So my post about the not naming of the killer movement we've seen this week seems to have generated some passions. Which is a good thing.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/josh-marshall-is-exactly-right-we.html
My thought there was not dogmatic I just worried as Josh did that this not-naming movement was giving people a false sense of action while in truth no action is again taken to prevent the next tragedy.
But a Twitter follower of mine was very opinionated and she argued that this desire to not name or give the face of the killer is the wish of the victim's families.
"If so then their opinion must be given a lot of weight. And there is a website called No Notoreity that argues don't use name and likeness too much. They The quest for notoriety and infamy is a well known motivating factor in mass killings and violent copycat crimes. In an effort to reduce future tragedies, we CHALLENGE THE MEDIA – calling for RESPONSIBLE MEDIA COVERAGE FOR THE SAKE OF PUBLIC SAFETY when reporting on individuals who commit or attempt acts of rampage mass violence thereby depriving violent like minded individuals the media celebrity and media spotlight they so crave.argue it's about public safety."
http://nonotoriety.com/
My worry and Josh's was simply that this might give people a sense of action while remaining inactive. Also I do think knowledge is needed to prevent the next killer. I don't usually agree with the suppression of public knowledge-to me why should the police and media decide what's fit for my consumption?
It worried me that Sheriff John Hamlin was a big proponent of this not-naming. However, if the families feel this way then it's obviously very different.
I don't want to argue this one point too much which is purely a tactical argument. For me I just want Obama's wish to come true and not have to have another such news conference in his Administration.
The important thing is that we have stronger gun control laws. Carly Fiorina repeated a typical conservative canard that we always hear after the next Sandy Hook: Well, the answer isn't new laws; we don't even enforce the ones on the books.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/gop-candidates-positions-guns-unchanged-after-oregon-shooting-n437631
But that's just it: the Sheriff in the Oregon county this shooting occurred has boasted that he doesn't enforce the gun laws he disagrees with.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/sheriff-john-hamlin-is-sandy-hook.html
Then they say it's all about mental illness-though of course they also oppose funding mental health services.
So my point about not-naming was just a tactical point. I see now that this is not the creation of Sheriff Hamlin.
There are good reasons for it-though there are still some reasons against it. Like many things it's not a black and white issue.
"The family members of shooting victims who launched a campaign called "No Notoriety," aimed at discouraging news coverage of mass murderers, are starting to feel like they're succeeding."
"There has been a noticeable pullback in the amount of press attention being given to gunmen, most recently after Thursday's massacre at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. A roiling debate is happening in newsrooms about how often to say the names and show the faces of mass shooters — or whether to do so at all."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/josh-marshall-is-exactly-right-we.html
My thought there was not dogmatic I just worried as Josh did that this not-naming movement was giving people a false sense of action while in truth no action is again taken to prevent the next tragedy.
But a Twitter follower of mine was very opinionated and she argued that this desire to not name or give the face of the killer is the wish of the victim's families.
"If so then their opinion must be given a lot of weight. And there is a website called No Notoreity that argues don't use name and likeness too much. They The quest for notoriety and infamy is a well known motivating factor in mass killings and violent copycat crimes. In an effort to reduce future tragedies, we CHALLENGE THE MEDIA – calling for RESPONSIBLE MEDIA COVERAGE FOR THE SAKE OF PUBLIC SAFETY when reporting on individuals who commit or attempt acts of rampage mass violence thereby depriving violent like minded individuals the media celebrity and media spotlight they so crave.argue it's about public safety."
http://nonotoriety.com/
My worry and Josh's was simply that this might give people a sense of action while remaining inactive. Also I do think knowledge is needed to prevent the next killer. I don't usually agree with the suppression of public knowledge-to me why should the police and media decide what's fit for my consumption?
It worried me that Sheriff John Hamlin was a big proponent of this not-naming. However, if the families feel this way then it's obviously very different.
I don't want to argue this one point too much which is purely a tactical argument. For me I just want Obama's wish to come true and not have to have another such news conference in his Administration.
The important thing is that we have stronger gun control laws. Carly Fiorina repeated a typical conservative canard that we always hear after the next Sandy Hook: Well, the answer isn't new laws; we don't even enforce the ones on the books.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/gop-candidates-positions-guns-unchanged-after-oregon-shooting-n437631
But that's just it: the Sheriff in the Oregon county this shooting occurred has boasted that he doesn't enforce the gun laws he disagrees with.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/sheriff-john-hamlin-is-sandy-hook.html
Then they say it's all about mental illness-though of course they also oppose funding mental health services.
So my point about not-naming was just a tactical point. I see now that this is not the creation of Sheriff Hamlin.
There are good reasons for it-though there are still some reasons against it. Like many things it's not a black and white issue.
"The family members of shooting victims who launched a campaign called "No Notoriety," aimed at discouraging news coverage of mass murderers, are starting to feel like they're succeeding."
"There has been a noticeable pullback in the amount of press attention being given to gunmen, most recently after Thursday's massacre at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. A roiling debate is happening in newsrooms about how often to say the names and show the faces of mass shooters — or whether to do so at all."
"As she watched the Oregon shooting coverage in Denver on Friday morning, Sandy Phillips noticed that she hadn't seen any photos of the shooter."
"She reached for her cell phone and texted Caren Teves in Phoenix: "#NoNotoriety is making a difference."
"Teves had noticed the same thing. "I'm feeling slightly victorious this morning," she said in a phone call."
"The two women are linked by loss. Phillips' daughter Jessica and Teves' son Alex were both killed in the attack at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater in 2012."
"The Phillips and Teves families were confronted by the killer's face and photos many times in the days, weeks and months that ensued."
"In January, Caren and her husband Tom Teves started No Notoriety to challenge news media norms. Phillips and her husband Lonnie joined them."
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/02/media/media-decisions-naming-showing-killers/
However, while I feel you have to weight the feelings of these family members very highly, I do find some of the counterarguments persusive as well.
"The suggestion that mass killers are often seeking fame has been supported by numerous studies."
"But there are a variety of counterarguments, starting with the fact that journalists have a duty to document incidents in great detail. There is an inherent assumption that having more information about a killer could help stop future shootings."
"Reporter Garrett Haake, of the Washington, D.C. station WUSA, wrote Friday, "Facts matter to an informed debate. When law enforcement fails to provide the facts, or journalists fail to report them, we cheat ourselves out of the hard debates and discussions that should follow such appalling violence."
"Furthermore, The Washington Post's Erik Wemple wrote, "Journalists cannot make their calls based on notions that may be swimming in the minds of the insane.""
This debate played out in prime time on Thursday. CNN's Don Lemon said during his 10 pm program that "we must identify him, because that is our job."
I tend to agree. I wonder if these debates and discussions are being edited out.
I will end this post by not taking a firm position either way but arguing that it's a worthy topic of public debate.
"She reached for her cell phone and texted Caren Teves in Phoenix: "#NoNotoriety is making a difference."
"Teves had noticed the same thing. "I'm feeling slightly victorious this morning," she said in a phone call."
"The two women are linked by loss. Phillips' daughter Jessica and Teves' son Alex were both killed in the attack at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater in 2012."
"The Phillips and Teves families were confronted by the killer's face and photos many times in the days, weeks and months that ensued."
"In January, Caren and her husband Tom Teves started No Notoriety to challenge news media norms. Phillips and her husband Lonnie joined them."
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/02/media/media-decisions-naming-showing-killers/
However, while I feel you have to weight the feelings of these family members very highly, I do find some of the counterarguments persusive as well.
"The suggestion that mass killers are often seeking fame has been supported by numerous studies."
"But there are a variety of counterarguments, starting with the fact that journalists have a duty to document incidents in great detail. There is an inherent assumption that having more information about a killer could help stop future shootings."
"Reporter Garrett Haake, of the Washington, D.C. station WUSA, wrote Friday, "Facts matter to an informed debate. When law enforcement fails to provide the facts, or journalists fail to report them, we cheat ourselves out of the hard debates and discussions that should follow such appalling violence."
"Furthermore, The Washington Post's Erik Wemple wrote, "Journalists cannot make their calls based on notions that may be swimming in the minds of the insane.""
This debate played out in prime time on Thursday. CNN's Don Lemon said during his 10 pm program that "we must identify him, because that is our job."
I tend to agree. I wonder if these debates and discussions are being edited out.
I will end this post by not taking a firm position either way but arguing that it's a worthy topic of public debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment