The Fame Monster
It seems like clockwork. Whenever there is a mass shooting, someone on Twitter sends out a tweet saying no one should say the killer’s name. There is almost always someone out there that takes media agencies to task for “celebrating” the killer, by using their name. In the hours following the Christchurch, New Zealand shooting, we saw the tweets asking people to not say the killers name- just like clockwork.
Mass shootings are odd events in that they make people do odd things. Most people never seem to mind naming the names of terrorists or rapists for that reason, but when it comes to mass shooters, there is a desire, especially among conservatives, that the perpetrator not be named. Why? Because supposedly the killers are doing this because they want to be famous, they want, they crave fame and killing scores of people is the way to do it.
So, the desire then becomes that the media basically needs to not give the killer oxygen. Columnist Megan McArdle takes this to a logical extreme — to pretend it isn’t happening:
No matter your opinions about gun control, or funding mental-health treatment, or softening the anomie of the modern world, here’s an intervention to consider: Stop giving them what they want.
Don’t watch their videos, or even speak their names. Media companies should decline to give their horrible crimes extensive coverage, and audiences should decline to consume it. Give their atrocities no more attention than a highway car wreck, and let their deeds disappear into two column inches on page A24 of the newspaper or, better yet, into the transcripts of an unremarked court trial.
In other words, let’s pretend it’s not happening: While the axioms against ignoring elephants in the living room may be generally wise, this is the rare case where strategic obliviousness might actually cause the beast to leave or, at least, visit much less often.
So, basically, McArdle is saying that the next time someone goes and kills 10, 20, 30 people we should just turn off our TVs, shrug our shoulders and say, “meh.”
I usually tend to agree with McArdle on a lot of things, but this is basically the silliest idea I’ve ever heard. If we just ignore the elephant in the room, then mass shootings will just stop. Uh-huh.
While I’m not a journalist these days, I was trained as one and my inner reporter thinks ignoring something like a mass shooting is bad journalism. When major events, major tragedies happen it is the duty of the press to go and report. They are there to report the news, not glorify the bad people, but to report what is going on. When these events happen, there are questions that need to be asked in order to learn why this happened and maybe how we can make it less likely.
In 2015, a gunman took 9 lives at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. Immediately following the event, the county sherriff, John Hanlin said he would not name the gunman’s name citing this is probably what they wanted and he also urged the media to also not name the shooter. Cameron Barr, the then national editor for the Washington Post, said that the media should not follow the sheriff’s advice:
Chris Harper Mercer is an accused mass murderer and we intend to report on his motivations and background as accurately and fully as we can. We believe that comprehensive information about those responsible for mass shootings and other horrendous events informs the public debate. While I can appreciate the revulsion that people feel in the wake of such an incident, we see no benefit in withholding information from readers.
Justin Peters goes even farther to say that the killers in most cases got what they wanted: guns to kill lots of people:
Chris Harper Mercer probably did want to be on the news, and, sure, by putting him on the news, journalists are giving him “what he wanted.” But it seems clear to me that what Chris Harper Mercer mostly wanted was guns he could use to execute lots of people. He got them. We already gave him what he wanted. Mass shootings in America will never slow or cease until journalists recognize and report on their cause. Because causation is knowable here. And it has nothing to do with a shooter’s vague desire to be on CNN.
I don’t think people are worried that naming the shooter is going to create another mass shooting down the road. Part of me believes that the reason we don’t want to focus on the mass shooter’s name is that we don’t want to uncover questions we don’t want to answer. Maybe we don’t want to talk about guns. Maybe we don’t want to talk about the lack of mental health care. Maybe we don’t want to talk about racism and bigotry, which is a major cause of the Christchurch shooting. Not naming someone, not showing their picture keeps those unsettling questions at bay and it keeps the press from poking around.
But there are good reasons we need to learn about the killer. For example, in the days following the Parkland, Florida shooting, we learned that shooter was troubled and displayed a number of red flags that people ignored. This has led to red flag laws to be considered across the country. But if we didn’t know the name of the shooter, if we ignored the event, then we would not learn how warnings signs were missed. We learned in the aftermath of the Sutherland Springs shooting, we learned that a law that would have kept firearms away from the shooter wasn’t enforced. The questions we need to ask in the aftermath of the Christchurch shooting center around Islamophobia and bigotry. Where did he get the idea? How was he radicalized? How was he able to acquire the weapons, especially since Australia and New Zealand has stricter gun laws than here in the United States?
These are questions that need to be asked and to do that, you have to at times name the shooter.
I can understand the disgust one feels in naming this man’s name. But the role of the journalist in our society is to ask uncomfortable questions.
None of this means that we have to give out the shooter’s name 24/7. There are times news agencies don’t have to give the name.
But there are times that you have to name names. We need to do this because there are questions that need to be asked in the hope that we can learn from what went wrong and prevent other shootings. To ignore events like this, does far more harm than good.
There is a difference between the murderers name being burned into everyone’s mind through constant media repetition, and just having the name be public information.
We can discuss and dissect all the relevant information in various media reports all day long, and still just refer to the perpetrator as “the gunman” or similar anonymous terms. And maybe, down at the bottom, in a footnote, put the name.Report
Yeah. The media de-emphasizes or even simply fails to disclose a lot of names for various reasons. It’s pretty workable, and we seem to have actually moved in that direction somewhat.Report
FYI
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/15/703912094/researchers-who-study-mass-shootings-say-perpetrators-often-idolize-and-copy-othReport
Excellent link.Report
I have to disagree, Dennis. This sort of mass shooter, like the one who killed all the children in Norway, wants to be a hero to his tribe. As Oscar says, there’s no reason not to let his name be available via search, but let’s not call him anything more notable than “the suspect”.Report
This is your second column claiming that the people who disagree with you aren’t doing so in good faith. And again you didn’t really present any evidence to support that.Report
Think of the college entry scandal we’ve been talking about lately. Something like 50 parents are named in the indictment, but only one (Lori Loughlin), maybe two (Felicity Huffman), are in the public consciousness, because the media ALWAYS names them in the headline or first few paragraphs. They are now famous (infamous) and the public face of the whole case, because of that.
The other 48 parents? Public information, we can all search for them, but most of us couldn’t pull their name out of our memory.Report
@Oscar Gordon and @Mike Schilling have it right here. It isn’t that we don’t need to have the information available, its that we don’t want the killer to get the glory. And in getting that glory, passing on that particular aspect of this horror. Because if the notoriety, the living in infamy, is part of the motivating factor here, eliminating it is an easy part of the cure. We will all disagree on other parts of that cure, but we might as well pick the low hanging fruit.Report
I agree. To the extent that mass killers do it for fame, we should make a point of forgetting their names. Also, though, a lot of them are trying to bring attention to their thoughts. And when that’s the case, we should go out of our way to disrespect their manifestos. We should make it clear: this is the modern information age, and if your ideas are such garbage that the only way you can bring attention to them is by committing an atrocity, that speaks volumes. These people who write rambling tirades are idiots. By their fruits you shall know them, and if your line of thinking leads you to mass murder, that’s a demonstration that your thinking is worthless. So, nothing but scorn. Criminal profilers can read their writings, but only as evidence, not for its meaning. The rest of us should ignore them.Report
What were the names of the suspects that killed more than a hundred christians over the last few weeks? What were their motives?Report
Are you talking about a similar mass event, or just a compilation of random murders?Report
I’m sort of on the fence here. Mike and Oscar have good points but this guy seems somewhat unique in that he dida very extremely online “manifesto” that was filled with shitposting, memes, etc. I think this stuff needs to be analyzed and studied.Report
Sure, it does, but not by every Tom, Dick, and Sally with an internet connection and enough brain cells to follow a search engine link.
Again, obscuring the guys name in media reports, if only by footnoting it at the bottom, rather than splashing across the headlines or otherwise above the fold, does not cause the event, nor anything else about it, to disappear or become unknowable. It merely helps to diffuse the guilty person(s) infamy.
Honestly, there are three very good reasons for this. One being the potential reduction in copycats. Another is for the families of the guilty, who probably don’t deserve the damnation by association that comes with such things. The last is for those who are truly sick, who might be redeemable and able to rehabilitate, don’t they deserve a chance to someday walk about in public without being known to one and all?Report
So should we apply this to terrorist attacks where we know of the terrorist?Report
If we assume the terrorist performs or plans the act in order to gain some degree of attention to their cause, then yes.
Aside from Osama bin Laden, how many terrorists who have committed acts of terror can you name off the top of your head (no Google or Bing!)?
I can think of maybe two others, Richard Reid and Timothy McVeigh, and that’s because they were blasted in the news. But I have to ask, aside from those names being trivia, what value does knowing those names add to my life? I know the events, I know we caught the guys responsible, I know at least one of them is very much dead.
Again, because people need to hear this, I am not saying we make their names Top Secret, compartmentalized, need to know information. Just put the name well below the fold, as a footnote.Report
So this is where your argument (and the argument of most pundits weighing in from the Right) fall apart. This was a terrorist attack. It was meant to create a climate of fear and oppression to further a pernicious political agenda. Classic terrorism.
Yet like so many terrorist attacked in the US (Dylan Roof anyone), we want different rules for reporting this stuff because the shooter doesn’t look like a terrorist or belong to a terrorist group – at least not as we have chosen to define them.
And I think thats a big reason we are so unsuccessful politically and legally dealing with events like this. We don’t want to call them what they are nor do we want o call these folks what they are.
Which is terrorists.Report
This is kinda what I am getting at in my article and what a few tweeters have said. We want these rules covering up the names of the mass shooters and what I’ve noticed is more often than not these people are white. If there is a terrorist attack, we don’t hold back naming names. I never hear “don’t give them their wish” when it comes to these crimes and the thing that most (foreign) terrorists have in common is that they are not white. THIS is what makes the desire to withold the names pointless, because it is done on some people who have the same pigment while others with a different pigment don’t get that treatment.Report
I’m comfortable calling this a terror attack and this guy a terrorist.
However the typical group size for these sorts of things is one, Pulse, Vegas, Sandy Hook, the bulk of the school shooters, etc. Two shooters is exceptionally rare, Derik+Eric, maybe McVay+Nickles. After that we have ISIS, that Husband+Wife ISIS team in California, 911, and if we lump ISIS in as “state sponsored” then we don’t even have that. The police have released this guy’s co-conspirators as bystanders, so New Zealand was also “one”.
So… what do we do after admitting this was terrorism? We still have the lone wolf loser problem. This still looks a lot more like a mental health issue than a political issue, i.e. violent losers looking for reasons to be violent.
With Tim McVay the “political” solution was to stop the FBI from running around murdering innocents. That’s at least something we were willing to do. However the Pulse shooter was a violent antisocial nut starting in the 3rd grade, I’m not sure what political solution we have to prevent him shooting up that bar. Surrender to ISIS perhaps?
Or better yet, what is the political/legal solution to Sandy Hook? Vegas?
The real question is whether or not this guy was on law enforcement’s radar before this and if not, why not.Report
Based on what little we know so far, my guess is not – just like the Coast Guard Officer arrested here in the states last month plotting a murder a significant number of Democratic politicians. Both law Enforcement and Intelligence agencies have finite resources, and since they seem to be mostly focused (in the terrorism space) on Muslim perpetrators, they will likely continue to miss folks like this.Report
Folks like this?
Big picture is we’ve seen guys like this fall into one of two different camps.
1) This was their first criminal act, and they weren’t on anyone’s radar before.
2) They were on (or should have been on) law enforcement’s radar to the point of absurdity but LE didn’t view it as their job to do anything.
3) In theory there would be a third group where they became radical hanging out with a radical group, but we haven’t seen that since… 911? McVay would have fit into this group too.
My guess is the 3rd group is so rare because of some combo of FBI infiltration of these groups and even “radical” groups dropping a dime on their crazy members.
Where it gets iffy is when you have people radicalize online, which may have been the case here.Report