Mass shootings and media contagion effect

[djinwa]

So I'm watching our local news man interview school officials asking what they can do to reduce the chance of violence. Meanwhile, they want to show all the news they can about the shootings to get better ratings and more money.

Gun control is pretty much all that is discussed as the answer.

Studies are making it increasingly obvious that the biggest factor leading to mass shootings is fame from the media.

Shooters feel ignored, and are narcissistic, and want revenge and attention. So we give it to them. We all love to watch the gore.

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/ ... agion.aspx

"We suggest that the media cry to cling to 'the public's right to know' covers up a greedier agenda to keep eyeballs glued to screens, since they know that frightening homicides are their No. 1 ratings and advertising boosters," she said.


From the pdf file - research paper:

"We would argue identification with prior mass shooters made famous by extensive media coverage, including names, faces, writings, and detailed accounts of their lives and backgrounds, is a more powerful push toward violence than mental health status or even access to guns."

 

[bball]

I been wondering lately just exactly when this nation was going to wake up and hold the media accountable. They literally have carte blanche to say and do as they please about anyone and anything with little to no consequence. We just chalk it up to being 'fake news'. Why is this ok? It is a newer, brighter shade of yellow journalism. Disgusting.

 

[bball]

I will add, on CT, we do a very reasonable job of holding one another accountable. If someone posts some BS here, it is usually addressed rather quickly. I like that about this board actually. Sometimes it ends up in some personal exchanges, but nothing too awful. Imagine if we demanded the same degree of veracity and integrity from our media sources.

 

[slick4591]

Fake news is protected.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, says that "Congress shall make no law....abridging (limiting) the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Freedom of speech is the liberty to speak openly without fear of government restraint.

 

[greybeard]

I been wondering lately just exactly when this nation was going to wake up and hold the media accountable. They literally have carte blanche to say and do as they please about anyone and anything with little to no consequence. We just chalk it up to being 'fake news'. Why is this ok? It is a newer, brighter shade of yellow journalism. Disgusting.

There is a certain demographic that is susceptible to this type journalism, especially that that has strong backing from specific sectors of 'professionals'. Those professionals such as business leaders, academics, politicians, lawyers, mental health speakers, celebs..they all lend a perceived 'legitimacy' to what is proclaimed, then espoused and regurgitated every day, primarily for the consumption by that demographic. Those who are easily led are easily led astray by people with a few letters in front or behind their names and it's not Mr or Mrs.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Fake news is protected.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, says that "Congress shall make no law....abridging (limiting) the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Freedom of speech is the liberty to speak openly without fear of government restraint.

Is it fake news or propaganda and indoctrination?

 

[greybeard]

That CB, depends on who the reader is.

 

[Nesikep]

I will add, on CT, we do a very reasonable job of holding one another accountable. If someone posts some BS here, it is usually addressed rather quickly. I like that about this board actually. Sometimes it ends up in some personal exchanges, but nothing too awful. Imagine if we demanded the same degree of veracity and integrity from our media sources.

On another forum I'm on, if you're going to post something that makes any claims, you better post the source for it.. If you say "85% of statistics are made up on the spot".. well.. better find that research paper.

 

[ddd75]

the media loves it and it fuels their agenda. Just look how they scripted the 'gun talk' debate with the HS kids. You WILL NOT say anything except these questions!



next after guns will be trucks, buses, household chemicals, pressure cookers, etc.

WE MUST FEEL SAFE!





So we get rid of the guns.. except for the millions of them out there.. then that will solve it? yea.. right..

So then we get armed guards in the schools? Well.. thats already going on.. and look what happens.. the guy hid outside pissing himself. So the ONLY thing we can do.. is make these even MORE like prisons... MORE metal detectors.. MORE pat downs... MORE student and locker searches.... possibly armed guards on EVERY FLOOR....

Prisons.. eerr.. I mean.. schools.. will be SAFE and FUN ! !! ! ! ! ! ! Just put a smile on those faces!

 

[Son of Butch]

Studies are making it increasingly obvious that the biggest factor leading to mass shootings is fame from the media.

Shooters feel ignored, and are narcissistic, and want revenge and attention. So we give it to them.
We all love to watch the gore.

"We suggest that the media cry to cling to 'the public's right to know' covers up a greedier agenda to keep eyeballs glued to screens, since they know that frightening homicides are their No. 1 ratings and advertising boosters," she said.


From the pdf file - research paper:

"We would argue identification with prior mass shooters made famous by extensive media coverage, including names, faces, writings, and detailed accounts of their lives and backgrounds, is a more powerful push toward violence than mental health status or even access to guns."

While I agree identification with shooters and extensive media coverage plays a substantial role
(especially if mental health is already an issue) I don't think it can be called the leading cause, but it sure doesn't help.

 

[djinwa]

While I agree identification with shooters and extensive media coverage plays a substantial role
(especially if mental health is already an issue) I don't think it can be called the leading cause, but it sure doesn't help.

So if it is a factor, why is it not discussed in the media? Duh, it will cost them money.

So the media claims to care about the shootings, but only if someone else changes their practices.

That is my main issue - the hypocrisy. From the paper:

Our primary focus in this paper is on one particular type of homicide that is most
influenced by media contagion: mass shooting of strangers in public places. Mass shooting takes
the fewest lives of any of the types of homicides documented, but it also tends to engender the
most fear in people due to the seemingly random nature of the events and inability to predict and
prevent incidents (Fox & Delateur, 2013).

However, prevention of many mass shootings may
now be within our grasp as criminologists, media communications specialists, psychologists, and
contagion-modeling mathematicians converge upon a similar conclusion: a key motivator of the
majority of mass shooters is the fame and power they perceive they will achieve for their crimes.
Many hope to garner as much or more media attention as the mass shooters that came before
them, and with whom they identify (O'Toole et al., 2014).

The mass media has so far rewarded
their efforts and naively believed that media could not possibly hold such sway over calculated
killers, much less have the ability to stop some of their crimes.

We will show how the media's
misguided attempts to inform the public about these tragedies may ultimately be contributing to
the perpetuation of them. In the past, warnings have been lost in the din of the "public's right to
know," and First Amendment protections, but ulterior motives must now be called into question,
too. Indeed, any attempt to curb the flow of information is likely to encounter considerable
resistance, as the coverage of these events is recognized to significantly increase viewership and
boost advertising (Schildkraut, 2014).

However, a growing body of evidence now suggests that
it may be in society's best interest for news organizations to better regulate both the amount and
type of information that they supply, and it must ultimately be determined what it considers to be
the value of human life. Fifty percent of news coverage focuses on crime alone, and mostly
violent crime, despite other crime being much more common (Schildkraut & Elsass, 2016,),
and a defense of the public's right to know then ignores much of the other newsworthy content
that goes unreported in the wake of these tragedies' continual coverage.

The state of the world
and all the important events happening to people in it largely involves no crime at all. Where is
the defense of our right to see, read, and hear that content?

By the end of this review, a strong
case will be built for media adoption of the Don't Name Them campaign which describes how
media can easily inform the public of mass shooting related news without focusing any content
on the name, face, history, manifestos or stated motivations of the shooter, denying them the
infamous legacy they desire, and thereby slowly drain away the remaining lifeblood that is
sustaining future mass shooters.

 

[Son of Butch]

While I agree identification with shooters and extensive media coverage plays a substantial role
(especially if mental health is already an issue) I don't think it can be called the leading cause, but it sure doesn't help.

So if it is a factor, why is it not discussed in the media? Duh, it will cost them money.
So the media claims to care about the shootings, but only if someone else changes their practices.
That is my main issue - the hypocrisy.
From the paper:
Mass shooting takes the fewest lives of any of the types of homicides documented, but it also tends to engender
the fear in people....

You nailed it.... fear = money for media
The media has always understood keeping the fear going makes money
I've seen news reporting after a minor earthquake of 3.6 say but WHAT IF it had been a 6.3 earthquake and then do
a reenactment showing the devastation that could have occurred in their scenario. (Keep The Fear Going)

In addition to influencing mass shooters......
We now have reasonable adults afraid of their own shadows and over coverage of events does even more harm
to children... imo

There are even adults willing to throw tons of money at the problem by offering 50% raises to any teacher that
will just please, please, please get a permit and conceal and carry.

 

[TexasBred]

Fake news is protected.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, says that "Congress shall make no law....abridging (limiting) the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Freedom of speech is the liberty to speak openly without fear of government restraint.

But it doesn't ahve to be watched, listened to or read.

 

[TexasBred]

I will add, on CT, we do a very reasonable job of holding one another accountable. If someone posts some BS here, it is usually addressed rather quickly. I like that about this board actually. Sometimes it ends up in some personal exchanges, but nothing too awful. Imagine if we demanded the same degree of veracity and integrity from our media sources.

On another forum I'm on, if you're going to post something that makes any claims, you better post the source for it.. If you say "85% of statistics are made up on the spot".. well.. better find that research paper.

Over on Ranchers.net almost anything that is quoted or cut and pasted from another source always posts a link to the exact information being posted. Over here folks jusst try to make it look like their own original thoughts. :lol:

 

[slick4591]

I will add, on CT, we do a very reasonable job of holding one another accountable. If someone posts some BS here, it is usually addressed rather quickly. I like that about this board actually. Sometimes it ends up in some personal exchanges, but nothing too awful. Imagine if we demanded the same degree of veracity and integrity from our media sources.

On another forum I'm on, if you're going to post something that makes any claims, you better post the source for it.. If you say "85% of statistics are made up on the spot".. well.. better find that research paper.

Over on Ranchers.net almost anything that is quoted or cut and pasted from another source always posts a link to the exact information being posted. Over here folks jusst try to make it look like their own original thoughts. :lol:

And if you do post a link someone will be along to tell you that the source is crap. :shock:

 

[greybeard]

Over on Ranchers.net almost anything that is quoted or cut and pasted from another source always posts a link to the exact information being posted. Over here folks jusst try to make it look like their own original thoughts. :lol:

Did you think that up all alone, born with the idea, or did you learn it from an outside source of some kind?
Most of us know you are very knowledgeable regarding cattle nutrition and I rarely see your input questioned, few of us ever have a reason to and you do sometimes post outside source data or articles to supplement your own experience.
I imagine sometimes, you do research a question or statement tho. Most people with any intelligence do the same, and I don't see one thing wrong with including the source(s) of the research, but some seem to be offended if that is done or just ignore it out of hand as if additional information somehow diminishes their own knowledge or belief.

Personally, it is probably accurate to say that the majority of everything positive I know, I learned from someone or somewhere else other than my own experience. (also accurate to say that a lot if not most of what I learned was learned the hard way..thru mistakes..a great teacher, but damn it's costly.)
I hope I never get too old to learn form someone/somewhere else.

 

[djinwa]

And if you do post a link someone will be along to tell you that the source is crap. :shock:

That's what they did on another site where I shared this. You can't verify anything 100%, so you have to accumulate info from several sources and make your own judgment.

I did a search on this subject after watching our local TV station's coverage. They announced that "the following video may be too graphic for some viewers". Then proceeded to show a video from inside a class where students were hunkered down, with screaming and shots being fired in the hallway.

Now why is that necessary to show such a video? Would free speech be limited without it?

My fear is that some nut was watching that and getting a thrill from it, and he will be the next shooter. So I researched whether that might motivate someone, and more and more studies seem to indicate it does.

I've posted this on a couple other sites I visit, and there's little interest from right or left wingers. Seems maybe we worship the media too much and don't want to consider missing out on the gory details.

I also sent this paper to our TV station, and suggested they avoid details of these shootings. Haven't heard back from them.

If they stop focusing on guns, and limit their coverage, it could cost billions.

Good luck, kids.

 

[TexasBred]

Over on Ranchers.net almost anything that is quoted or cut and pasted from another source always posts a link to the exact information being posted. Over here folks jusst try to make it look like their own original thoughts. :lol:

Did you think that up all alone, born with the idea, or did you learn it from an outside source of some kind?
Most of us know you are very knowledgeable regarding cattle nutrition and I rarely see your input questioned, few of us ever have a reason to and you do sometimes post outside source data or articles to supplement your own experience.
I imagine sometimes, you do research a question or statement tho. Most people with any intelligence do the same, and I don't see one thing wrong with including the source(s) of the research, but some seem to be offended if that is done or just ignore it out of hand as if additional information somehow diminishes their own knowledge or belief.

Personally, it is probably accurate to say that the majority of everything positive I know, I learned from someone or somewhere else other than my own experience. (also accurate to say that a lot if not most of what I learned was learned the hard way..thru mistakes..a great teacher, but be nice it's costly.)
I hope I never get too old to learn form someone/somewhere else.

Post facts and this is the response you get. Amazing !!! Actually I learned that from simple observation GB. And Yes, Most everything I know I learned from someone else in some form or fashion. What little bit I learned on my own was by making mistakes at least once everytime.

 

[greybeard]

Over on Ranchers.net almost anything that is quoted or cut and pasted from another source always posts a link to the exact information being posted. Over here folks jusst try to make it look like their own original thoughts. :lol:

Did you think that up all alone, born with the idea, or did you learn it from an outside source of some kind?
Most of us know you are very knowledgeable regarding cattle nutrition and I rarely see your input questioned, few of us ever have a reason to and you do sometimes post outside source data or articles to supplement your own experience.
I imagine sometimes, you do research a question or statement tho. Most people with any intelligence do the same, and I don't see one thing wrong with including the source(s) of the research, but some seem to be offended if that is done or just ignore it out of hand as if additional information somehow diminishes their own knowledge or belief.

Personally, it is probably accurate to say that the majority of everything positive I know, I learned from someone or somewhere else other than my own experience. (also accurate to say that a lot if not most of what I learned was learned the hard way..thru mistakes..a great teacher, but be nice it's costly.)
I hope I never get too old to learn form someone/somewhere else.

Post facts and this is the response you get. Amazing !!! Actually I learned that from simple observation GB. And Yes, Most everything I know I learned from someone else in some form or fashion. What little bit I learned on my own was by making mistakes at least once everytime.

All I was trying to do was echo your own observations regarding what people say. (& type)

In the old days..we would consult printed-on-paper material..them things called books. Now, we more often do it digitally. There's not one bit of difference in doing a good on-line research and reading it from a textbook or hearing it first hand from a speaker, but I often see people get a bit irate if anything is stated that comes from another source of any kind other than personal anecdotal evidence/experience even if sources are included.
Remember the thread where someone said something to the effect that members here seemed to know a lot more about investing than elsewhere? Seen the same thing said about CT members' knowledge of history. Someone stated "They're just echoing what someone else said, or what they read on the internet..." (I found the latter a bit amusing, since most history by nature, pre-dates our own existence (birth)..how else could we know it if we didn't read/hear it elsewhere? It matters little, if one learned it from books, from a preserved historical site, from videos, or from a website..like CT..learning is learning, knowledge is knowledge is knowledge. The source is irrelevant, tho it is nice to know what that source is to be able to view the source on a personal level.

 

[TexasBred]

True we all pretty much echo what we were taught and what we have learned. But if you're goin to cut and and paste something like many do (and it's quite obvious) at least give a link to the source you "COPIED". Dam we were taught that in HS english class but with footnotes rather than web addresses.