Disrupting the Infamy Game: How to Change the Coverage of Mass Shootings

theatlantic.com ^ | 23 July, 2012 | J.J. Gould

[marktwain]

Anyone remember a fourth-century-BC Greek named Herostratus? He's the guy whose name history has recorded solely on account of his having burned down the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, one of the Seven Wonders of the World, in 356 BCE -- so that history would record his name.

In a 1993 paper called "Ethical Problems of Mass Murder Coverage in the Mass Media, published in the Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Clayton Cramer explored a variation on the question my colleague Robert Wright is rightly asking now, following Roger Ebert's New York Times op-ed on Friday: Given that intense media coverage of mass killings (a) plays straight into the perpetrators' tendency to want recognition for their crimes, and (b) encourages copycat iterations, can major media outlets police themselves not to play into these dynamics?

Wright's question: "... is it too much to hope that a norm along those lines could develop? That major media players -- the Times, the Washington Post, the major broadcast and cable news networks, for starters -- could agree to stop featuring images of accused mass killers?"

Cramer's, almost 20 years ago:

Can we develop a code of ethics that resolves this problem? Let us consider the following as a first draft of such a standard: "A crime of violence should be given attention proportionate to its size, relative to other crimes of violence, and relative to the importance of its victim. Violent crime of all types should be given attention, relative to other causes of suffering, proportionate to its social costs." We must develop a strategy for dealing with this problem now -- before another disturbed person decides to claim his fifteen minutes of fame.

Can we develop such a code of ethics? Yes, we can.

[marktwain]

Yes, the MSM has become the means to immortality for these homicidal misfits.

[Democrat_media]

Exactly . It is the media who causes these shootings.These psychos are looking for the fame and immortality the media will give them. Then the media who caused it manipulates the shooting to say “see we have to take away your guns , see how dangerous guns are” . NO this wouldn't even happen as much as it does if the media didn't give it endless attention. the media has blood on its hands. don't ban guns ban the stupid media ( using their logic).

[Uncle Ike]

” Yes, the MSM has become the means to immortality for these homicidal misfits. “

The other side of the coin - why allow Islamists, OWSers, Holder’s People, and the like, any more anonymity than they already enjoy at the hands of the MSM??

[Emperor Palpatine]

Sensationalism and journalism have gone hand in hand for centuries.


"If it bleeds it leads = if it burns it earns!"
-Joseph Pulitzer

[Dallas59]

I get a little tired of hearing about it after a while. It’s a tragedy for sure, but it gets run into the ground. Just hang the psycho and be done with it.

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

The MSM has become the “Attack Shark” of journalism, going in for the “media kill” (i.e. “scoop”) at the first smell of blood (the victim(s) be damned).

I speak as an old card-carrying journalist. I remember when professional ethics ran strong among the old-timers (except for the Walter Duranty’s of the New York Times (i.e. Herbert Matthews and Castro;) Karen DeYoung, Wash. Post; Woodward, Wash. Post; Kwitney, WSJ; Anthony Lewis, NYT; etc.)

Today most MSM (not the average reporter) journalists and many cable news egotrippers (Geraldo Rivera, Amanapour, Brian Ross, James Gregory, and the MSNBC/CNN bimbos) have very little in the way of ethics, with accuracy not being a major consideration, nor a lot of knowledge about the topics they cover. I think Amanapour knows a lot but only presents selected information.

We formed Accuracy in Media in 1969 to fight this type of liberal/leftist crap and here we are, in 2012, fighting the same stuff but this time it is even worse.

Only an outraged citizenry can change this situation.