Tuesday, August 6, 2019

Limit news coverage of mass shootings



Overall gun deaths and mass shootings have very little to do with each other. I personally would favor stronger gun laws -- but not based on mass shooting incidents.

<This graphic> from 538.com describes the situation quite well.

Mass shootings are a fraction of one slender column in this big array of gun deaths. To be fair, if we restricted our attention to "clearly unjust gun deaths" then it would be a somewhat bigger piece. Two-thirds of the gun deaths are suicides. It's a good guess that a majority of the deaths from police shooting civilians are justified -- armed people who were threatening the police or others. And not all but many of the young men killed by guns are in gangs and have signed up for this possibility by joining gangs.

But with all that removed, and allowing for a few more mass deaths since 2016, it's still maybe 2% of the total for a year? The way to address the other 98% as well as that 2% might be with gun ownership restrictions. But the world's outrage is all focused on the 2%.

What we have is a media phenomenon. They are irresistibly drawn to dramatic stories of this kind, even though they will leave unreported a thousand simple one-person gun homicides. The media are drawn to it because people are drawn to watch the coverage. Crucially, a few young men in an antisocial frame of mind are drawn to watch the coverage too and inspired to get their brief moment of fame in the same way. It is a cycle that feeds on itself.

My claim is that we as a society aren't actually concerned about the number of people killed, we are concerned about the news stories. If there were fewer news stories we would be happier. We might not think that, but that's how we behave.

The way to reduce these reports (and ultimately, the violence itself, hopefully) is through the coverage and consumption of news, not the availability of guns. If we ignored issues of press freedom, we could pass a law limiting the coverage to bare bones facts and no sensationalism. We could prohibit publication of any images, still or video, as well as sensational text. Instead, just a text account of the location of the crime, number and names of victims. We seem able to suppress identities and lurid details for sexual abuse victims, maybe we could harness some of the same energy? Perhaps we could make such images illegal as we do with child pornography. Without the oxygen of publicity, such crimes would start declining.

That might be a hard sell, and press freedom really is worth a lot. But citizens could unite in expressing their opposition to news outlets carrying sensational coverage and then organize boycotts of the advertisers. Are people willing to turn the spotlight back on themselves for the role they play in these shootings? Giving ratings numbers to outlets that cover these stories sensationally is a clear cause, and a dip in ratings is the way to affect the behavior of news organizations.

Of course, with a video camera in every phone today and the viral video phenomenon, an end run around any such measures is in place. Given that, here's the hard truth about the the way to get a reduction in such news reports. It will happen if they become common enough that they're not interesting news any more. Commentators will passionately tell us that if we ever get used to such things then we're losing our very humanity. But that perspective is from within the bubble of the news mentality. If such incidents became common enough, then the news coverage would go down. The actual murder rate might go up a little, but even if it went up 50% that would be from 2% to 3% of the total, and it still doesn't mean much when the other 97% go unaddressed. And the actual good news: the rate also might go down again, as once the phenomenon is common enough to not be news, fewer perps would be motivated by the news and it could decrease without triggering the opposite reaction of "it's news again".

Have we not lost our humanity in our indifference to the other 97% of clearly unjust gun homicides? Have we lost our humanity in not responding to the inability for ordinary working people to earn a living wage? For the unavailability of health insurance? And worst of all, for the climate change nightmare that is unfolding? Maybe we have, and should ignore sensational mass shootings and focus on those things instead.

The news is a seriously flawed tool if your goal is to decide how to improve the world.

We have a need for another "news" program -- maybe more an "olds" program. I might call it "Boring But Important".

I addressed these same basic issues over a decade ago in <two> <posts> that I think are still entirely valid.


No comments: