security of a free State" part. That clause doesn't sound like they mean "unlimited guns for all". Using the context before the comma, the "people" clearly means polis, as in society, not as in the "every human with a pulse" way we use it today. The word "person" is used twice in the BoR, both times referring to individuals. The other 3 uses of "people" clearly refer to the collective polis. This distinction, as people not merely being a plural of person, is laid bare in the fourth amendment: "the right of the people to be secure in their persons", that only makes sense if "people" means the abstract composition.
      - all2 7y ago
        I take you've never tried to buy a weapon. I encourage you to try, maybe take a firearms handling class, go to a range. Be informed about the thing you hate.
ddtaylor 7y ago
It's not much but what I have done is began marking Not Interested in the spam of mainstream news coverage after each event. I also only watch coverage from places that refuse to name the shooter or show their face and avoid "body count" style coverage, Philip Defranco is one example.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  This is absolutely a step in the right direction.
gojomo 7y ago
This 'contagion effect', also supported by research in relation to media coverage of suicide, has often been discussed after mass shootings. Yet, little tangible action has been taken. Maybe it's time for some new federal laws. Some possibilities: • make reporting about mass shootings subject to a mandatory "cooling off" waiting period, of 48 hours to 1 week, to reduce the sensational allure of such "hot" stories to the mentally-unstable • ban the reporting of salacious details, like a shooter's name & motivations, or specific weapons & actions – specialized information which is mainly of use to deranged individuals, rather than normal citizens • set up a government office which would "fact-check" & approve stories about mass shootings before they're published/broadcast • require reporters to receive official training about responsible reporting, and mandate reporting licenses to exclude careless or sketchy/unstable people from risky reporting activities
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  All of these suggestions violate the 1st amendment. Also there are no "reporting licenses".
  - basementcat 7y ago
    One possible workaround may be for the President to post something outrageous on Twitter right after the shooting to distract the Media's attention. Then again, maybe the Administration has already been doing this.
  - ryacko 7y ago
    Yes, there is a such thing as reporting licenses, it is ad money.
  - gojomo 7y ago
    Can't some words written down nearly 230 years ago be updated to account for what we know to be dangerous now, in 2019? All safe, responsible reporting can still be allowed. I don't think the founders ever considered 24-hour cable news, or sensational (and often false!) instant-reporting via the internet and social networks. That's what's feeding these copycat mass shooting events today. In 1791, when the 1st Amendment was written, it'd take days for news to reach the next city, and weeks to reach another state! And printing presses were generally only wielded by a small set of accountable people. Of course there's no "reporting licenses" – yet. There are powerful lobbies that have shot down reasonable reporting restrictions, whenever they've been proposed. But such licenses could restore the balance of reporting to that which existed, when the Bill of Rights was written. And the 1st amendment is just an amendment – not even part of the original Constitution. It can be further reinterpreted, or new exceptions added, or revoked, if necessary. We'd still have the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights, in any case.
zachguo 7y ago
“When it comes to covering mass shootings and gun violence, we want to emphasize the victims, we want to tell the stories of the community, and recovery, and resilience, rather than focusing on the perpetrator.” This is the solution proposed in the article.
- mark-r 7y ago
  They are hardly the first to make this suggestion. Is there anything novel proposed here?
  - outworlder 7y ago
    > They are hardly the first to make this suggestion. Is there anything novel proposed here? It doesn't have to be _novel_ . This has to be repeated until it sticks. Much like the way the media nowadays doesn't publish suicides much – in many cases, the cause of death is not even mentioned, to avoid copycats.
    - mark-r 7y ago
      If it's not novel, then it's not likely to have any impact larger than the ones that came before.
      - edmundsauto 7y ago
        Depends on how that particular message saturates in people's minds. It may have diminishing returns up to a point, but then repeated exposures have positive nonlinear compounding. Mass communication is all about simple, repeated messaging.
      - taborj 7y ago
        There's nothing novel about sexual situations on TV, either, yet by repeating it throughout the years it's become normalized, to the point that nobody even thinks about it anymore. This is how this works: have a controversial point, repeat it in as many places as possible until it becomes normal.
RobertRoberts 7y ago
The media makes /entertainment/ that glorifies mass murders. Cease glorifying insane people is the most obvious and easily actionable course. Edit: I want to emphasize the media makes content that is intended to be /fun/ to watch that is based on mass murder.
- coolspot 7y ago
  Also actual entertainment industry glorifies mass murder. See John Wick, GTA5, etc. First mission in the GTAV is to kill unarmed constrained cop to teach player how to aim [1]. [1] - https://youtu.be/vMXq-4UDZ4c?t=104 https://youtu.be/vMXq-4UDZ4c?t=104
  - haunter 7y ago
    I love when people blame video games yet they forget that the majority of mass murders are happening in the US. People play GTA in Bulgaria, Israel, Russia, Egypt, Thailand, Australia etc. Everywhere. Switzerland even where 70% of the population has weapons at home yet they don't kill each other every single week. You know what's the difference? The access to weapons. But I guess that's the founding fathers wanted so it's all good
    - RobertRoberts 7y ago
      I am not arguing the cause of mass murder, I am arguing that people can't tell others what to do/say about it if they are the biggest benefactor of mass murder entertainment.
    - coolspot 7y ago
      Before GTA and “No Russian” [1] there was simultaneously easier access to guns (including full-auto) and less mass murders. [1] - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G7vBol8wud0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G7vBol8wud0
hirundo 7y ago
> Sensationalized TV coverage of mass shootings may encourage more of them Sensationalism sells ads. You're asking the media to act against their own interest in order to serve a greater public interest. But if one outlet doesn't do this, another will. Therefore such coverage is inevitable with a competitive free press. A non regulatory solution would involve making such coverage not sell more ads. That means making sensationalized murders less attractive to viewers. That means reshaping human character in a fundamental way. Quite a project.
- rale00 7y ago
  Maybe the solution is to go after the advertisers. If there was backlash from the public towards companies whose products were advertised next to programs that sensationalized murder, those companies would cut funding in a hurry. The media would reform itself in a hurry in that case.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - squarefoot 7y ago
    A hundred times this. Nothing is going to change until they're hit where it hurts more: profits. Enough people taking note of all products showed during or very near mass shootings coverage and then refusing to buy them, possibly informing the companies about the choice, would send quite a message.
  - 1123581321 7y ago
    Such a movement would need to be popular enough to bring its own additional attention to shootings. In order to spread information about the details of the news and the advertisers, it would effectively become an alternate news source about them.
- scotty79 7y ago
  Why not just regulate that no ad can be displayed in 30 minutes before or after mass shooting is mentioned on TV?
Pils 7y ago
Interesting experiment design. However, I wish the paper explored seasonal effects more. "# of deaths from extreme temperatures and wildfires worldwide" probably has large seasonal variance, and the graph in the paper suggests that mass shootings do as well.
mynegation 7y ago
How about shaming politicians who offer nothing more than useless “thoughts and prayers”?

51 points by Reedx 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

>Their results were robust using both definitions of a “mass shooting”: either four or more individuals shot and four or more individuals killed. Well that's a new logical predicate, the either-and.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
It doesn't help either that one is a subset of the other. Or maybe I'm parsing that wrongly.
- mikeyouse 7y ago
  I think you both are -- They're saying it holds up with either definition of 'mass shooting'; 1. Four or more people killed in a shooting. or 2. Four or more people shot in a single incident. It's just an either-or, but the 'or' is listed as an 'and' since they're enumerating the two definitions of mass shooting. E.g. It holds up with definition 1, and it holds up with definition 2. I agree a CS major would write it differently but I wasn't confused fwiw.
- jMyles 7y ago
  In extraordinary cases, perhaps some people in a mass shotting are killed without being shot, but yes, in the normal course of things, the latter is surely a subset.
rgoulter 7y ago
Well, "Either four or more P or four or more Q" is a bit hard to parse. Perhaps "works for both four or more P and four or more Q" avoids the issue.

cat199 7y ago

response: media doesn't kill people, people kill people?

csours 7y ago
Means, motive, opportunity. Remove as many as you can. The media can help with motive.
- krapp 7y ago
  Unfortunately, the Second Amendment makes it infeasible to remove means and opportunity.
  - wavefunction 7y ago
    >the Second Amendment makes it infeasible that's only if you accept as default the interpretation favored by firearms activists. And in any case, even if the Founding Fathers had mass shootings in mind when they wrote the Constitution it doesn't mean it's correct or something to simply go along with. The 3/5ths of a human being bit has been dispensed with, for example.
  - kristopolous 7y ago
    Well we could stop ignoring the first half, the "well regulated Militia" and "security of a free State" part. That clause doesn't sound like they mean "unlimited guns for all". Using the context before the comma, the "people" clearly means polis, as in society, not as in the "every human with a pulse" way we use it today. The word "person" is used twice in the BoR, both times referring to individuals. The other 3 uses of "people" clearly refer to the collective polis. This distinction, as people not merely being a plural of person, is laid bare in the fourth amendment: "the right of the people to be secure in their persons", that only makes sense if "people" means the abstract composition.
    - all2 7y ago
      I take you've never tried to buy a weapon. I encourage you to try, maybe take a firearms handling class, go to a range. Be informed about the thing you hate.

ddtaylor 7y ago

It's not much but what I have done is began marking Not Interested in the spam of mainstream news coverage after each event. I also only watch coverage from places that refuse to name the shooter or show their face and avoid "body count" style coverage, Philip Defranco is one example.

merpnderp 7y ago
This is absolutely a step in the right direction.

gojomo 7y ago

This 'contagion effect', also supported by research in relation to media coverage of suicide, has often been discussed after mass shootings. Yet, little tangible action has been taken. Maybe it's time for some new federal laws. Some possibilities: • make reporting about mass shootings subject to a mandatory "cooling off" waiting period, of 48 hours to 1 week, to reduce the sensational allure of such "hot" stories to the mentally-unstable • ban the reporting of salacious details, like a shooter's name & motivations, or specific weapons & actions – specialized information which is mainly of use to deranged individuals, rather than normal citizens • set up a government office which would "fact-check" & approve stories about mass shootings before they're published/broadcast • require reporters to receive official training about responsible reporting, and mandate reporting licenses to exclude careless or sketchy/unstable people from risky reporting activities

henryfjordan 7y ago
All of these suggestions violate the 1st amendment. Also there are no "reporting licenses".
- basementcat 7y ago
  One possible workaround may be for the President to post something outrageous on Twitter right after the shooting to distract the Media's attention. Then again, maybe the Administration has already been doing this.
- ryacko 7y ago
  Yes, there is a such thing as reporting licenses, it is ad money.
- gojomo 7y ago
  Can't some words written down nearly 230 years ago be updated to account for what we know to be dangerous now, in 2019? All safe, responsible reporting can still be allowed. I don't think the founders ever considered 24-hour cable news, or sensational (and often false!) instant-reporting via the internet and social networks. That's what's feeding these copycat mass shooting events today. In 1791, when the 1st Amendment was written, it'd take days for news to reach the next city, and weeks to reach another state! And printing presses were generally only wielded by a small set of accountable people. Of course there's no "reporting licenses" – yet. There are powerful lobbies that have shot down reasonable reporting restrictions, whenever they've been proposed. But such licenses could restore the balance of reporting to that which existed, when the Bill of Rights was written. And the 1st amendment is just an amendment – not even part of the original Constitution. It can be further reinterpreted, or new exceptions added, or revoked, if necessary. We'd still have the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights, in any case.

zachguo 7y ago

“When it comes to covering mass shootings and gun violence, we want to emphasize the victims, we want to tell the stories of the community, and recovery, and resilience, rather than focusing on the perpetrator.” This is the solution proposed in the article.

mark-r 7y ago
They are hardly the first to make this suggestion. Is there anything novel proposed here?
- outworlder 7y ago
  > They are hardly the first to make this suggestion. Is there anything novel proposed here? It doesn't have to be _novel_ . This has to be repeated until it sticks. Much like the way the media nowadays doesn't publish suicides much – in many cases, the cause of death is not even mentioned, to avoid copycats.
  - mark-r 7y ago
    If it's not novel, then it's not likely to have any impact larger than the ones that came before.
    - edmundsauto 7y ago
      Depends on how that particular message saturates in people's minds. It may have diminishing returns up to a point, but then repeated exposures have positive nonlinear compounding. Mass communication is all about simple, repeated messaging.
    - taborj 7y ago
      There's nothing novel about sexual situations on TV, either, yet by repeating it throughout the years it's become normalized, to the point that nobody even thinks about it anymore. This is how this works: have a controversial point, repeat it in as many places as possible until it becomes normal.

RobertRoberts 7y ago

The media makes /entertainment/ that glorifies mass murders. Cease glorifying insane people is the most obvious and easily actionable course. Edit: I want to emphasize the media makes content that is intended to be /fun/ to watch that is based on mass murder.

coolspot 7y ago
Also actual entertainment industry glorifies mass murder. See John Wick, GTA5, etc. First mission in the GTAV is to kill unarmed constrained cop to teach player how to aim [1]. [1] - https://youtu.be/vMXq-4UDZ4c?t=104 https://youtu.be/vMXq-4UDZ4c?t=104
- haunter 7y ago
  I love when people blame video games yet they forget that the majority of mass murders are happening in the US. People play GTA in Bulgaria, Israel, Russia, Egypt, Thailand, Australia etc. Everywhere. Switzerland even where 70% of the population has weapons at home yet they don't kill each other every single week. You know what's the difference? The access to weapons. But I guess that's the founding fathers wanted so it's all good
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    I am not arguing the cause of mass murder, I am arguing that people can't tell others what to do/say about it if they are the biggest benefactor of mass murder entertainment.
  - coolspot 7y ago
    Before GTA and “No Russian” [1] there was simultaneously easier access to guns (including full-auto) and less mass murders. [1] - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G7vBol8wud0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G7vBol8wud0

hirundo 7y ago

> Sensationalized TV coverage of mass shootings may encourage more of them Sensationalism sells ads. You're asking the media to act against their own interest in order to serve a greater public interest. But if one outlet doesn't do this, another will. Therefore such coverage is inevitable with a competitive free press. A non regulatory solution would involve making such coverage not sell more ads. That means making sensationalized murders less attractive to viewers. That means reshaping human character in a fundamental way. Quite a project.

rale00 7y ago
Maybe the solution is to go after the advertisers. If there was backlash from the public towards companies whose products were advertised next to programs that sensationalized murder, those companies would cut funding in a hurry. The media would reform itself in a hurry in that case.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- squarefoot 7y ago
  A hundred times this. Nothing is going to change until they're hit where it hurts more: profits. Enough people taking note of all products showed during or very near mass shootings coverage and then refusing to buy them, possibly informing the companies about the choice, would send quite a message.
- 1123581321 7y ago
  Such a movement would need to be popular enough to bring its own additional attention to shootings. In order to spread information about the details of the news and the advertisers, it would effectively become an alternate news source about them.
scotty79 7y ago
Why not just regulate that no ad can be displayed in 30 minutes before or after mass shooting is mentioned on TV?

Pils 7y ago

Interesting experiment design. However, I wish the paper explored seasonal effects more. "# of deaths from extreme temperatures and wildfires worldwide" probably has large seasonal variance, and the graph in the paper suggests that mass shootings do as well.

mynegation 7y ago

How about shaming politicians who offer nothing more than useless “thoughts and prayers”?