Cameron Kasky on How the Media Should Cover Mass Shootings

“It’s a double-edge sword because on the one hand, I was on national news while the bodies were still warm and people hadn’t been buried yet. And at the time, I really didn’t think about it, but in retrospect, it makes me question…was that appropriate?

“On the one hand, the cameras are gonna leave. And I want to make sure the message that I believe is right gets across while the cameras are still there. On the other hand, people are dead. And I don’t regret anything I did because I know what I was doing I did because I believed it was right. And that’s the best I can do.

“But in regards to how the media covers it, I think that the names of shooters should never be released. Daily Wire covers that very well. I know that there are multiple pundits as well that do not name the shooter. I think that making the shooters celebrities is flippantly inappropriate.

“I think that…I think that very often I was treated as an expert when I’m not. I’m not the expert on anything.” – Parkland student Cameron Kasky interviewed by Ben Shapiro

comments

  1. avatar bryan1980 says:

    At least you’re smart enough to admit it; there’s still hope you you, yet.

  2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

    The Leftists have a headlock on the media and the hate propaganda that they spew.

    If we fail to understand and counter this, it *will* be our demise…

  3. avatar Qwerty says:

    Finally! Yes, stop with the names already. It’s become a cliche, I’m going to kill myself, but I want to get national news for it, so I’ll shoot up some school/mall/whatever. Just go off yourself because taking other people with you is a dick move.

  4. avatar IN Dave says:

    Stop publishing the names nationwide, publicly shame the people who do say the name, boycott businesses that advertise on news outlests that do publish the name; you will see this crap stop after about the 3rd or 4th shooting. It almost seems like they don’t want that. Maybe it’s because the news ratings are always the highest after a shooting.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      It’s a vicious cycle.

      Views=money. Nothing gets more views than tragic deaths and weeping victims. That’s the #1 reason for the whole circus.

      Views=influence. To anti-gun Marxist progressives (but I repeat myself), this is a propaganda bonanza: everybody’s watching, and nobody is thinking straight.

      Views=fame. There’s well-documented evidence that mass-shooting coverage leads to more mass shootings; it gives the homicidal lunatics exactly what they crave. It also gives a bevy of narcissistic “survivors” what they crave.

      Rinse, wash, repeat. Put these three factors together, and you have a profit-and-power machine that *needs* mass shootings.

      This is why the media and the anti-gun left (but I repeat myself) keep redefining the definition of “mass shooting.” They profit not only from the shootings, but from the fear these incidents provoke. Must…have…more…

      1. avatar Mike H says:

        Spot on, ING. That’s exactly it.

      2. avatar Gordon in MO says:

        I have been saying for a long time, the reason the left adamantly rejects any action that would actually make schools safer (armed teachers, etc…) is because they want more kids killed. They then activate their preplanned media campaign against guns. They can react too fast for it to be reactive, they plan for it.

        The left is so invested in this I would not be at all surprised if they don’t instigate the perp sometimes. The Parkland perp is a good suspect for such activities with the school administration, the local police, the sheriff and the FBI all playing their (non) parts. They all knew about him, had multiple warnings, multiple contacts and no one did anything to prevent the shooting.

  5. avatar Draven says:

    Several conservative bloggers have been saying this for years.

  6. avatar ollie says:

    The big difference with Stoneman and Santa Fe over previous shootings is that both shooters survived and might have some explanations that put a better light on why it happened. Time will tell.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Rendition the perps to Guantanamo Bay for enhanced interrogation. Being the special snowflakes they are it won’t take long for answers to start.

  7. avatar m. says:

    media d-suckers: try printing the facts & excluding libtard-spin from congress-t**ts

  8. avatar Cz Rider says:

    Assuming he isn’t full of it on being willing to learn, i think two or three good informative conversations would have this kid solidly in the pro-2A camp. He actually mentions wanting a CCW permit, and his opposition to semi-auto rifles seems founded on idealism and youthful inexperience. Sure would be nice to see Bloomberg’s reaction if one of his shills in training went off the reservation like that.

    1. avatar Tim says:

      He’s lying – don’t fall for it. All smoke.

  9. avatar Tim says:

    Listen to this preening brat’s interview with Dave Rubin. He *still* thinks his is the first ‘woke’ generation, with magical wisdom about how the world works. He knows literally nothing.

  10. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    …”And I want to make sure the message that I believe is right gets across while the cameras are still there…”

    NO. I will determine what I believe and think. I have no care about what you believe is right. Just report facts in a neutral manner period.

  11. avatar Ralph says:

    If that grave-dancing punk is “the voice of reason,” then the country really is doomed.

  12. avatar BRUCE CLARK says:

    #1. I don’t want any mention of the killer unless it’s somehow pertinant to the killing.
    Such as he was a psycho and somehow got a gun he shouldn’t have. #2. I want to immeadatly see the crime scene to see that it was in fact committed and not some false flag situation like Sandy Hook probably was.

  13. avatar Kenneth says:

    This isn’t even a gun thing, but when it comes to the lamestream media, shouldn’t we at least require them to have looked at a map before writing about geography? FOR TODAY’S EXAMPLE:
    “barrelling towards the US West Coast, around Nevada and Utah” -https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1025312/Storm-Rosa-path-US-Arizona-Nevada-Utah-tropical-storm-warning-NOAA
    Now is it unreasonable of me to figure that a newspaper with a 400K per day circulation ought to be able to afford reporters that know that neither Nevada nor Utah are on the “US West Coast”???????? And this a story on a coming storm. No political agenda’s here. All of Soros’ and Bloomberg’s lies and prevarications haven’t even been factored in yet.
    This is just the level of knowledge that reporters average today. That Utah and Nevada are on a coast? And perhaps that the world is flat and the moon is made of cheese? Is this the level of knowledge that we choose to be impressed by? Does this reporter even know what a “coast” IS? Does he even know which ocean is which? Does he even know that “ocean” means “a lot of water”? I see no evidence of that…
    OK, OK. He probably does know that “ocean” has something to do with “water”. But does he know which ocean is which? Could he even pass this test?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRh1zXFKC_o
    I doubt it. Like as not he would be the woman going; “I’m a college graduate. That’s what’s so sad…”
    Or, lacking even that(a reporter who knows what a coast is), should we NOT expect a major newspaper over a century old to have SOMEBODY on their staff of hundreds that could’ve corrected him before it went into print, making them all look like an entire building full of tards who don’t even know what a coast is? Or, is it that at a hundred+ years old, they’re just too senile to care about anything other than being fed on time and having their diaper changed?
    Yup. It’s that last one that I figure is the correct answer.

  14. avatar Mike H says:

    “I think that…I think that very often I was treated as an expert when I’m not. I’m not the expert on anything.” – Parkland student Cameron Kasky

    This is what many reporters, particularly those with large paychecks, forget along the way. Somewhere they feel they actually are experts at everything that comes out of their mouths. However, there’s this:

    “On the one hand, the cameras are gonna leave. And I want to make sure the message that I believe is right gets across while the cameras are still there.”

    He has a point. The news cycle is much faster than the 24 hour news period now. People now have the attention span of goldfish and no one ever gets – or looks for – the whole picture as a result. If they’re going to fit relevant facts in, the time they have to present them has decreased radically. It’s tough to make those calls. Any ongoing investigation by police or FBI will be very spare on details. That’s policy, but the news feed won’t stick around for that.

    ING’s comment above nails it perfectly; conflict and drama keeps butts in seats. That drives revenue. That will be true of ANY outlet that makes their money from ad revenue. (Yes, Fox too…)

    I work with media for a living. In my estimation Ben Shapiro is a fantastic reporter. However, it’s easy to see anyone who isn’t an honest broker in the minutes and seconds after a shooting. You’ll know them because they will act like an expert, or they’ll have one as a commentator. These people will quickly lay out a non-agenda TPOTG will not agree with. People in the throes of shock will eat it up. We will know better, but we’ll already be behind the curve because our messaging sucks. Our media savvy sucks. It’s delivered in response and inexpertly in anticipation.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email