Why does mainstream media promote the names and faces of mass shooters?

I'm a huge fan of the alternative conservative media outlet, The Daily Wire, home to Ben Shapiro and his show. The Daily Wire has a strict policy of not naming or showing mass shooters so as not to give the pieces of human waste fame. Whereas every single mainstream media outlet repeats their name and shows their picture non-stop. What does that achieve exactly? Is there some good that comes from it? It seems that only bad can come from it, by creating something of a contagion, which could contribute to inspiring the next mass shooter. After all, these pieces of human waste are desperately craving attention. And mainstream media appears happy to give it to them.

 

I was wondering the same thing today. Makes me wonder if this type of attention to these acts makes them more likely. They’re all kids who seem to me want to be noticed. Like this is the ultimate scream for attention thing.

 

It has been referred to as the media contagion effect: https://www.center4research.org/copy-cats-kill/

 

Probably because the public loves to suck it up. Look into the psychology of it, etc…

 

I think that is an interesting question and a tough call. I am not familiar with the Daily Wire but I have heard many cable news shows claiming a desire to limit the reporting of the shooter's name for the very reason of trying to limit the fame the shooter receives. Obviously it does not appear to work or there are enough different shows on television that even if every show reserved the right to report it once it seems like a lot.

I think the problem is do we want news to make the decision to censor information to the public? I think this is different from graphic context or even explicit language although we could debate what should be shown or said. Here we are talking about not reporting the name of the criminal in the news. Someone that has done damage to our society and adversely impacted many. Someone is making the decision that the public should not know their name or at minimum the news show will not provide you with that info. Again people can argue there are already examples of privacy where they will not release the name of the accused family or friends but is that really the same thing? Those people committed no crime. I understand these are private companies and they make there own rules but I am curious on how they square this with their responsibilities as journalist and information providers. These organization are given a level of access beyond what most average citizens have access too.

 

Do you mean that because someone that has done damage to society and adversely impacted many, part of their punishment is that they should be named and shamed?

 

No, I mean the public has a right to know who did it. Punishment should be administer by our justice department.

My problem with this concept, which I am not even sure which side I am fully on because I can see arguments for both sides, is I don't like someone making this decision based on the idea that they think it would glorify the criminal and potentially cause others to commit the same crime. If we accept that thinking, will the next step simply to be to stop reporting the crime itself because someone in a news department thinks it may cause others to copy it. Should we stop reporting shoplifting because it may encourage others to do it? My gut says to me that journalist should report relevant information. I think the name of the perp is relevant info.

 

Why do you think that the name of the perp is relevant info?

 

That is an interesting question. I guess because that is how we identify people. You can argue there are other forms like DL or SSN numbers or a finger print might be better but that does not have the same meaning to people. The need to know the name of the perp seems like a basic emotional need like needing to know the name of someone accusing you of a crime.

 

Well then I guess that you yourself have this "basic emotional need" to know the name of the perp.

 

You think it is only me? I assume it was the majority. So is it your opinion then that you have no problems with someone in a news department deciding that that information can be omitted? Is there a point where they could cross the line and they are withholding more information than you are comfortable with?

 

it sells papers. the media shows what the public wants to see. there are plenty of things i'd rather not see ......



trump says "she is not my type."

 

Was there a problem seeing this?

 

No, but I don't have a "basic emotional need" to know the name of some worthless piece of human waste
who has slaughtered a bunch of innocent people. I can't for the life of me see why anyone would have such a "need."

Yeah of course.

 

Usually the need for information is to satisfy curiosity. A name is often a key to information. For example after any shooting people on this forum like to assign profiles to the shooter. Some will do that with little or no information just simply assume that people has all of the attributes of what they think is evil. They will automatically assume political affiliation, call them racist, assume sexual deviance, white supremacist etc.... Take a look at the last threads on the Highland park shooter. Based on a picture people made numerous assumptions about the shooter. Most assign him to be in the category of what they see as the enemy politically, sexually etc... We saw comments like antifa, fascist, trans, white supremacist based only very little information. Most of the speculation was determine to be incorrect because people knew the shooters name and was able to look into his background based on his social media posts and pictures. If nothing else this information corrected many wrong assumptions about the shooter where if the information was not available people would run with it. In my opinion more information is generally better than less.

So I have answered your question about why I favor more info. Why does it matter to you if you don't care anyways. You say you don't need to know the name but how does the name impact you adversely.

 

Sexually?

Fair point. But I don't think it outweighs the likely negative of giving them fame.

It doesn't impact me adversely. My point is about how it likely gives them fame and could inspire the next shooting, which COULD impact me adversely if I am killed in it or someone I know is.

 

I strongly believe that the media should not show the suspect’s picture or give his name, as long as the suspect is in custody or dead.

Everything else about the suspect should be publicized.

The 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of the press, so this would have to be voluntary. But the major media should mutually agree to take this step.

If we know everything else about the suspect, what difference does his name and picture make?

 

Because the public likes it. They want to know everything about a mass killer, starting at his childhood.

 

Sexual orientation. It was a point of discussion in another thread today. Someone was saying both the Uvalde and Highland park shooter was trans. The Ulvalde claims were dis proven and I think the Highland park claims were base on the dress he wore as a disguise. He may turn out to be trans but there had been nothing concrete at that time.

Yeah that is the crux of the argument and where I have problems with it. We are worried that by giving someone coverage it may cause others to go out and commit the same crime. While I accept that is possible I liken it to other leftist type arguments. Just as having guns available may lead to some gun violence but 99% percent of people with guns are not criminals and will use their guns responsibly. Just as 99% of more who hear the name will not go and commit the same crime. Should we base the decision based on that small percent that is probably mentally unstable anyways. I know it is not the same but it seems like the need to tear down monuments of historical figure because what they represent is what is no longer acceptable. This need to remove, destroy, hide information based on someone's belief that it is better if I don't know worries me. Again I understand this is not government and it is a private business but the press has rights that is not available to the public so I am weary when someone in the press wants to censor based on what he thinks is good for society.

 

if they did not, some would say they were hiding it

we need to know the truth I think, regardless

 

Why would anyone NEED to know the name of some worthless piece of human waste who has slaughtered a bunch of innocent people?

 

cause hiding the truth just leads to potential abuses by those in power

 

The name of some worthless piece of human waste is not important truth.

 

the truth of what happened is very important

otherwise the government can kill tons of people, have a fall guy and say you have no right to the truth

 

A false flag operation?