FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Should we stop blasting news on mass shootings everywhere?





JoryRFerrell
It seems that many of the shootings are cries for attention. So isn't it irresponsible to give these people exactly what they want every time? Should we boycott stations which show reports about these murders beyond a quick rundown of facts, keeping the story going for weeks, months on end?
Is this something which helps instill the idea in future killers?
twotrophy
Although I disagree with you, I respect your opinion. I believe that life is a life. It is precious and irreplaceable. Media should continue reporting such shooting incidents to encourage people to be careful. This would also encourage the managements of public places to step up by taking more precautions. In my opinion, this is good because this shows that the media is transparent.
catscratches
It's not so much a matter with what is being reported but all the more so how it is being reported. Endless speculation and focus on the shooter, etc.
JoryRFerrell
twotrophy wrote:
Although I disagree with you, I respect your opinion. I believe that life is a life. It is precious and irreplaceable. Media should continue reporting such shooting incidents to encourage people to be careful. This would also encourage the managements of public places to step up by taking more precautions. In my opinion, this is good because this shows that the media is transparent.


Who will it encourage? Certainly not the shooter who relies on surprise. And how is it supposed to encourage people to be safe against this type of issue? Are past event's enough? Can't we look back and remember what happened, thereby remembering to be safe? Do we really need a fresh shooting every couple years to keep us on our toes? I don't need one. I still remember Columbine and the coverage of that event. And we can continue to go over those events as a societal learning experience.
Instead of continuing to cover new event's, we could instead have psychologists and other experts on crime and mental illness, thoroughly educate people about past shootings. This would keep everyone more informed and in the know, while avoiding the inevitable pumping that news channels seem to enjoy, the ratcheting up of the fear factor, with less of the pertinent details, with the end result being a frenzied public, scared of shadows.

If we educate people on past event's while covering new event's less, wouldn't the shooters have less incentive (in SOME cases, not all) to go on these spree's?
deanhills
JoryRFerrell wrote:
It seems that many of the shootings are cries for attention. So isn't it irresponsible to give these people exactly what they want every time? Should we boycott stations which show reports about these murders beyond a quick rundown of facts, keeping the story going for weeks, months on end?
Is this something which helps instill the idea in future killers?
Probably not a bad idea, although I can't help but feel that with every event like that it gives people the opportunity to test how they feel about murder. If they are horrified by the event it says something about the value of human life and how wrong it is to take it. If we are going to get too clinical about it, then maybe we can't test ourselves properly.

One thing I agree with however is that the news reporting, particularly in North America is almost like a soap opera, totally on the excess side. Particularly when the reporters and photographers are zooming into the tears of the victims and their families. I'd like a good medium of reporting where all the W's are covered, some sympathy and maybe shock is shown to a certain extent, but to keep it as factual and sober minded as much as the media can.
handfleisch
I think the opposite. We have to broadcast every gun death on the front page, to let people know the extent of the epidemic of gun violence.
truespeed
handfleisch wrote:
I think the opposite. We have to broadcast every gun death on the front page, to let people know the extent of the epidemic of gun violence.


I agree,the NRA would love for these events to be quietly brushed under the carpet.

I also agree with Dean with the type of reporting,news of a sensitive nature should never be sensationalised.
twotrophy
Okay. I have changed my opinion slightly. While I think that all shootings should be reported in the media because it is abpractice of transparency, it should not go into every single detail particularly because of the privacy of the victims and their families especially details such as their full names. I think that there should be more laws regarding this.
LxGoodies
twotrophy wrote:
Okay. I have changed my opinion slightly. While I think that all shootings should be reported in the media because it is abpractice of transparency, it should not go into every single detail particularly because of the privacy of the victims and their families especially details such as their full names. I think that there should be more laws regarding this.

Owww it will pop up, anyway. Law or no law. You can't keep the horrible details or personal facts about shooters from "the media" nowadays. On the internet forums, Facebook and Twitter, trending topics will pop up instead.. all kinds of pseudo-wouldbe-journalists are involved, spitting out all kinds of speculations and hoaxes ! What's worse: publishing the true name of the shooter, or the wrong name ? You choose..

Don't forget the pressure. People want to know. I'm afraid events like these school-shootings actually invoke real trauma. Mass trauma. Everyone is really really hurt by news like this, hearing about these atrocities performed against innocent children.. they will want to know everything about it, to get over it..

Unfortunately we can't shut our eyes for it. Freaks with guns do this. And the more guns around, the bigger the chance it will happen. To be honest, this is *not* to offend American members.. in the Netherlands we don't understand this "amendment" thing at all. What's so difficult about organizing gun licenses properly ?

Crying or Very sad Lx
JoryRFerrell
I don't mean we should stop covering the event's altogether. We should just probably cover the event's for a much shorter period of time, and cease focusing on the shooter. Focus on the victims.

Obviously, when these people do this, they made the decision to do it in a way which would be noticed.
If they would be satisfied solely with revenge, they would have tracked the people they hated down "quietly", to their own homes, and killing them there. Instead, they made a big scene. They WANTED ATTENTION. And they know they'll get it with our current style of media coverage.
taytay
Yes. I don't see anything wrong with reporting the shootings. There are a LOT more shootings that happen every day that no one ever hears about. I'd like to hear about those too at the least. What I don't like is how dramatized they make them see. they cause a massive scare and promotion for NO GUNS, when a NO GUNS law wouldn't help anything. If someone is crazed wanting to kill people, they'll find a way to try to kill people. Bombs are illegal, yet there are still bombings aren't there? What, did a criminal get past walmarts C4 security?

know what... I don't care to say more. It's a big subject that's not going to end, and both sides of the argument are going to be right and wrong at the same time. It all depends on the angle. In truth, it's not stricter gun laws we need, it's higher morals. If you take a knife away from a criminal, they still have a fist... But if they can suppress their anger or their malicious intent, then they wont be a harm to anyone.

like my one little voice is going to make any difference though
Nick2008
I believe these events should be reported and covered on the news but not to the extent they have been in the North American media. For example, there was so much erroneous and inaccurate information being spewed out by the media in the first hours of the Sandy Hook shooting that now there are conspiracy videos all over Youtube taking advantage of these initial inaccuracies and getting millions of views. Yes, I completely understand that each media network is trying to be the first to reveal new information, but what good is it if that information is invalid? In the first few hours of a major event, even the police and law enforcement bodies do not have a good handle on how it unfolded, much less the media. There needs to be less conclusions being made in the first hours and less speculation. The media should only report what they know for sure and then go on with other news and bring back the major event maybe every 30 minutes or as needed when they know for sure they have new, valid information. There should be none of these continuous, relentless commentaries of speculation and chaos.

As JoryRFerrell pointed out, there should be little attention given to the shooter and more focus on the victims. The coverage also needs to be more down-to-earth and factual rather than all sensational and emotional as deanhills pointed out with all the drama of zooming in on tears of the victims' families.
baboosaa
What you are suggesting is that: we prevent them from getting what they want to get. But it should be taken into consideration that we have millions of people and many families who have right to know what is going around in their community. Don't we? Their human right could be violated with that action. It's psychological phenomenon we can be aware after the information we get from the news. We can prepare our safety when we anticipate there's going to be trouble or something wrong. This is not about the single individual who kills others and finally kill himself too. It's about living in a society with harmony and with prosperity so that we can pursue happiness. And information is vital.
JoryRFerrell
baboosaa wrote:
What you are suggesting is that: we prevent them from getting what they want to get. But it should be taken into consideration that we have millions of people and many families who have right to know what is going around in their community. Don't we? Their human right could be violated with that action. It's psychological phenomenon we can be aware after the information we get from the news. We can prepare our safety when we anticipate there's going to be trouble or something wrong. This is not about the single individual who kills others and finally kill himself too. It's about living in a society with harmony and with prosperity so that we can pursue happiness. And information is vital.


I am not saying we should prevent coverage of the event entirely. I AM suggesting that endless speculation on the killer is the issue. We should give the name of the killer and any possible stated reasons for their attacks, but beyond that, we should keep them as grey figures. They want notoriety and to be noticed. It would make sense to cover as little about them as possible and focus more on the victims.

I am aware that freedom of press is vital to our well-being. What isn't vital to our well-being is hyping of specific incidents and opinionated coverage. Our media LOVES to cover things like Sandy Hook and refer to it months later when talking about other issues, like gun rights and how this is a "perfect pro-gun-control example". But these same channels are unlikely to cover corporate greed in-depth. Or the casualties caused by drones, which occur far more often, and like it or not, affect every American by creating more hate, and therefore, potential terrorists. Our media is run by politicians with agenda's. News media is supposed to be run by everyone BUT politicians so that it can provide reliable, unbiased info ON politicians and other aspects of life. It seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy: Cover these nuts in such great detail and it will help inspire more nuts
to do the same thing, therefore giving politicians more ammo for gun control...but not for increased spending on mental health. :/

Anyways, like I said in the original post, I am talking about coverage BEYOND a rundown of the FACTS.
Nick2008
JoryRFerrell wrote:
baboosaa wrote:
What you are suggesting is that: we prevent them from getting what they want to get. But it should be taken into consideration that we have millions of people and many families who have right to know what is going around in their community. Don't we? Their human right could be violated with that action. It's psychological phenomenon we can be aware after the information we get from the news. We can prepare our safety when we anticipate there's going to be trouble or something wrong. This is not about the single individual who kills others and finally kill himself too. It's about living in a society with harmony and with prosperity so that we can pursue happiness. And information is vital.


I am not saying we should prevent coverage of the event entirely. I AM suggesting that endless speculation on the killer is the issue. We should give the name of the killer and any possible stated reasons for their attacks, but beyond that, we should keep them as grey figures. They want notoriety and to be noticed. It would make sense to cover as little about them as possible and focus more on the victims.

I am aware that freedom of press is vital to our well-being. What isn't vital to our well-being is hyping of specific incidents and opinionated coverage. Our media LOVES to cover things like Sandy Hook and refer to it months later when talking about other issues, like gun rights and how this is a "perfect pro-gun-control example". But these same channels are unlikely to cover corporate greed in-depth. Or the casualties caused by drones, which occur far more often, and like it or not, affect every American by creating more hate, and therefore, potential terrorists. Our media is run by politicians with agenda's. News media is supposed to be run by everyone BUT politicians so that it can provide reliable, unbiased info ON politicians and other aspects of life. It seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy: Cover these nuts in such great detail and it will help inspire more nuts
to do the same thing, therefore giving politicians more ammo for gun control...but not for increased spending on mental health. :/

Anyways, like I said in the original post, I am talking about coverage BEYOND a rundown of the FACTS.


Well said. This Yahoo! article was on the front page of the website today and it is the perfect example of what type of article should NOT be there.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/photos-details-emerge-newtown-mass-shooter-adam-lanza-124951161.html
taytay
smh. all i can say
JoryRFerrell
Nick2008 wrote:
JoryRFerrell wrote:
baboosaa wrote:
What you are suggesting is that: we prevent them from getting what they want to get. But it should be taken into consideration that we have millions of people and many families who have right to know what is going around in their community. Don't we? Their human right could be violated with that action. It's psychological phenomenon we can be aware after the information we get from the news. We can prepare our safety when we anticipate there's going to be trouble or something wrong. This is not about the single individual who kills others and finally kill himself too. It's about living in a society with harmony and with prosperity so that we can pursue happiness. And information is vital.


I am not saying we should prevent coverage of the event entirely. I AM suggesting that endless speculation on the killer is the issue. We should give the name of the killer and any possible stated reasons for their attacks, but beyond that, we should keep them as grey figures. They want notoriety and to be noticed. It would make sense to cover as little about them as possible and focus more on the victims.

I am aware that freedom of press is vital to our well-being. What isn't vital to our well-being is hyping of specific incidents and opinionated coverage. Our media LOVES to cover things like Sandy Hook and refer to it months later when talking about other issues, like gun rights and how this is a "perfect pro-gun-control example". But these same channels are unlikely to cover corporate greed in-depth. Or the casualties caused by drones, which occur far more often, and like it or not, affect every American by creating more hate, and therefore, potential terrorists. Our media is run by politicians with agenda's. News media is supposed to be run by everyone BUT politicians so that it can provide reliable, unbiased info ON politicians and other aspects of life. It seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy: Cover these nuts in such great detail and it will help inspire more nuts
to do the same thing, therefore giving politicians more ammo for gun control...but not for increased spending on mental health. :/

Anyways, like I said in the original post, I am talking about coverage BEYOND a rundown of the FACTS.


Well said. This Yahoo! article was on the front page of the website today and it is the perfect example of what type of article should NOT be there.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/photos-details-emerge-newtown-mass-shooter-adam-lanza-124951161.html

Exactly. I am not saying this info shouldn't be available in some form, but massive media coverage of the event gets this shit in future murderers heads. We could distribute the info as part of broader studies of multiple killers and events, to sort of sanitize it of any sensationalism. A purely academic, psychological study, with facts and stats. Very cold cut and clean. Clinically sterilized with no attempt to create controversial sympathy or unnecessary hate (if someone is a known schizophrenic, are they really at fault?). That kind of shit is like a soap opera, and the news is cashing in. Their excuse is that SOMEONE will cover it like this no matter what, but a novel idea would be for them to explain why they will not be doing so, and the strategic reasons for it.
Related topics
33 dead at Virginia Tech Shooting
Are Americans stupid?
Finally the President Barack Obama takes action in guns
Ammo Shortage
Should the US persue prosecution of Israeli chem weap use?
Pokemon Help
forums are inadequate
Illegals threaten closure of emergency rooms
is IT services really good field ?
Call Center Representatives / Employees
What would happen if the worlds computers failed?
Mass Effect 3
Faith
Some of the sickest people
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.