After mass shootings, public safety and good journalism collide
/In the aftermath of the fatal shootings at Oxford (Michigan) High School last week, CNN’s Anderson Cooper continued his practice of recent years of not reporting the name of the shooter. This is becoming an increasingly popular editorial decision among news media.
The main reason for this is that, according to research and anecdotal evidence, most mass shooters commit their acts in large part to gain notoriety. Further, there’s evidence that fame for one mass shooter can motivate future ones.
partial screenshot from the homepage of nonotoriety.com
One of the frequent voices on this point is Dr. Adam Lankford, a professor and researcher in the University of Alabama’s Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice. “A lot of these shooters want to be treated like celebrities,” he told The Associated Press in 2019. “They want to be famous. So the key is to not give them that treatment.”
Increasingly, law enforcement officers at press conferences, such as the prosecutor in Oakland County, Michigan, are limiting their mentions of suspect names to once or not at all. Online organizations, such as No Notoriety and Don’t Name Them, have joined the effort to persuade media to voluntarily eliminate or rein in the attention given to perpetrators in favor of more attention to victims. No Notoriety was started by the parents of a victim of the 2012 theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado.
I’ve also noticed that this issue is chosen as an assignment topic by at least one of my Ethics students every semester. I believe every single one of them concluded that the media should stop identifying mass killers. The only exception would be if police need help from the public in locating a suspect who isn’t in custody.
No one wants to play even a tiny, indirect role in causing a mass shooting, obviously. The hitch is, not identifying the person responsible for a major crime runs counter to the fundamental principle that journalists should tell a complete story. Some readers and viewers might understand, but most would feel deprived and frustrated.
There is a presumption that telling a complete story should serve a public benefit that outweighs the potential for harm. In the case of mass shootings, I see a clear benefit not only to identification but also to factual, non-sensationalized, non-glorifying profiles.
logo from dontnamethem.org
When the public, especially the local community where the crime took place, has a name, it’s easier for law enforcement and news media to piece together preceding events and for information about the killer’s past and possible motive to emerge. This sheds light on the crucial question of whether warning signs were missed by family, friends, teachers, whomever. Perhaps with the next dangerous person, the warning signs will be spotted early enough.
Disclosure also helps to answer the equally crucial question of whether the system could have but didn’t prevent the crime. By “system,” I mean any number of possible failures: Courts or law enforcement officers or parole boards or social workers or school administrators who had interactions and could have made some different decision that would have altered circumstances. I very much include gun control laws, or lack thereof, as part of the system.
Despite the benefits of complete reporting, the news media still can and should avoid certain practices that offer much less public service but great potential to contribute to future tragedy.
The news media should not publish or broadcast the name excessively, preferably doing so beyond the first news cycle only if there’s a notable news development in the investigation or adjudication of the case.
The news media should not publish shallow, rapidly done, “normalizing” profiles based on interviews with acquaintances who are, of course, always shocked. It is better to dig deep into potential motive and life events that brought the killer to this point. Focus on the lessons that society needs to hear.
They should not publish photos that glorify or redeem the shooter. No poses with weapons. No angel shots. (Have you seen the offensive choir boy photo of the Oxford killer? Geez.) Restrain frequency and prominence of photos.
No verbatim publication of social media rants or manifestos. If they are insightful into a warped mind, summarize.
No detailed methodology that could give a potential copycat a new idea.
No more rankings of deadliest shootings. Again, geez. It’s not a contest, but a potential copycat might think it is.
And don’t give more attention over time to the bad guy than to the victims. We always need to know what we’ve lost. Because maybe we’ll care enough to do something about it.
This is all good advice, in my view (and I am certainly not the first person to offer guidelines in this vein).
But don’t deprive us of a name.
“A lot of these shooters want to be treated like celebrities. They want to be famous.”