Type to search

Mass Murderers Should Be Deprived Of Fame

Featured Post Law Media

Mass Murderers Should Be Deprived Of Fame

Share

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

On Oct. 1, a 64-year-old Nevada man opened fire on a crowd of concertgoers from a high-rise hotel in Las Vegas, killing 58 people and injuring hundreds. If you don’t know his name, you can easily find it online, in print or on TV. But you won’t learn it from this column.

Notoriety may have been what he was after in methodically plotting the slaughter. He may have intended to outdo other mass shooters. He may have hoped his name would gain a sinister immortality.

University of Alabama criminologist Adam Lankford has explained the repetition of such incidents as a product of hunger for status. “Some mass shooters succumb to terrible delusions of grandeur, and seek fame and glory through killing,” he wrote.

The more their names are known the more likely they are to inspire imitators pursuing similar recognition. A 26-year-old man who killed nine people on a college campus in Oregon in 2015 had previously written of another killer: “A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. … Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.”

But it’s not desirable for sensational killers to acquire such infamy. A 2015 study in the scholarly journal PLOS ONE found “significant evidence of contagion in mass killings and school shootings.” Nor is this publicity entirely inevitable. After the Oregon shootings, the sheriff refused to “glorify” the killer by mentioning his name on national TV.

There is an organization, No Notoriety, that has called on news organizations to avoid coverage that needlessly publicizes the identity of these murderers. Among its recommendations for print newspapers: “Limit the perpetrator’s name to once per piece as a reference point, never in the headlines and no photo above the fold. Repetitiveness is unnecessary, gratuitous and adds nothing to the story.”

The idea has gotten some traction. The Chicago-area Daily Herald has omitted the Las Vegas killer’s name from headlines, published only one photo of him and referred to him mostly as “the gunman.” Explained an editorial, “We have no interest in making him famous.”

Of course, news organizations are obligated to report the names of killers, which can help generate useful information about motives, backgrounds, accomplices and other crimes. Law enforcement stands to gain if those who knew or encountered the killer at some point come forward with clues.

In the internet age, it would be impossible to keep a mass murderer’s identity secret. Even if mainstream media tried, other outlets would disclose it. The reasonable task is merely not to publicize the name any more than necessary. In many items, such as this column, there is no need to mention it.

Such discretion may sound alien to journalism, but it’s not. Reputable news organizations generally don’t publish the names of rape victims, juvenile arrestees or people who kill themselves. They don’t use the names of children without a parent’s consent. They don’t identify confidential sources.

In this case, journalists would be assisting a trend that is already evident. By now, anyone hoping to gain fame by killing lots of people should realize it probably won’t work. A lot of people remember Charles Whitman, who in 1966 shot dozens of people from a tower at the University of Texas. Back then, such crimes were rare and indelible. Today, they are common and more forgettable.

Can you name the man who killed 49 people in an Orlando nightclub last year? Or the married couple who killed 14 people in San Bernardino? The Army major who went on a rampage at Fort Hood in 2009? These crimes shocked the nation and held our attention for days. But today, hardly anyone could tell you who committed them.

For that matter, many mass shootings have been largely forgotten. If you recall the one in Isla Vista, California, in 2014 or the one in Minneapolis in 2012, you’re the exception. Only if you went looking for them online would you find them.

News organizations could help ensure the obscurity of mass murderers by avoiding the use of their names without a compelling reason. Few readers or viewers would mind.

Such restraint would deprive homicidal attention seekers of what they crave. Those who dream of gaining lasting fame through bloodshed should be confronted with a stark, demoralizing prospect: Hardly anyone will know their names, and hardly anyone will care.

Steve Chapman blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman. Follow him on Twitter @SteveChapman13 or at https://www.facebook.com/stevechapman13. To find out more about Steve Chapman and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

 

Tags:

You Might also Like

10 Comments

  1. Dominick Vila October 12, 2017

    Not giving domestic terrorists the notoriety they seek is a step in the right direction. However, the most effective tool, if our goal is to avoid sequels, is to deprive them of the tools they need to carry out massacres of the magnitude of the one in Las Vegas and Orlando. If we remain as indifferent, and by default complicit, to what is happening in America in almost a daily basis, and what facilitates the slaughter, the trend will continue. Thoughts and prayers are appropriate, when sincere, but without effective and decisive action, nothing will change. That makes us all part of the problem.

    Reply
    1. FireBaron October 12, 2017

      But, Dom, don’t you realize it’s our God-Given Constitutional right to own as many firearms as possible that were designed for no purpose other than to kill or maim our fellow human beings? And to buy ammunition designed to penetrate body armor? That way if the hordes descend upon our houses we can just keep shooting until all are dead? And why shouldn’t we be allowed shoulder supported rocket launchers, too? That way if tanks come rolling up to our houses we can defend ourselves against them, too!
      Believe it or not, there are people out there who publicly state crap like that and other people who believe them!

      1. idamag October 12, 2017

        You left out dirty bombs and hand grenades.

        1. dpaano October 13, 2017

          I have “dirty bombs,” but they’re just plastic bags of my doggie doo doo! Does that count?

          1. idamag October 13, 2017

            A dirty bomb is what you have and also a nuclear bomb small enough to carry in a purse or suitcase.

      2. dpaano October 13, 2017

        Makes me want to get a nuclear bomb to keep at my house for protection…..just a thought!

        1. Thornton October 14, 2017

          THAT made me chuckle. But would we have to worry about the radiation factor? HEHEHEHEHEHEHE. Love you………Thornton

  2. idamag October 12, 2017

    I would beg to differ. They are dead. They are not famous, they are nfamous. Getting every little detail out there might help in determining more about where the danger lies.

    Reply
  3. PrecipitousDrop October 12, 2017

    When we deliberately ignore or suppress relevant information about heinous crimes, we normalize it. We become desensitized to the horror.
    Steve Chapman lists a half dozen mass shootings. Of his many examples, only one perpetrator made a passing reference to the kind of weird celebrity Mr. Chapman abhors. What motivated the others? Wouldn’t we be better served by the media if we focused on the majority? Wouldn’t we be better served by dragging the full names of the shooters through the sewer every time they were mentioned? Wouldn’t we be better served by forever scarring them, marking them with the full scope and weight of disgust they have earned? Mass killers are monsters. They become less evil when omitted from reportage.

    Reply
  4. dpaano October 13, 2017

    I often wonder what would happen if our media totally ignored Trump! I bet he’d have a coronary if he doesn’t see his name in the news, good OR bad! Hey, it’s a thought. Let’s just ignore him and see what happens. Maybe if we don’t publicize his signing of Executive Orders, etc., he’ll stop (wishful thinking on my part, but still an idea)!!

    Reply

Leave a Comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.