- Chinese hackers stole ‘huge quantities’ of sensitive data on Israel’s Iron Dome
- House unveils bill to speed deportations of illegal immigrant children
- Californians protest middle school for hiring white man to teach cultural studies
- Killer’s sentencing overturned because mother couldn’t find seat in courtroom
- Hillary: ‘dead broke’ comment was ‘inartful,’ but insists it was ‘accurate’
- Fla. mom arrested for allowing 7-year-old son to walk to park alone
- Appeals court upholds Obamacare tax as constitutional
- As fighting in Gaza rages on, Kerry battles hapless bumbler perception
- New Englander Scott Brown turns his gaze to the U.S. border crisis
- Toronto’s Rob Ford takes rehabbed self to kids’ playground for political props
HARPER: Newsrooms make tough calls in covering mass murders
Question of the Day
The replays of the infamous YouTube video and the excerpts from the manifesto of the Santa Barbara killer underline an ethical debate news organizations should have: How much coverage should murderers get?
News organizations cannot simply ignore events like those last weekend in California. But journalists can downplay the attention the killer gets. For example, I don’t intend to use any of the names of mass murderers in this column.
Reporters argue that readers and viewers want to know why someone committed such egregious acts. That’s certainly true for part of the public. But I think many others would like greater emphasis on the victims.
Precedents exist for some forms of self-censorship. For example, journalists can legally reveal the names of rape victims, but most news organizations choose not to do so. After 9/11, most news organizations eventually decided not to use the video of the attacks except after a review from top editors.
If you look at recent examples of mass murders in Aurora, Newtown and elsewhere, the killers suffered from mental illness and were consciously looking to gain notoriety.
Even though the evidence of copycat killers is only anecdotal, a respected journal, “Homicide Studies,” criticized the media for their sensational coverage of the more dramatic mass murders, which, in fact, make up a small percentage of such events.
“There is a definite downside to media overexposure,” the journal said in its December edition, “and that is the possibility that some like-minded and obscure individual will see an opportunity for recognition.”
The extensive media coverage tends to make people think the number of mass murders in the U.S. has increased. In fact, an analysis in USA Today showed that incidents have remained the same over much of the past decade. According to the examination of various databases, 137 people died in 30 mass killings in 2013. That is roughly the same as the rate since 2006, which counts an average of 147 victims in 29 mass killings each year. The information was not intended to minimize the pain and suffering of the victims’ families. Instead, it was to demonstrate that the media tended to focus on the sensational and the emotional tragedies rather than the actual trend in mass murders.
“Mass violence carried out in broad view, often with a deranged gunman bent on sending some sort of message, horrifies the public and draws intense media coverage that far exceeds the violence with smaller numbers of victims or in homes or other private places,” the newspaper wrote. USA Today also noted that these killings accounted for roughly 1 percent of all murders nationally.
Those that received far less publicity but were far more common, the newspaper found, involved family killings, which made up just over half of the mass murders in the country. A mass murder is defined as an incident involving the death of at least four people. Oftentimes, the killer experienced long-term depression. Also, a recent event, such as a divorce, the loss of a job or concern about money can trigger the killer’s actions.
As someone who covered one of the largest mass murders in history at Jonestown, Guyana, I have thought a lot about how the media should report on such tragic events. It’s time to take a hard look at how we cover these killings. I believe the news media should create policies to limit the use of sensational videos and killers’ manifestos, which may increase readership or viewership, but simply give notoriety to those who commit these heinous crimes. That would be a good start for more responsible news coverage.
• Christopher Harper is a professor at Temple University. He worked for more than 20 years at the Associated Press, Newsweek, ABC News and “20/20.” He can be contacted at email@example.com. Twitter: @charper51.
About the Author
Christopher Harper is a professor of journalism at Temple University. He worked for The Associated Press, Newsweek, ABC News and “20/20” for more than 20 years. He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- HARPER: A liberal star who embodied conservative values
- HARPER: Media should be more skeptical of academic work
- HARPER: A lack of coverage when media giants misbehave
- HARPER: A justice's argument overridden by a media agenda
- HARPER: For political junkies, a trio of books to kick off 2016 presidential campaign
TWT Video Picks
Get Breaking Alerts
- Boehner rules out impeachment: 'Scam started by Democrats'
- Smugglers, rainstorm combine to poke holes in border fence
- GOP Senate candidate: Obama needs to visit Central America
- Hillary Clinton: I was indeed 'dead broke,' but shouldn't have said so
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
- Hillary Clinton: Forget Obama, George W. Bush made her 'proud to be an American'
- Appeals court upholds Obamacare tax as constitutional
- Rush Limbaugh: 'There is no journalism anymore'
- D.C. seeks to stay judge's order allowing gun owners to carry in public
- Border surge puts Obama legacy on immigration at stake