Today’s live-TV killing in Virginia clearly was planned to bring as much attention to the killer as possible.
When media fall for this, they are telling other sick, twisted or just evil potential killers that they, too, can get lots of attention by using their guns in ways that the media find sensationalist.
I made my initial arguments on this case in the posts linked below and won’t belabor those arguments here. But some thoughts about how my ethical principles about refusing to provide the attention they seek might apply here:
- Someone who attacks during a live telecast is seeking attention. Obviously you need to report the attack, but I would not broadcast the attack or make it available online.
- While a killer is at large, identification is important news. So as soon as the killer’s identity was known, if he were still at large, I would publish name, photograph and any other information that would help the public report his location, apprehend him or seek safety if they saw him. Public safety overrides my belief that we should not give the killer attention.
- Once the killer was dead, I would stop publishing his name or photograph.
- I see no ethical justification for publishing videos shot by the killer. That is the ultimate in attention-seeking behavior.
- You can report the mental health issues, gun access issues and other issues that a story presents without publicizing or profiling the killer.
- My focus would be on the people who were killed or injured. They warrant media attention, not the person who was seeking it.
Previous posts on attention-seeking killers
News orgs should deny mass killers the attention they crave
Media feed mass killers’ desire for infamy and attention
Kudos to Charleston Post and Courier for putting mass killer’s name and photo inside newspaper
It’s been our policy at the Journal Star in Peoria, Ill., to not run photos of suspects in cases like today’s.
LikeLike
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again until the day I pass – not reporting something to keep something else from happening – MAYBE – is wrong. Otherwise, we’d have… Adolf who? It’s unrealistic, it’s knee-jerk feel-good “let’s do something about something unsolvable,” of COURSE we should honor and salute and pay attention to the victims and the heroes. But to whitewash our coverage of the villain who causes it in order to placate those who see simple answers to complicated problems. I don’t buy it and never will. Remember them as evil! Sentence them to public shame! And solve whatever mental health issues we face to minimize the risk of copycats. But to use rational minds to prevent irrational behavior is… impossible to do completely, IMHO.
LikeLike
Can we disagree without throwing Hitler into a discussion where he doesn’t belong? You undercut any valid argument you might have with such hateful and inaccurate name-calling. I have never suggested not naming heinous politicians.
LikeLike
[…] Steve Buttry sul suo blog si esprime in questo modo: […]
LikeLike
Feels very narrow-minded to me. Whose feeling are driving this? And why should “feelings” enter into news judgement? And once you start excluding bits of coverage due to motivation, then where does that stop? “Attention-seeking” is everywhere. Once you start making judgements about the quality of the attention-seeking you start censoring. Don’t!
LikeLike
I’m curious about your use of quotation marks around “feelings.” I didn’t write anything about feelings. I believe you are quoting your own reaction to the post, not anything I actually wrote.
LikeLike
[…] Media should avoid indulging attention-seeking killers […]
LikeLike
[…] could justify disclosing a person’s death before the family knows: In the shooting of a Virginia murderer who had been identified because he was still at large and a threat to the public, the news of his […]
LikeLike
[…] Media should avoid indulging attention-seeking killers […]
LikeLike