(no subject)

[bord-du-rasoir.livejournal.com]

My only source for news is the Internet. Currently, most of the media outlets (websites) I'd visit in the event of a big news story have a photograph of the Arizona shooter's face on their main pages (The New York Times, Fox News, CNN, Huffington Post, Drudge Report have it up; MSNBC and NPR don't).

This leads me to ask, Does the prospect of fame incentivize mass killing / killing of famous people?

Let's say we lack empirical evidence to answer the question. Is it not enough that making criminals famous may incentivize others to commit like crimes for media outlets to consider, you know, not making criminals famous?

How do decision makers in media justify making criminals famous? A journalist's duty is to provide the public information that the public is interested in?

What I'm saying is— cover the story, just do it in a tactful manner. This makes me consider why I'm able to see the Virgina Tech shooter's face in my mind's eye, or Tim McVeigh's, or Charles Manson's. Maybe there's a parallel dimension someplace with a society that doesn't repeatedly and consistently make insane people who do big bad things famous.

I'm sure many, maybe most, will disagree with my premise, but I'm looking at the portrait of that guy right now— at his crazy Manson eyes and his smirk, and I can't help but think that he appreciates and enjoys the attention, as McVeigh did, I'm sure, and Manson did and does. So, why as a society do we all agree to reward behavior most of us do not want?

Comments

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

This leads me to ask, Does the prospect of fame incentivize mass killing / killing of famous people?

Yes, although I don't think it's limited to famous people.

So, why as a society do we all agree to reward behavior most of us do not want?

A couple of thoughts on this. The first is that we do reward this behavior, with pageviews and ratings and corresponding ad dollars. Second, most of us say we don't want it, but clearly enough people do - otherwise they wouldn't watch, read, etc.

With those two established, we get come to my third thought regarding a kind of tragedy of the commons. Every news outlet could get together and decide on ground rules about how to cover this story, but every outlet has an incentive to act selfishly. Once that happens, other outlets are to some degree obligated (they are public companies beholden to shareholders' profit, after all) to cover the story similarly, with names and pictures and tweets and whatnot.

[bord-du-rasoir.livejournal.com]

most of us say we don't want it, but clearly enough people do - otherwise they wouldn't watch, read, etc.

To clarify, I freely and readily concede that most people are interested in reading or viewing about the character and motivation of "the villain" in the wake of a major news story of a violent event. [And what makes a major news story of a violent event? (1) mass killing and (2) killing of famous people; I can't think of anything else.] BUT, I think most people really aren't interested in increasing the likelihood of a mass killing or a killing of a famous person.

"my third thought regarding a kind of tragedy of the commons"

Yea, I know and I agree.

For instance, let's say there is a general informal media standard for not doing X (whether that be covering specific tabloid-y stories or showing super awful stuff like you'd see on rotten.com, e.g. charred corpses paraded around, beheading, etc.), but Media Outlet Y goes ahead and shows it anyway and increases their ratings in the process. If the ratings of Media Outlet A, B, and C go down or stay the same, you know they're going to eventually give in and do it.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

If the ratings of Media Outlet A, B, and C go down or stay the same, you know they're going to eventually give in and do it.

I am a staunch atheist and am glad religion isn't as pervasive in our institutions as it once was, but I do wish businesses had values other than profitability.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

I think in previous days it might have but it is relatively easy these days to get your face plastered all over the world without restoring to mass murder.

I think we should minimize mention of the perpetrators name, though. That would be a more compelling inducement, IMO. I think people like that want their names to be known for a long time after they die.

I forget which SF writer(s) had stories where governments referred to such people as "moron #32" and such but I like that idea very much.

[bord-du-rasoir.livejournal.com]

"I forget which SF writer(s) had stories where governments referred to such people as "moron #32" and such but I like that idea very much."

I would not be opposed to something like that.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

I think in previous days it might have but it is relatively easy these days to get your face plastered all over the world without restoring to mass murder.

You can also kidnap high school girls on vacation. It only works if they're white, though.

[bord-du-rasoir.livejournal.com]

I don't know if fame has ever been the primary motivator for any killing. Maybe, somewhere in history, I'm sure there's a guy. But if we're going to sit down and list out factors that have led people to mass kill or kill famous people, I think it's quite possible that fame would make a top 10 list in many, if not most, cases.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

I think this question is impossible to answer without quantifying the consequences of NOT publishing killers names.

I.E. Even if we assume it does cause some murderers to kill, it would seem natural to suppose that NOT publishing killers names could also have some negative effect.

Not to mention that preventing the release of such names through private channels would be nigh impossible. Preventing media publishing may slow it down, even significantly, but would it realistically be enough to prevent the killer from getting the notoriety they seek?

Besides, if they knew the media wouldn't publish it

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't killers just post a youtube etc, then go do it, while relying on the public, who have a natural curiosity to know the details, from spreading their personal details, rants and images around?

Re: Besides, if they knew the media wouldn't publish it

[bord-du-rasoir.livejournal.com]

That is what this killer did. His five videos currently range from ~200K to 2 million views. But it's impossible to separate the number of page views from attention pointing his way via media outlets.

Even though the anarchic general Internet is a big deal, media outlets (The New York Times, Fox News, CNN, Huffington Post, Drudge Report, MSNBC, NPR) still determine what most people who pay attention to news pay attention to. How major media outlets cover stories still makes a major difference in what people pay attention to.

To respond to your first point, it's not an issue as simple as publishing or not publishing names. It's the whole method of coverage. How does it come to be that so many are so familiar with characters like McVeigh and Manson? Is it simply because names got published and everyone suddenly knew what they know? Of course not. It's that media outlets extensively covered stories and showed faces over and over and over and over, over the course of days, week, months, and years, till there's no possible way that people wouldn't be just as familiar with who McVeigh or Manson is, as say, Biden, Cheney, Gore, or Quayle.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Sure, we'll just round everybody up and use a flashy-neuralizer thing that erases their memory and no one will remember it.

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

Can we erase the memories of my ex-wife first?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Will she make someone famous?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

My entirely invalid opinion is that people like Loughner get themselves wrapped up in political narratives that by virtue of isolation receive no feedback or checks upon the wild conclusions they draw. No one is around to tell him he is being weird, wrong or crazy. People eventually inhabit their own social realities and create narratives that require resolution. That is, they need to be heroes. So they make themselves heroes. Wider society is irrelevant at that point.

[bord-du-rasoir.livejournal.com]

I agree with everything but your last sentence. Loughner's fantasy concoctions (and those of those like him) are definitely reflective of wider society.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

There is still no evidence of a political narrative having influence on him in any way, other than one of anti-government due to his delusion about grammar. In other words, the indications are that he created his own narrative, he didn't adopt one from the outside.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

This leads me to ask, Does the prospect of fame incentivize mass killing / killing of famous people?

I think it definitely was a factor in Lee Harvey Oswald's assassination of President Kennedy.

[bord-du-rasoir.livejournal.com]

And John Wilkes Booth's.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

The only head I can give you insight on is my own, and if I was the killing type, I would take more pride in no one ever kwowing my name -meaning I never got caught.

It's kind of hard to dress that previous statement up to sound any nicer, just know I had the best of intentions (delete it when I run for mayor).

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Interesting, I had similar thoughts after the Fort Hood shooting and I argued that the media should collectively agree not to publish the names or any personal information about mass murderers like this.

http://mijopo.livejournal.com/300772.html

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It's always been a factor in assassinations. Assassins, particularly if they do the murders gruesomely or target the right individual *do* end up being famous. Society rewards it because it is simultaneously repelled by it and drawn to it. It's the equivalent of a deliberately-induced trainwreck.

[bord-du-rasoir.livejournal.com]

I wonder if we'll ever reach a point in which we're more aware of what we're doing and we act more responsibly.