Senator Mike Lee of Utah and Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee have introduced a joint resolution aimed at urging the media to adopt more responsible journalistic practices when reporting on mass shootings. The resolution is intended to reduce what has been termed the “media contagion effect,” a phenomenon in which sensationalized coverage of mass public murders increases the likelihood of subsequent shootings.
Sen. Lee’s Stance: Reducing Notoriety to Prevent Future Violence
In a press release, Sen. Lee emphasized the role of the media in potentially amplifying mass violence. He argued that media outlets often focus on the perpetrators of mass murders, granting them the notoriety they seek and thereby fueling a cycle of violence.
“By refusing to give mass murderers the attention they desire, we can effectively combat the ‘media contagion effect’ that fuels more violence,” Lee stated. “Research shows that such irresponsible coverage can ignite violence and perpetuate a dangerous cycle of copycat killers.”
Studies, such as the 2016 report by the American Psychological Association, have backed up claims of a media contagion effect, suggesting that intense media focus on mass shootings can indeed encourage others to commit similar crimes . This resolution aims to shift the narrative toward a more balanced and ethical approach.
Congressman Ogles: Calling for Media Responsibility
Rep. Andy Ogles echoed Lee’s concerns, recalling the tragic shooting at Covenant School in Nashville that claimed six lives. He criticized the media’s focus on the shooter and argued that this type of coverage not only sensationalizes the crime but may also inspire future tragedies.
“This resolution simply asks the media to do their work responsibly and stop sensationalizing the despicable acts of mass murderers,” Ogles said. He pointed to other sensitive topics, such as suicides, which are handled with more caution by the media, calling for similar standards in reporting mass shootings.
Dr. Jordan Peterson: A Psychologist’s Perspective on Media and Violence
Dr. Jordan Peterson, a famed psychologist who has extensively studied human behavior, also weighed in on the issue, expressing support for the resolution. Peterson noted that mass shooters often crave notoriety and denying them this fame would significantly reduce their motivation.
“We could choose, as a society, to make mass shootings exceedingly rare,” Peterson said. “Doing so will require the press…to withhold from the mass shooters what they all desperately and murderously desire: fame.”
Gun Owners of America Supports the Measure
Aidan Johnston, the Federal Affairs Director for Gun Owners of America, commended the resolution for challenging the media’s coverage of mass shootings, which he believes often serves to advance an anti-gun narrative. He argued that sensationalized reporting not only distorts the debate around gun violence but also increases the likelihood of more attacks.
“The media loves to sensationalize mass murders because, by and large, it helps them drive home their preferred narrative: guns and gun owners are to blame,” Johnston said. “This documented ‘media contagion effect’ is real.”
Studies Backing the Media Contagion Effect
Multiple studies support the resolution’s concerns. A 2015 Arizona State University study and a 2020 study by Northeastern University found that mass shootings often spur subsequent acts of violence in the short term. This contagion effect has been likened to a “statistical process,” according to James Alan Fox, a professor of criminology.
A 2022 study published in the European Economic Review suggested that mass shooting events not only create a copycat effect but can also exacerbate long-term mental health crises. The resolution highlights these findings to bolster its call for the media to adopt a more responsible approach in reporting these tragedies.
A Call for Responsible Journalism
The resolution introduced by Sen. Lee and Rep. Ogles calls upon the media to adopt voluntary guidelines that would prioritize the stories of victims and the heroes who respond to these events. The measure specifically asks that the names and faces of perpetrators be omitted to deny them the notoriety they often seek. But again, it is a formal request, not an act of law, nor could it ever be. Doing so would be a violation of the First Amendment, a wrong that would be as egregious as violating the Second Amendment or any other one for that matter.
And it is understandable the position this puts the media in for the simple matter that the public wants to know the facts of any newsworthy event and that is the role of the media to provide that. But there is also a precedent set by the media for withholding information the public might also be interested in reading about, such as the names of suicide victims or rape victims and certainly in the instances when minors are victims of family violence or sexual abuse. The media and society in general all pretty much agree the value of protecting the innocent and vulnerable in light of such heinous acts far outweighs the need for the public to know. This is also the case when mass murderers seek notoriety for their acts. Kill the spotlight and the inducement to commit such acts is reduced, not eliminated. But it is a start.
In an Ammoland article on the subject, John Crump writes:
“In 2019, several journalists, including this journalist, pledged to stop naming the killers. This movement was started by groups such as ‘No Notoriety.’ No Notoriety is an organization of data scientists that look at the breakdown of mass shooters and their motives. They discovered that most mass shooters are seeking fame, although many have other motives as well. They reason that if we can eliminate the social contagion aspect, we can save lives.
“’Don’t Name Them‘ is another organization that has researched the social contagion aspect of mass shooters. The organization is based at Texas State University and has committed a lot of time and effort to study the impact of media organizations sharing the names and pictures of mass shooters. Their conclusion is that of every other peer-reviewed study. One of the main driving factors in mass shootings is the mentally deranged individual seeking fame.“
While TTAG has taken no formal position on the matter, it has been discussed among some of the team here and will likely take the same position to begin omitting the name of such shooters. More to come on that.
But Senatos Lee and Ogle’s resolution casts a fresh light on a much needed discussion among the media. If successful, the resolution could mark a turning point in how the media covers mass shootings and play a role in reducing the occurrence of these tragic events in the future.
Yep.
https://x.com/GunOwners/status/1831783552964554789
It’s like the criminal does something heinous so let’s follow it up with stupid ideas. Stupid ideas like 300,000,000 people can’t have freedom of information because 1 dirtbag maybe a copycat. That’s like saying 300,000,000 people can’t have firearms because one dirtbag may criminally misuse a firearm.
As for the GOA the media’s blame the NRA campaign has worn out its welcome because too many people own firearms and the people who do not own a firearm have a relative, friend, etc. who does own firearms and most are not going to blame their friends and relatives for some heinous crime they had nothing to do with. To do so would be insane like someone murders someone and the police blame someone they selected from a phone book.
Let’s never forget the NY Times we’re sympathetic with the third reich and not so long ago newspapers advertised slave auctions…circles back to the mindset behind an Agenda Rooted in Racism and Genocide called Gun Control.
Your sworn duty Mike Lee et al is to Defend Freedom. And that includes letting the media shows its behind.
Sounds like a good idea at first glance. But on the other hand, it might make it impossible to conduct any independent investigations of the incident. We would have to strictly rely on what the government tells us happened.
Not possible given the infinite number of outlets and probably not constitutional.
Instead they should frame the reports in a mocking tone. Like: “Incel loser Pencil-dick McKidkiller went out like a little bitch today when he collapsed into a heap of shit stain after pluggin his virgin skull with his daddies gun.”
If these losers could read the chans populated with the weirdos they want to impress post mortem they’d see their actions get nothing but ridicule and mockery.
Rather the media always goes for the super-villain tone and these dark-side larpers get off on that.
I agree that there is a First Amendment issue that will probably torpedo the statute, even if it is a reasonable thing to do. “If it bleeds it leads.” And consumers of news just eat that shit up.
Portray the perps as capitol-L LOSERS.
“Incel loser Pencil-dick McKidkiller went out like a little bitch today when he collapsed into a heap of shit stain after pluggin his virgin skull with his daddies gun.”
I *LOVE* the mocking angle! 🙂
Your right, it isn’t constitutional to force the media to not use the shooters name. And given todays politics, a number of news agencies would go out of their way to spite the senator, not caring about the effect it will have on other potential mass killers.
It would need to be framed in the same way that pushed the media back in the 1970’s to change the way they reported on suicides. “Suicide clusters” are also a very real contagion affect that the media realized they have a heavy influence on.
Good lord Lee got nothing better to do than call for MORE censorship? Most of these freaks have a death wish anyway. How about capitol punishment in public for killer’s? Or limits on mind altering drug’s foisted on children? Or banning sex “reassignment”? Or better yet term limits for congress/ senate critters???
walker,
I agree, dictating coverage, or even the “tone” of coverage, of legitimate news event is impermissible under the 1A. While one could HOPE that journalists, editors, and publishers would exercise a modicum of judgement and perhaps even some journalistic ethics, we all KNOW that’s never gonna happen. Like the Lyin’ Hawaiian conclusively proved, “Hope” is not a policy or a solution.
The “print media” is dying, due to both technology issues (timeliness and ability to disseminate news quickly and near-universally), and due to the even larger issue of the “credibility” that they knowingly squandered. TV news is experiencing some of the same issues (less so the “universality”, but still). Ultimately, I think both “media” will be overshadowed by Internet-based news and commentary. MOST “online” reporters/commentators are at least upfront about their biases. There already are online sites that more-or-less follow the “shame them, don’t name them” approach.
This is perhaps the 1st idea that a politician has proposed regarding School shootings that actually will make any difference whatsoever.
It wont stop them, they’ll still happen. However, the copy-cats will cut way back.
This will do absolutely nothing. The media will not comply because ratings mean more than everything else.
Ratings equals revenue.
“Ratings equals revenue.”
Given FoxNews ratings over the last few years (dominating all others), the rest of “news media” should have choked to death from cash starvation. Yet, the losers continue to operate.
This is a slippery slope I distinctly remember after the mosque massacre in New Zealand a man received a 21 month sentence for sharing the video of the massacre he had on his phone.
Attacking First Amendment rights in response to a mass shooting is just as unjust as attacking Second amendment rights in response to a mass shooting.
It’s not like the government didn’t get caught whispering in the ears of Jack Dorsey, Sundar Pichai, and Mark Zuckerberg, telling them what to censor, what people would and wouldn’t be allowed to say on their platforms. So this doesn’t even establish a precedent. That egg was fried a long time ago.
But this isn’t going to be a law. It isn’t going to be a late-night call from some kommissar at the FCC or DoJ explaining to the owners of the TV networks, using very small words with very few letters in them, how things are going to be. This is a “congressional resolution” and if it passes it’s just going to be a politely worded letter of request. The newsmedia will ignore it, because it doesn’t suit the narrative they want to push.
“It’s not like the government didn’t get caught whispering in the ears of Jack Dorsey, Sundar Pichai, and Mark Zuckerberg, telling them what to censor“
Sometimes.
“Twitter Kept Entire ‘Database’ of Republican
Requests to Censor Posts
Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files” focus on Democrats, but former administration officials and Twitter employees say Trump’s team and other Republicans routinely demanded posts be taken down
BY ADAM RAWNSLEY, ASAWIN SUEBSAENG
FEBRUARY 8, 2023
WHEN THE WHITE House called up Twitter in the early morning hours of September 9, 2019, officials had what they believed was a serious issue to report: Famous model Chrissy Teigen had just called President Donald Trump “a pussy ass bitch” on Twitter — and the White House wanted the tweet to come down.
That exchange — revealed during Wednesday’s House Oversight Committee hearing on Twitter by Rep. Gerry Connolly — and others like it are nowhere to be found in Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files” releases, which have focused almost exclusively on requests from Democrats and the feds to the social media company.
But former Trump administration officials and Twitter employees tell Rolling Stone that the White House’s Teigan tweet demand was hardly an isolated incident: The Trump administration and its allied Republicans in Congress routinely asked Twitter to take down posts they objected to — the exact behavior that they’re claiming makes President Biden, the Democrats, and Twitter complicit in an anti- free speech conspiracy to muzzle conservatives online.
“It was strange to me when all of these investigations were announced because it was all about the exact same stuff that we had done [when Donald Trump was in office],” one former top aide to a senior Trump administration official tells Rolling Stone. “It was normal.”
In interviews with former Twitter personnel, onetime Trump administration officials, and other people familiar with the matter, each source recalled what could be described as a “hotline,” “tipline,” or large Twitter “database” of moderation and removal requests that was frequently pinged by the offices of powerful Democrats and Republicans alike.
The voluminous requests often came from high-ranking political appointees working in different departments, offices, and agencies in the Trump administration. But during both the Trump and Biden presidencies, these types of moderation requests or demands were routinely sent to Twitter by the staff of influential GOP lawmakers — ones with names like Kevin McCarthy and Elise Stefanik.
Oftentimes, requests would demand Twitter stop “shadowbanning” certain conservative accounts, or that the company reinstate banned or suspended right- wing personas. Other times, offices of senior Trump administration officials would send emails seeking to remove tweets that they believed to be “hate speech” or death threats aimed at their principals. And over the years, the knowledgeable sources say, staffers for Republican officials would regularly flag to Twitter content that they believed violated the app’s terms of service or other policies, including on spreading “misinformation” or “disinformation.”
No name, no picture, no fame.
I agree with that but with the free flow of information how far should we society prepared to take that when it comes to punishing those that don’t comply? Again, this is a slippery slope. If you see my above post, an individual New Zealand got 21 months in prison for sharing a copy of the video that the mosque massacre live streamed.
Depends on whether they’re just gonna let them go on $1000 bail like they let so many illegals go. If so I’d like to know who they are.
Suppressing freedom of speech is suppressing freedom of speech. If suppression is justified for a specified reason, it is justified for any reason.
And yes, the proposal is not a bill, but a simple protest campaign.
The dumb ideas that politicians come up.
THIS IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.
End of story.
“THIS IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.
End of story.”
Actually, all legislation is presumed constitutional, until adjudicated otherwise by courts. A mere claim has no legal standing/impact.
The only way to ensure legislation/laws are constitutional prior to effective date is to change the constitution such that the USSC first reviews and decides the constitutionality of law/legislation. Is that something we want to experiment with?
Sam,
You’re right; that is NOT a road we want to go down, but I don’t think it is too much to ask that any legislator attach to ANY bill they author/sponsor a specific statement as to the Constitutional authority on which the bill (allegedly) relies, and that that citation be admissible as fact (and an explanation of the intention of the bill) in any court proceeeding regarding the legitimacy/Constitutionality of the bill.
A more necessary reform, however, is to require all legislative authors/sponsors to (i) make all bills “single subject” bills, and (ii) require them to publish at least links to the actual factual evidence they are relying on as to the necessity/efficacy of the bill. I’ would suspect that would get rid of about 99% of the stupid bills our dear Congresscritters inflict upon us every year.
I agree with the proposels, however….
The “rules” of legislation are set by the party with the most votes in the House and Senate. Those people are not about to change the rules to benefit the public, and restrict themselves.
Even our politicians, like everywhere else, love the game of, “catch me if you can.”
“Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
– – J.Adams, Oct 11, 1798
this is as profoundly stupid as saying:
“dont report on criminal illegal alien gang members from venezuela taking over apartment buildings in america because it might actually cause more criminal illegal alien gang members from venezuela to take over even more apartment buildings in america”
or:
“dont report on members of the lgbtq community in america engaging in mass shooting events in america because it might actually cause more members of the lgbtq community in america to engage in even more mass shooting events in america”
this is stupid
Do you people read? “URGING the media to adopt more responsible journalistic practices”
Which might happen after Harris/Walz find two brain cells between them to rub together,
neiowa,
What provision, EXACTLY, of the Constitution or BoR authorizes Congress to act as our “nanny”?? If the Dimocrats capture both houses of Congress, and decide to start passing “resolutions” deploring, oh, say, internal combustion engines, or gas stoves (but not MANDATING such), explain how that is a legitimate exercise of the legislative power? Any Senator/Congressman has the 1A right to spout that crap on a website (personal) or to a reporter, etc., but I’m not paying their damn salary, their expensive staff, or their cushy offices to be my scold, nanny, chaplain, or spiritual advisor. IT. IS.NONE. OF. CONGRESS’. DAMN. BUSINESS!!
“URGING the media to adopt more responsible journalistic practices”
“Freedom of the Press Is Guaranteed Only to Those Who Own One”
– – A.J. Liebling, New Yorker, May 14,1960
This is a bad idea, imo. Copy cats are a big problem, as seen in the current wave of threats against schools in S GA, but parents and community members need data.
And for every glory hound you deter, the cloak of anonymity will encourage some other.
A 3 judge panel that fast-tracks zero-doubt-about-guilt spreekillers for execution would be my suggestion…
The Parkland shooter should be dead 8 years by now.
“And for every glory hound you deter, the cloak of anonymity will encourage some other. “
Aren’t they all pretty much anonymous to the public, until they strike?
“Aren’t they all pretty much anonymous to the public, until they strike?”
Yes and no. Around 83% of all mass/school killers in the last 40 years were known to be planning or wanting to carry out such heinous acts ‘soon’ by someone in the public. Sometimes it was friends or family, sometimes it was someone that was neither friend or family, sometimes it was some school staff member, sometimes it was written down by the would be soon killer and proudly shown to people.
It may not always be straight forward and blatantly obvious clues, but although they are mostly very good at hiding it when they get ready to do it they (almost) always give some clue sometimes right before they do it or maybe weeks before they do it.
For example, the Nashville trans killer texted a person who had occasional contact with this killer, with “I’m planning to die today. This is not a joke. You will probably hear about me on the news after I die.” and 13 minutes later the killer started their heinous act. Another example, this recent in Georgia, around 30 minutes before this killer started the mom discovered/realized something and called the school about an ‘extreme emergency’ with her son urging them to find him. Another example, the Highland Park and Pulse Club killers both gave clues to acquaintances and/or friends or family members at least a week before they carried out their heinous acts.
They are mostly very good at hiding this until before they act on this mental illness drive to kill. Its a common trait in these killers, hiding it well.
Perhaps it would have been better if I wrote, “unknown to the public at large”.
This a resolution, not a bill for a law. Its basically asking “please don’t do this media.”
A law for such would be unconstitutional. The media would be screaming ‘Violation of our first amendment rights!”
A law for this is a violation of a constitutional right, the First Amendment.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws respecting an establishment of religion; prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
The ‘Media Contagion Effect’ is not a new thing, and its not just about names and can be about narratives too, and its used in different forms. The effect has been observed for a long time and government even used it, and still does today, to affect and bias public perception though the left-wing media. A more recent use by government was Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and other democrat politicians to censor the first amendment protected speech of thousands of American citizens on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook then introduce their own false narrative that spread like wildfire. Another use was Kamala, the vice president (unfortunately), a government official, using the media to further numerous lies during the debate (lies that are documented and provable to be lies) where her co-conspirators ABC moderators would fact check Trump to imply he was lying (which he wasn’t and he triumphed over the fact checks) but not Harris at all even when her lie was already known to be a lie.
Notice though how the democrats and the anti-gun orgs and the White House so called ‘Office of Gun Violence Prevention’ can actually do something here by urging the media to not sensationalize it like they do, yet they remain silent on it and continue to stomp all over the first and second amendment with laws to take away the right for law abiding gun owners that did nothing wrong.
People like Miner49er are more than happy to sensationalize it for them though and make sure the names and specifics of the acts are known to keep the blue print alive for future would be killers to follow. They, like the anti-gun orgs and left-wing politicians, love to metaphorically dance in the blood of the innocent which is why they want to give these killers a voice beyond their lives and acts by keeping their names alive to give them the infamous acknowledgement they crave.
It’ll be a hard no from the media. Theyll never miss a chance to drag gun folks thru the mud, whether we had anything to do with it or not.
Atta boy Mike!
An action such as this would save more lives than all the inane gun laws that ever were or will be written and put into effect.
How is making a mass killer famous in a 24/7 news cycle NOT being an accessory after the fact?
If the news media promoted the idea someone was worse than Hitler and deserved whatever happened to them, wouldn’t they be responsible for an attempted murder?
The idea offered, Deny Publicity, Withhold Publicity might work. Even if it didn’t, denying publicity is cost free.
It should be the victim justice system. Let the victims decide the fate of these POS! not the lawyers and prosecutors that plea it down so they basically walk but the prosecutor gets an ataboy for the misdemeanor conviction!!! Then gloats about their conviction tally. Nothing more than a scam on society to bankroll themselves into prosperity on the publics dime! Remember it’s not what they say, but what they do!!!
I agree with this idea, when the media curtailed using the shooters name in the postal shootings they stopped completely. The media did not stop letting out names completely but did it less frequently.
I get it. BUT… It’s a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Freedom is dangerous. The end.
Comments are closed.