Mass murderers and the medis
Original post made by Walter_E_Wallis on Dec 9, 2007
Last week, in the aftermath of the Omaha mall shootings, an executive of a major news service, asked if he felt any concern about the copy-cat nature of the crime, conceded that while copy-cat was a possibility, there was absolutely no way that coverage of such incidents would be changed. The shooter wanted notoriety, he got it. His picture, the body count, his note all made front page prime time. What if there was a gentleman's agreement that names, pictures and messages of these domestic terrorists were not made public. What if the converge were limited to "Some nut shot up the mall and killed 8 people and then himself.".Names might be names later,
I know if it bleeds it leads, but news routinely is edited for good taste, and it is in poor taste to reward shooters with what they want. Practitioners of the First amendment should practice the restraint Practitioners of the Second Amendment do.
on Dec 9, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Walter, well said.
on Dec 9, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Well said, and I hope the rest of us are not clamouring for more details with hits on all sorts of web sites to get more "details".
on Dec 9, 2007 at 11:55 pm
I'll agree with the first part - I once cancelled a subscription to a news magazine that put a full size picture of a young shooter on its cover. There are many instances where I'd like to see the media restrain themselves.
But given that this example involves a total lack of restraint relevant to the Second Ammendment, it seems odd, if not tasteless, to suggest that standard. Of course, this perp was not part of a well-regulated militia, so his right to bear arms is debatable.