Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

How responsible--or complicit--is the media in publicizing violent acts which are invariably imitated?

Poll - Total Votes: 25
The media should be tried along with the murderers
They do more harm than good
It's important to expose evil at any cost
Show Results
You can only vote on one answer.
No wrong answers. What effect do you think having something like the Uvalde tragedy on the news and websites 24/7 has on fragile human psyches, some of whom are craving notoriety? You and I are probably repulsed by the footage of people running in terror from a lunatic, but I believe that video is appealing to far too many sick sociopathic individuals; they don't care HOW they get attention as long as they DO.

I think the media gets a pass on this, and I think it's wrong. No one seems to even THINK about it.

Don't forget that the media is NOT a public service; it is BIG BUSINESS, paid for by ad dollars from Big Pharma and corporations and car manufacturers.

Those of you who know me? Yes, I am indicting the very industry I work in. There are terrific people in TV, as well as cretins I wouldn't give you a nickel for.

Again, no wrong answers, tell me your opinions, please, without ad hominem attacks, those are subject to deletion.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SW-User
But what's the alternative then? They'll just be accused of covering it up and being part of a conspiracy which could create its own problems.

I do think a shooting could be covered without posting pictures of the shooter or his name. Some sources make an effort to do that.

The problem is, with the internet and social media, even if professional media sources don't report it, it will be in the public sphere regardless. It can't be "hidden" like it maybe could have been in decades past.
uncalled4 · 56-60, M
@SW-User The alternative is not to blast it all day, every day. Enough. It's sad, but that cannot change the outcome. And I agree...not naming names is a good start, but within 3 minutes we know what the guy's favorite color is.
SW-User
@SW-User that is exactly what the alternative is ... if you don't report anything, then you will be accused of a coverup, perhaps rightly so (see Fox not covering the 6 January hearing or reporting on Tucker Carlson's legal woes for what a coverup looks like)
SW-User
blast it all day, every day

I don't know how you consume news, but I don't encounter this problem, and I never read any headline that I don't want to read (ie, no one forces me to click a link and read a story)

Is it just inconvenient to sometimes know that bad things are happening in the world? Do people who label reporting as endless blasting just simply want to bury their heads in the sand and wish all the bad things away and carry on with their own life as if nothing bad is happening? Is that what this reaction really is? Feel free to substitute climate change or plastic pollution for mass shootings in this scenario of new details being inconveniently reported on a regular basis and everyday people not doing anything to address the actual problem (which is not the reporting).

@uncalled4