The rash of mass shootings in recent weeks (well, let's face it, there are always mass shootings — we just don't hear about all of them) raises two difficult questions about press coverage of them.
Should authorities release crime-scene photographs of the victims? Should the media identify shooters by name, and show their faces? — or should they deny them the publicity they crave?
On the first question, we cats have long leaned generally in the direction of yes. It's often taken dramatic photos (like this one from the Vietnam War) and videos (like Darnella Frazier's recording of the murder of George Floyd) to shock people and jar them into action. We figured that seeing graphic photos of dead kids' bodies would finally outrage Americans enough to send Republicans into electoral oblivion if they continued to protect the NRA, the gun manufacturers and, ultimately, as Eric Swalwell said today, the killers.
Then we heard Parkland dad Fred Guttenberg say that he showed photos of his dead daughter to two US Senators, and it had no effect on their vote. So what's the answer? We still lean toward yes, but only with the express permission of victims' families. And that may never come.
As for refusing to identify shooters, as disgusting as their desire for infamy is, the press, in our view, is responsible for reporting the whole story — and that includes naming them. But if you're a journalist struggling with this, here's a handy suggestion: Just substitute the name "Wayne LaPierre" for the shooters'. "Wayne LaPierre, 18, killed 19 fourth graders and two teachers." "The Tulsa gunman, Wayne LaPierre, killed himself after murdering his doctor, a receptionist and a patient." "Authorities have charged Wayne LaPierre with a hate crime for murdering 10 shoppers in a Tops in Buffalo, most of whom were Black."
It kinda works! Give it, as they say, a shot. We cats PURR.
No comments:
Post a Comment