Does Media Coverage After a Mass Shooting Do More Harm Than Good?

[davidpdx]

As of the Louisiana movie theater shooting that occurred last Thursday evening (July 23), there had been 204 mass shootings in the 204 days of 2015. Although the government has tighter qualifications, this statistic is defined by a shooting where four or more people are injured.

We almost expect these tragedies to be the leading stories on national newscasts each night. And if we’re not expecting them, we’re no longer surprised.

In 2014, the FBI released a report of “active shooter incidents” (many meeting criteria for mass shootings, others presumably attempted mass shootings) in the United States, showing that the number of these events is on the rise. In the period from 2007 to 2013, active shooter incidents had seemingly skyrocketed when compared to the period from 2000 to 2006. “The findings establish an increasing frequency of incidents annually,” the report states. “During the first 7 years included in the study, an average of 6.4 incidents occurred annually. In the last 7 years of the study, that average increased to 16.4 incidents annually.”

In the wake of the Louisiana shooting, much of the national conversation has centered on gun control — as was the case with Sandy Hook and Aurora, Colorado, and other major shootings in recent memory — since it appears the shooter used a gun purchased legally. But another, quieter whisper came from the families and others surrounding the case.

https://www.yahoo.com/health/does-media-coverage-after-a-mass-shooting-do-more-125177743017.html

[still_one]

1. It depends. The killing of 9 African Americans in South Carolina actually seemed to awaken people

from pretending racism doesn't exist

[davidpdx]

2. I agree

The problem is the subsequent shootings that happened afterward end up getting a high amount of coverage and the latter is not covered as much.

A perfect example is there were several shootings right before the one in Newtown, but I doubt anyone off the top of their head can name where they were (unless they happen to be from that area).

[still_one]

3. You are right, what happened in SC was the exception

[murielm99]

4. The only good I can see is that we may reach

a tipping point.

People got sick and tired of of gays being treated like second class citizens. Not that things are perfect. But eventually, gay marriage and equal benefits for partners became legal and acceptable to most people.

People are sick of black citizens being murdered by the police. It was ignored for too long. We are demanding justice. We are making some progress, slowly.

Maybe we will reach that point with mass shootings.

Like other injustices, two steps forward, one step backward. At least I hope so.

[davidpdx]

5. I hope you are right, but I'm extremely pessimistic about that actually happening

One would have thought Newtown should have been that tipping point, but they would have been wrong. The shooting in Arizona including that of Gabby Giffords, nope. The execution of nine innocent lives in a house of worship, nope. I think as long as people have the attitude that their rights to have guns trumps every other right in the nation, that nothing will be done. When you have people arguing that people should be able to carry a firearm (either open or concealed) in a theater, a church, a school, or a government building then something is seriously fucked up about this country.

[Paladin]

6. So, media coverage of mass shootings should be restrained or forbidden in some fashion?

The NRA would certainly like to see that happen.

[TBF]

7. I dunno -

maybe not showing the face of the shooter would be a good idea (take away the "15 minutes of fame" element) - instead focus on the victims. I would be ok with that. I would be even more ok with limits on who can be licensed to carry guns that are designed to kill people (as opposed to hunting for food).