Posted on 10/12/2017 1:51:55 PM PDT by Kaslin
On Oct. 1, a 64-year-old Nevada man opened fire on a crowd of concertgoers from a high-rise hotel in Las Vegas, killing 58 people and injuring hundreds. If you don't know his name, you can easily find it online, in print or on TV. But you won't learn it from this column.
Notoriety may have been what he was after in methodically plotting the slaughter. He may have intended to outdo other mass shooters. He may have hoped his name would gain a sinister immortality.
University of Alabama criminologist Adam Lankford has explained the repetition of such incidents as a product of hunger for status. "Some mass shooters succumb to terrible delusions of grandeur, and seek fame and glory through killing," he wrote.
The more their names are known, the more likely they are to inspire imitators pursuing similar recognition. A 26-year-old man who killed nine people on a college campus in Oregon in 2015 had previously written of another killer: "A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. ... Seems the more people you kill, the more you're in the limelight."
But it's not desirable for sensational killers to acquire such infamy. A 2015 study in the scholarly journal PLOS ONE found "significant evidence of contagion in mass killings and school shootings." Nor is this publicity entirely inevitable. After the Oregon shootings, the sheriff refused to "glorify" the killer by mentioning his name on national TV.
There is an organization, No Notoriety, that has called on news organizations to avoid coverage that needlessly publicizes the identity of these murderers. Among its recommendations for print newspapers: "Limit the perpetrator's name to once per piece as a reference point, never in the headlines and no photo above the fold. Repetitiveness is unnecessary, gratuitous and adds nothing to the story."
The idea has gotten some traction. The Chicago-area Daily Herald has omitted the Las Vegas killer's name from headlines, published only one photo of him and referred to him mostly as "the gunman." Explained an editorial, "We have no interest in making him famous."
Of course, news organizations are obligated to report the names of killers, which can help generate useful information about motives, backgrounds, accomplices and other crimes. Law enforcement stands to gain if those who knew or encountered the killer at some point come forward with clues.
In the internet age, it would be impossible to keep a mass murderer's identity secret. Even if mainstream media tried, other outlets would disclose it. The reasonable task is merely not to publicize the name any more than necessary. In many items, such as this column, there is no need to mention it.
Such discretion may sound alien to journalism, but it's not. Reputable news organizations generally don't publish the names of rape victims, juvenile arrestees or people who kill themselves. They don't use the names of children without a parent's consent. They don't identify confidential sources.
In this case, journalists would be assisting a trend that is already evident. By now, anyone hoping to gain fame by killing lots of people should realize it probably won't work. A lot of people remember Charles Whitman, who in 1966 shot dozens of people from a tower at the University of Texas. Back then, such crimes were rare and indelible. Today, they are common and more forgettable.
Can you name the man who killed 49 people in an Orlando nightclub last year? Or the married couple who killed 14 people in San Bernardino? The Army major who went on a rampage at Fort Hood in 2009? These crimes shocked the nation and held our attention for days. But today, hardly anyone could tell you who committed them.
For that matter, many mass shootings have been largely forgotten. If you recall the one in Isla Vista, California, in 2014 or the one in Minneapolis in 2012, you're the exception. Only if you went looking for them online would you find them.
News organizations could help ensure the obscurity of mass murderers by avoiding the use of their names without a compelling reason. Few readers or viewers would mind.
Such restraint would deprive homicidal attention seekers of what they crave. Those who dream of gaining lasting fame through bloodshed should be confronted with a stark, demoralizing prospect: Hardly anyone will know their names, and hardly anyone will care.
The problem is that people want to know who and, more, why these things happen. Now we know about one very warped and evil person and what we can avoid but next time we’ll be surprised again.
And how are we supposed to do that? Should we make a “hurricane” and pre-assign names for the next 10 mass killers and only use those name? And what if they don’t die, how do we put them on trial?
I understand what they’re saying but it’s kind of cursing the sun for rising in the east, it’s information it will get out.
Seriously.
Won’t happen since the MSMLSD makes them into hero’s.
Yes, because some individuals seek fame by killing other people, or imagine themselves doing the same thing, and like the idea.
Mass murderers should be identified by name ONCE. No pictures should be published. Rolling Stone should be put out of business. Reporters should be responsible (impossible) and not interview murderers in prison.
I’ve been saying for years that heinous criminals should not become famous. But I don’t know how to balance that with free speech rights which and transparency which I value more. I have to admit that if the government had refused to ID the LV suspect, I would be one of the many complaining that they are hiding something. (muslim? dreamer? son of some politician? some other protected group?)
I don’t like the idea of making these people instantly famous, but I do think it’s valuable to figure out who they are and why they do what they do. (Liberal upbringing, liberal brainwashing, losers who blame others for all their problems, abused as a child, on psych drugs, went off psych drugs, consuming too much MSM, .... )
Agreed. Maybe the media folks feel that they owe the mass murderers more notoriety, because their families had high incomes. And several of them had government-related high incomes.
Instead of referring to them as “the gunman”, stories should just refer to them as “the loser” continuously.
Pundits who can’t recognize that there is a difference between fame and infamy and are unable to describe how each can serve a positive purpose should be denied a platform.
When John Lennon was shot, I consciously refused to acknowledge the name of the shooter. I’m not even sure I could name the person today. I don’t want to be able to.
The guy did it for fame. F that noise. [ folks: please do not include his name in a response to this post ]
Lennon was far to the Left of me. It was a source of sorrow for me to realize that. Hey, it was what it was.
Both he and McCartney, and the other members of the Beatles created music that is still very popular and used all over the place 50 years later. Those songs/melodies will be popular 500 years from now. That deserves some credit, some acknowledgement of just how special those times were.
For some malcontent to come along and shoot one of the guys down on a city street, really pisses me off to this day.
For the record, I seldom listen to music. It’s just not my thing. After about ten minutes of music on in the background, it grates me almost as bad as fingernails on a blackboard. It always has.
None the less, you should be able to acknowledge truly great artists for the work they put out, even if you do have massive differences regarding their political ideology. And with Lennon, I did, do, and always will.
I’m not sure how you achieve it, because we should have access to mass killer’s names, though I sure don’t like the idea of them being modern day villains, well known for the disgusting crimes they have committed.
This is what happened in Australia, and it explains Australia’s reduction in massacres with guns after Port Arthur.
The Port Arthur mass murderer was motivated by fame. He repeatedly asked if he had “broke the record”.
The Australian media almost begged for a mass gun killing so they could pass their population disarmament scheme before Port Arther.
Afterward, they proudly proclaimed it could not happen again, and emphasized how miserable was the life of the mass killer.
It is a little more complicated, but those are the essential facts.
There have been three mass killings in Australia by arson since then, but the media is not yet attempting to ban fire, so they do not get the firestorm of attention that “gun massacres” got before Port Arther, and afterward, to pass one of the most restrictive (and stupid) gun law schemes in Western civilization.
Here is a decent source for some of the facts about the media and Port Arthur:
http://www.class.org.au/ideas-kill.htm
Best idea so far.
Maybe they could make it “impotent loser with a small penis” to every article. That might be even more effective. (That’s how we ought to refer to terrorists. Every time one of them is taken out, there should be an autopsy that mentions how tiny it is, or something similar.)
I’m not sure how you achieve it, because we should have access to mass killer’s names, though I sure don’t like the idea of them being modern day villains, well known for the disgusting crimes they have committed.
They could do this and promote it.
They will not until pressured to do it by others.
They love mass murderers who use guns. It gains them enormous ratings, thus money.
They believe it advances their political ambitions. They care nothing for the lives lost, which they see as, at worst, collateral damage in their Holy War against any limits on government power.
No! We The People are entitled to the truth!
What a nice response.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.