5 ms·
Does Media Coverage Inspire Copy Cat Mass Shootings?
- mensetmanusman 6y agoIt does inspire copy cat suicides. In hindsight of what has happened in the past 40 years, I wonder if we wouldn’t be better off without video-based mass media. It seems better discussion can happen without the distraction. (this is esp. true for those of us who have lived in a media whirlwind and seen the blatant and lazy manipulation of facts)
- toiletfuneral 6y agoyou're probably right but the news co's have shareholders who want returns so they're highly incentivized to show crazy inflammatory stuff. Visual clickbait or something
- nsonha 6y agowithout videos and pictures, war crimes are just a bunch of numbers.
- tehjoker 6y agothe government basically banned taking photos of hosptials during the pandemic and for some reason many people sadly think it's fake. https://theintercept.com/2020/12/27/covid-photography-hospitals/ https://theintercept.com/2020/12/27/covid-photography-hospit...
- kodah 6y agoFrom who? Media outlets aren't stationed and positioned in war zones, nor are they the people who generally keep war an honest practice. When I was in Afghanistan they'd usually visit for a bit, get some footage and leave. Usually it's civilians and service members, occasionally the military's own documentation of war that would expose "war crimes".
- nsonha 6y agoI don't know, you know all the bodies who report wars? (hint: in the world outside the US). Does it exist such a thing as realistic or even gruesome war footage? Yes?
- kodah 6y agoI had a pretty good view of Afghanistan and if you accept Afghanistan as the most modern interpretation of "war" then yes. I traveled mostly across Helmand and Nimroz, which were apart from some isolated mountainous regions, the most kinetic places in the country. > Does it exist such a thing as realistic or even gruesome war footage I don't know 100% what this means, it's phrased oddly so I'll do my best to answer it. Most war footage is gruesome, and much of it is captured by service members themselves. Next up would probably be the military's own "combat camera" which documents warzones from the front lines. For instance, this movie was a unit adjacent to mine: http://combatobscura.oscilloscope.net/ http://combatobscura.oscilloscope.net/ and was composed entirely of combat camera footage. Citizens documenting stuff is probably next, though I'd say it's value drops because it leaves out a lot of troop communication to know what was happening at the time. Most of the time when you see it, it's probably the kind of footage that is meant to frighten people at home because it's all post-action and carries very little explanation of what's going on at the time.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mensetmanusman 6y agoTrue, but humans prior made heroic effort to help those in need. E.g. British oppression resulted in the Irish potato famine. Letters and written communication describing the desolation inspired millions around the world to help. https://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/charity-begins-at-home-the-united-states-government-irish-famine-relief-1845-1849/ https://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/cha...
- mgarfias 6y agoYes. Next question?
- undefined1 6y agohow do we get the media to change their approach?
- hristov 6y agoI am not sure they should. It is something people want to know about. It is their duty to report about important to know events in the real world, and the fact that there exist scumbags that are willing to murder random people is definitely an important fact that we all need to be aware of.
- throwaway894345 6y agoOn the other hand, the media compulsively portrays the sensationalist as commonplace and the commonplace as rare. They are presenting an increasingly skewed version of reality.
- croutonwagon 6y agoAnd yet they have specific policies[1][2][3], industry-wide and largely self adopted, for suicide coverage. How is this any different? Many of these individuals straight send out manifestos. And the media contorts statistics, which happen to not only include suicides but suicides are the majority of the statistics, to support a specific narrative violence is more prevalent and commonplace than it is.. [1]https://time.com/5351106/media-suicide-coverage/ https://time.com/5351106/media-suicide-coverage/ [2]https://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117288&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117288&page=1 [3]https://www.cpa-apc.org/wp-content/uploads/Media-Guidelines-Suicide-Reporting-EN-2018.pdf https://www.cpa-apc.org/wp-content/uploads/Media-Guidelines-...
- mgarfias 6y agohttps://hwfo.substack.com/p/i-just-made-100-off-some-dead-kids https://hwfo.substack.com/p/i-just-made-100-off-some-dead-ki... Dunno. But that’s a good read.
- maroonblazer 6y agoPerhaps one day we'll not publish the names of assailants of these kinds of crimes, just as we don't publish the names of victims of certain other crimes.
- dathinab 6y agoI don't know. What I do know is that many countries have massive media coverage of mass shootings. But I'm not sure if there is any country besides the US which has such massive problems with mass shootings. So even if it might amplify thinks it seems unlikely to be the root cause.
- apostacy 6y agoThe Philippines has more mass shootings, and way more crime in general. And how do you define a mass shooting? The media equates a gangland battle between two groups of crack dealers to be the same thing as the Columbine shooting. A country can still have nightmarish levels of crime while having strict gun control, like Brazil. A country can have nightmarish levels of crime with very little gun restrictions, like South Africa and The Philippines. A country can be very safe and have little gun control, like Switzerland, The Czech Republic and Israel. A country can have strict gun control and very little crime, like Japan. You need to take a more holistic approach to understand what is really going on. And certainly to inform policy.
- sirmike_ 6y agoI am really surprised people have not buried your comment. It is too reasonable and well thought out for certain divisive political crowds. I really wish the US would focus on an infrastructure bill already. In my opinion that would do more to tackle the root of crime -- inequity than the current push being called for. I feel something like that over time would have a much more positive impact on the lives of more Americans than anything else discussed in recent memory. And it is not so divisive as other big govt ideas.
- yrrr 6y agoCynicism contributes to divisiveness; convince me otherwise.
- xref 6y agoNo, the Philippines don’t have more mass shootings than the US. Not even close. People seem to define “mass shooting” quite differently but no, your unsourced claim the Philippines isn’t the leader. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/05/does-us-lead-world-mass-shootings/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/05/does-us-l...
- kjjjjjjjjjjjjjj 6y agoBasically unrestricted access to guns causes mass shootings. Maybe we can do something to stop bad people from getting guns?
- apostacy 6y agoI don't think so. I think it is our society. If you gave everyone in Japan a gun, I don't think people would just start committing more crimes. If you took away guns from everyone in a place like South Africa, I don't think it would decrease violence.
- nsonha 6y agothe abundance of guns influences the society? > If you took away guns from everyone in a place like South Africa, I don't think it would decrease violence. Regardless, you bet it would decrease the death count.
- apostacy 6y ago> Regardless, you bet it would decrease the death count. Absolutely not. Guns "democratize" violence. People who are less strong will at least have a fighting chance to defend themselves. Without guns, those with brute force have all the power. It would be especially bad for women. When we have a country where everyone gets along and trusts the police and government, then we can have a discussion about banning guns. I still won't support it but at least you have some justification for considering gun control.
- nsonha 6y agowhat does "democratizing" have anything to do with death count? I guess you are saying maybe less women die? If they do carry guns that is? Do they? Point is overall number, men or women, will be lower, unless you think that with the same number of violent incidents, the chance of fatal injuries with and without guns are exactly the same.
- 6y ago
- lawwantsin17 6y agoNew Headline: Does monkey see and monkey do?
- nerdbaggy 6y agoIf it bleeds it leads. I don’t think there is anything we can do about it. For profit news companies will always be a thing.
- mancerayder 6y agoMaybe it wouldn't be as bad if the media didn't engage in an aggressive 24/7 bombardment compaign. I first noticed this when I was younger and the OJ Simpson thing happened - the news media broadcasted repeated footage of his SUV driving away from a zillion cop cars. We saw this during wartime, Saddam Hussein in 91. We saw this basically for the past 30 years at least via broadcast media and CNN. We see it during wars, but we also see it when media personalities are broadcast repeatedly due to a scandal or perhaps (like the useless Royal Family) due to some human interest thing. We see it on scary things -- the Murder Hornets have arrived. Avian flu is here. Etc. Is there a kernel of truth in some of those things? Sure. But my concern is the repetition and the cycling. Now we see the mechanism at work in social media and online news media. This is not new. It was called propaganda in WWI and WW2, and one tactic (this is discussed in Manufacturing Consent) is repetition. "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”. Except we can add to the American news media, perhaps a new, Repeat an image and it becomes numbing. Should we report on mass shootings, on racist actions and everything else. Sure. But ask yourself, are we doing a service or a disservice with a relentless bombardment compaign. Does this affect mental health? Is this useful, productive for society? Have you ever obsessed over anything? Is the media tapping into a frailty?
- beaner 6y agoIt's easy to blame the media. But they do these things because we demand it. If they don't show it, we'll flip to the channel that does. The problem is all of us. It's our culture, and partly our human nature.
- dang 6y agoSorry for the off topic comment but could you please email me at hn@ycombinator.com?
- Barrin92 6y agoThing that also immediately come to mind for me is films and games. Roger Ebert gave a scathing review of Fight Club[1] and I think he's spot on that it is essentially macho porn. Many films do the superficial thing where they attempt to renounce that any of the stuff is cool, but aesthetically they basically dwell in it. One thing that has always impressed me was the Balance of Power losing screen that shows nothing but the message: "You have ignited a(n accidental) nuclear war. And no, there is no animated display of a mushroom cloud with parts of bodies flying through the air. We do not reward failure."[2] [1]https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/fight-club-1999 https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/fight-club-1999 [2]https://imgur.com/XfePBsQ https://imgur.com/XfePBsQ
- korethr 6y agoThere is an idea I've been playing with for years that I think would be useful in this sort of situation, though sadly I think its a bit too clever to get traction amongst not-nerds. In the webcomic Digger[1], one of the main characters is an exiled hyena. I'm a bit lazy right now to go digging through the archive for the exact panels that explain the situation[2], but there's a twist on just plain exile. The character's name was "eaten". This is expanded on a bit more in the comic if you're in the mood for an archive binge, but the key phrases are, "Name eaten, gone. It an it now, not a real person," "Of course it remembers [its name]. It remembers the rabbit it ate yesterday too, but rabbit still gone. Memory not life. Name eaten, dead, gone". Someone who goes and massacres a church, school, theater, grocery store, in doing so has renounced their humanity. AFAICT, across all cultures in history, there's a fairly consistent group of things that are Shit What You Just Don't Fucking Do, and massacring a defenseless group of your fellows seems to fall under that heading. So you want to go shoot up a bunch of people? Okay, your name is eaten. May you die an unknown forgotten unperson, instead of the immortality the news grants to such killers now. Like i said. I think it's a bit too clever to really catch on. But I do wish the news would stop granting a sort of immortality to people who commit such horrific acts. 1. Start here at the beginning of the archive, the front pages shows the last panel -- http://diggercomic.com/blog/2007/02/01/wombat1-gnorf/ http://diggercomic.com/blog/2007/02/01/wombat1-gnorf/ 2. Okay, fine, I found it: https://diggercomic.com/blog/2007/02/28/digger-26/ https://diggercomic.com/blog/2007/02/28/digger-26/
- vmception 6y agoits not too clever to catch on, many people suggest the idea of not naming the assailant and some news organizations and law enforcement do too other people just don't want to for every municipality that plays along, there are threads online that name the assailant
- korethr 6y agoIt's more than just refusing to name the assailant. It's the notion that in renouncing their humanity with such a horrific act, they are now bereft of a name. The assailant has already declared to the world that they aren't a real person anymore, but an it. So consider its name to be gone and stop using said name.
- duxup 6y agoI recall that NPR took some advice from psychologists who talked to mass shooters. They made a point to not emphasize the shooters name, not go into detail about their manifesto or ideology. They tried to avoid sounds and videos of chaos. They didn't completely ignore those things, but they choose to limit them. They did talk about victims, their names, stories of communities, stories about people helping each other after the event. In short they emphasized things the shooters don't like to think about and deemphasized things shooters like. It's not clear if it helps, but I sure liked the coverage.
- canada_dry 6y agoThese are generally mentally unstable people. I liken it to a young child that wouldn't have come up with the idea - of stealing candy - let's say, until someone tells them specifically not to steal any candy - i.e. it expands their field of what's possible. Then it's their notion of morality (right vs. wrong) that dissuades them.