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

It is nonsensical to even imply that the media are complicit in mass murders

It is also nonsensical to label just reporting on the event as "sensationalizing"

So I can't select any of the current poll options because the closest available option implies there is a cost to exposing evil, which is a flawed premise; exposing evil does not make anyone commit evil acts anymore than Ukraine even thinking of joining NATO is an invasion of Russia

A person intent on killing a bunch of elementary school kids and teachers cannot walk in armed solely with a paper copy of the New York Times or the Reuters website pulled up on their mobile phone and hurt anyone

On the other hand, gun manufacturers and right wing legislators misinterpreting/twisting the second amendment provide that person with the means to carry out their attack

Moreover, when you do not report on who jumps off of the Golden Gate Bridge, it does not stop people from jumping off of the Golden Gate Bridge

uncalled4 · 56-60, M

@SW-User It's not nonsensical; you just disagree, and that's fine, as I said "no wrong answers".

People have been imitating TV probably since it became a popular medium. Here's a list of murders inspired by(they say caused by) TV shows: https://listverse.com/2018/05/09/top-10-murders-caused-by-tv-shows/.

There was a show my company distributed called "TWO" in 1996/7. We had to provide a dub to the police in Texas because---guess what? Someone imitated a murder on that show.

More recently, Netflix removed the suicide scene from 13 Reasons Why...again, there was an uptick in suicides. To your point, no, it didn't stop suicides. I hyperventilated when I saw the scene, because it was done so well and was so graphic. You'd think that would be negative reinforcement, but no. I despise censorship, but ultimately, Netflix did a responsible thing.

So therein lies my issue with what I consider to be the overreporting of terrible events. Sensible people like you and I aren't looking for attention, but others certainly are, and people imitate what they see. Legislators can certainly do something, but so can TV. Producers KNOW this is being seen by millions and they don't give a fuck.

Diotrephes · 70-79, M

@uncalled4 I'll say that I've seen a million murders and beatings in tv shows and movies during my lifetime as well as robberies and car chases. I have yet to engage in any of those behaviors.

uncalled4 · 56-60, M

@Diotrephes That's because you're rational and civilized. Not everyone can make that claim.

SW-User

@uncalled4 so when do we ban video games and Marilyn Manson songs?

uncalled4 · 56-60, M

@SW-User Never.