Removing the Spectacle From Mass Shootings

[news]

[news]

When it bleeds, must it lead?

Amidst the extensive coverage of Wednesday's massacre in San Bernardino is a key story angle journalists seldom consider: that we'd all be better off if these rampages didn't make the headlines. The elephant in the room is that relentless reporting may well have the lethal effect of contributing to future carnage.

We've become accustomed to journalists devoting substantial time to identifying possible motives for this violence: mental illness, access to guns, violent video games and family dysfunction. Yet, whereas countless individuals have these risk factors, relatively few actually go on shooting sprees. There must be more to the story than meets the eye.

That's why we need to consider the effects of living in a world of 24/7 media. The gunmen (and they're almost always males) may well take their cues from what they see -- that inflicting mass carnage gives them the chance to live in infamy. And indeed they will: their names become forever inscribed on the web and in our minds as the epitome of evil.

Footage of the latest massacre may actually provide the next shooter with the most compelling motive of all. And yet, this footage obscures the very role it plays in contributing to these massacres. Therein lies the paradox of news reporting -- it aims to bring transparency to events yet seldom looks inward.

We venerate journalism for its sense of professional responsibility; indeed, it is the only occupation whose freedoms the U.S. Constitution explicitly protects. However, in the aftermath of the next mass shooting it would be better if reporters chose to limit the details they publicized or, even better, stayed away from the crime scene entirely.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.












More...