PDA

View Full Version : When is a U.S. Mass Shooting Event Not Treated (by Media) as a Mass Shooting Event?



Alistair
March 12 2013, 03:07:39 PM
When it occurs inside one of our major urban centers, and involves predominantly African American perpetrators and/or victims.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/11-hurt-shooting-dc-apartment-building-18702482

Lets be clear, had such an event involved whites, or occured outside an urban center, this event would be leading every news feed for at least a week.

Instead, it's backpaged, as is almost all the daily violence in New York, DC, Chicago, LA and Detroit (amongst others).

If we're to have a real discussion of (non-suicide/non-accident) gun violence, perhaps we should focus on where most of the actual gun violence occurs, and by whom it is waged and upon whom it is inflicted.

NoirAvlaa
March 12 2013, 03:33:09 PM
In before this turns in a another us gun debate and is locked.

E - my bad... Just inb4lock.

Stahpatalk

Synapse
March 12 2013, 06:13:11 PM
Absolutely right. The double standard we follow in reporting such incidents is ridiculous.

Tarminic
March 12 2013, 06:33:08 PM
Instead, it's backpaged, as is almost all the daily violence in New York, DC, Chicago, LA and Detroit (amongst others).
That's the heart of the issue. The locations and people affected by gang violence rarely surprise anyone, and because it's so predictable, no one cares unless it personally affects them. It's the most mundane form of murder.

But more "random" mass shootings - ones that could happen to them or their families, that gets people's attention.

EDIT: Oh, and about 90% of the viewing audience doesn't give a shit about black people.

Cassiuss
March 12 2013, 06:58:24 PM
Op, so your issue is with American journalism or American news corporations or both? While I agree this double standard is ridiculous, it's less than shocking either.
How in the fuck are News corps supposed sensationalize that there was another mass shooting in the da' hood when everyone who reads the newspapers aka white people just shrug and think it doesn't affect them.

They don't care about those communities, for the most part they're still segregated communities known as Projects.

Anyways, my point is news outlets aren't in the habit sensationalizing and fear mongering what is already obvious to everyone.

Zeekar
March 13 2013, 12:42:15 AM
Op, so your issue is with American journalism or American news corporations or both? While I agree this double standard is ridiculous, it's less than shocking either.
How in the fuck are News corps supposed sensationalize that there was another mass shooting in the da' hood when everyone who reads the newspapers aka white people just shrug and think it doesn't affect them.

They don't care about those communities, for the most part they're still segregated communities known as Projects.

Anyways, my point is news outlets aren't in the habit sensationalizing and fear mongering what wont help paper sales.

fyp

Sometimes they sensationalize things that are completely obvious to most population yet it helps with the sales...

Keorythe
March 13 2013, 07:35:50 AM
No one died. That's actually pretty important for a news hook. If all 13 got slaughtered then it might have been picked up. If it bleeds, it reads.

Victoria Steckersaurus
March 13 2013, 06:29:27 PM
We like to blame the media for biased coverage (that could be its own thread) but the media follows a simple rule: Give the People What They Want.

They will report on the stories that generate ad revenue, which means they will report on the stories that attract attention. Random Urban Shooting #357 isn't going to attract attention if the body count is under 20, or it hits a school or government building.

In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, various right-wing commentators blamed media bias for the lack of coverage of similar events which where a mass shooting was prevented by a bystander with a concealed carry. It's not media bias - it's that people aren't as interested because not as many people died. So it gets a single article rather than pages and pages of coverage.

Change will occur if people ever decide they should care about the little stories rather than only watching the bloodbaths.

Keorythe
March 14 2013, 02:43:43 AM
We like to blame the media for biased coverage (that could be its own thread) but the media follows a simple rule: Give the People What They Want.

They will report on the stories that generate ad revenue, which means they will report on the stories that attract attention. Random Urban Shooting #357 isn't going to attract attention if the body count is under 20, or it hits a school or government building.

In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, various right-wing commentators blamed media bias for the lack of coverage of similar events which where a mass shooting was prevented by a bystander with a concealed carry. It's not media bias - it's that people aren't as interested because not as many people died. So it gets a single article rather than pages and pages of coverage.

Change will occur if people ever decide they should care about the little stories rather than only watching the bloodbaths.

Yes and no. The example you give is actually a decent example. The incident you might be referencing was a guy who decided he was going to open fire in a Mall with an AK-47. A CCL holder stopped him but this wasn't reported until later. The name and picture of the mass shooter was published quickly. The guy that stopped him was not. It's hard enough to find his name let alone his picture.

The mass shooter becomes a rockstar overnight. The hero is pretty much unknown and only smaller conservative news outlets pick up his side of the story. I wouldn't mind some public shaming instead of the excuses they tend to make for the criminal.

Nordstern
March 25 2013, 08:17:57 PM
No one died. That's actually pretty important for a news hook. If all 13 got slaughtered then it might have been picked up. If it bleeds, it reads.
Was going to make this point as well.

A CCL holder stopped him but this wasn't reported until later. The name and picture of the mass shooter was published quickly. The guy that stopped him was not. It's hard enough to find his name let alone his picture.

The mass shooter becomes a rockstar overnight. The hero is pretty much unknown and only smaller conservative news outlets pick up his side of the story. I wouldn't mind some public shaming instead of the excuses they tend to make for the criminal.
Some heroes don't want to be recognized, like the flight instructors who tipped off the FBI about Zacarias Moussaoui. They don't want the attention from a) randoms, b) the media and/or c) potential enemies.