Media Coverage of Mass Murders and the Contagion Effect.

[jockmcplop]

I wasn't sure which forum to post this in, its going to cover a few different areas but I think the academy should work fine.

Media Coverage of Mass Killing/Terrorist Attacks
I want to split this post into 2 sections:
1: What effect do the specific parts of media coverage of these events have on the likelihood of future events?
2: What effect does media coverage have on victim populations?

I will try to source academic papers where possible and use experts to back up my theory which is:
"Media coverage of terrorist attacks and mass murders tends to encourage further attacks, while exposing victim populations to collective trauma which has a serious and statistically significant effect on mental health."

First I want to say that my intention in posting this is not blaming the media per say, but simply encouraging people to ask questions, and maybe investigate whether or not the media is acting responsibly (ie do they even think/care about this stuff or are they only chasing rating/sales).
Its also important to note that for section 1, I will be taking various studies that do not answer the specific question and extrapolating/making assumptions based on them. This is because I can't find any specific studies that answer the question at hand.

OK so part 1

1: What effect do the specific parts of media coverage of these events have on the likelihood of future events?

The first study I want to refer to on this topic was authored by Sherry Towers, and it concerns the 'contagion' effect. This is the idea that a very large percentage of mass murders in the USA are influenced by previous mass murders. Interestingly, this relates to the main topic because they used high profile attacks such as school shootings as their data set.
The full study can be found for free here:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0117259

Here is the abstract, taken directly from the linked site:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Background

Several past studies have found that media reports of suicides and homicides appear to subsequently increase the incidence of similar events in the community, apparently due to the coverage planting the seeds of ideation in at-risk individuals to commit similar acts.
Methods

Here we explore whether or not contagion is evident in more high-profile incidents, such as school shootings and mass killings (incidents with four or more people killed). We fit a contagion model to recent data sets related to such incidents in the US, with terms that take into account the fact that a school shooting or mass murder may temporarily increase the probability of a similar event in the immediate future, by assuming an exponential decay in contagiousness after an event.
Conclusions

We find significant evidence that mass killings involving firearms are incented by similar events in the immediate past. On average, this temporary increase in probability lasts 13 days, and each incident incites at least 0.30 new incidents (p = 0.0015). We also find significant evidence of contagion in school shootings, for which an incident is contagious for an average of 13 days, and incites an average of at least 0.22 new incidents (p = 0.0001). All p-values are assessed based on a likelihood ratio test comparing the likelihood of a contagion model to that of a null model with no contagion. On average, mass killings involving firearms occur approximately every two weeks in the US, while school shootings occur on average monthly. We find that state prevalence of firearm ownership is significantly associated with the state incidence of mass killings with firearms, school shootings, and mass shootings.

This study doesn't explicitly (or, for that matter, implicitly) state that the media has an effect here, I am making a pretty large assumption. However, the duration of the contagion effect, 13 days, seems to imply that media coverage, which usually completely dies out after between 1 week and 2 weeks, may be at least partly responsible. This doesn't even begin to answer the question as to how or why this is true (if it is) though.
The study is definitely as useful one though, it provides a basis for the whole first part of my theory. These shootings don't come from nowhere, they are influenced by what is going on around us, even if they are perpetrated by a completely insane person.

The second study I want to refer to is about suicide. This is a study into how media coverage of suicide has an effect on the real world suicide rate, and how this can be addressed when specific measures are taken.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...v057p00238.pdf

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

CONCLUSION
As anticipated from social learning theory, the greater theamount of coverage of suicide in the media, the greater theincrease in suicide rate. The meta analysis showed: (1) studiesincluding stories airing on just one TV network were 84% lessapt to find a copycat effect; (2) studies based on television stories,which contain less detail than newspaper stories, were87% less likely to report a copycat effect than studies based onnewspapers.Differential identification theory received strong support1) studies measuring the presence of stories concerningentertainers and political celebrities are more than 14 timesmore likely to find a copycat effect than their counterparts; (B)studies based on real suicides are 4.03 times more likely touncover copycat effects than studies based on fictional stories.The degree of copycat effects may be seriously underestimatedin most research since most research has not: (1)matched the age/gender of the model with the age/gender ofthe observer; (2) controlled for nationality of model andobserver; and (3) controlled for marital status of the model.
Prevention
Recent events in Austria and Switzerland show that suicideprevention organizations can change the quantity and/orquality of news reporting on suicide. Hence the media maycontribute to the reduction of suicide. However, it appears thatthe greatest reduction in copycat suicide may sometimes comefrom reducing the sheer quantity of news on suicide asopposed to the perceived quality of news reporting.

The greatest reduction in copycat suicide comes from reducing the sheer quantity of news on suicide, not the quality.
Now consider this in relation to the contagion mass killing effect. If there is a huge mass killing and the media is all over it for days, I would say the quantity of news about that killing is huge. This is surely MUCH more likely to lead to copycat killings, or killings inspired by the original. With the relatively recent phenomenon of 24 hour news channels, social media as the new news outlets to which we are always connected etc. my question would be does this imply a special journalistic responsibility to handle these events in a certain way?
I am reminded of this video that always circulates social media when there's a mass killing (from Charlie Brooker's excellent Newswipe):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'm quite surprised that there isn't alot of information on this specific subject, studies and whatnot and we're left to make assumptions or study it ourselves (which I obviously don't have the time, money or attention span to do).
Anyway, the interview at the end of the Charlie Brooker piece was with a forensic psychologist, Dr. Park Dietz. Here's an article in the independent about his work, including his statements that appear to back up (and in fact, were my starting point) for this post:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...ds-412116.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

He takes an equally severe attitude to news shows. Twice, he appeared on CNN in the middle of a sensational murder case and warned the network that if it didn't tone down their coverage it would lead to further crimes. On another occasion, he told a production team from 20/20, a magazine show on ABC, that he would not participate in a programme reconstructing a workplace shooting because he feared their approach would encourage copycats. The programme went out on a Friday; by the following Tuesday there had been two fresh mass murders in other parts of the United States.

I will post the second part separately tomorrow or later tonight because i'm tired

[Copperknickers II]

Imagine if the media stopped covering mass attacks. The Right would have a field day! It would be a pretty sure way of getting Donald Trump elected for one thing. Frankly I think the Far Right is a considerably larger threat to Western society than Islamic terrorists and school shooters, especially since it's partially Far Right attacks on Muslims which are helping cause the polarised atmosphere which leads to more terrorism.

[jockmcplop]

Imagine if the media stopped covering mass attacks. The Right would have a field day! It would be a pretty sure way of getting Donald Trump elected for one thing. Frankly I think the Far Right is a considerably larger threat to Western society than Islamic terrorists and school shooters, especially since it's partially Far Right attacks on Muslims which are helping cause the polarised atmosphere which leads to more terrorism.

Its hard to imagine what would happen if the media stopped covering terrorist attacks. They wouldn't be doing their job for a start!
I guess what i'm arguing for is a much less sensationalist approach to it. Sexing this stuff with Hollywood style language, recreations, in depth profiles of killers etc. only serves to strengthen and recruit for the far right, as well as encouraging further attacks.

[athanaric]

Its hard to imagine what would happen if the media stopped covering terrorist attacks. They wouldn't be doing their job for a start!

Agreed, they have to.

I guess what i'm arguing for is a much less sensationalist approach to it.

Naturally. It should all be fact-based.

Sexing this stuff with Hollywood style language, recreations, in depth profiles of killers etc. only serves to strengthen and recruit for the far right, as well as encouraging further attacks.

Most importantly, they shouldn't lie about it or distort facts. For example, denying an Islamist motivation or connection when it obviously exists.

[bigdaddy1204]

Completely agree, jockmcplop.

If the media didn't report ISIS style atrocities, there would be no point in doing them. By giving such overwhelming news coverage, the media are giving the killers exactly what they want. It also creates a vastly distorted public perception of the issues, such as the likelihood of being killed. Statistically, you are more likely to be admitted to hospital for injuries caused by paper, or by falling over in your own bathtub, than you are to be killed by a terrorist. This relentless media circus of tragedy simply destroys people's peace of mind, causes unnecessary stress and depression and for what? Just to increase their ratings/circulation. It sucks.

I've seen scientific studies that suggest people who cut out all news report markedly higher levels of life satisfaction, happiness and general well being. That's why I tend to be very selective in what news I consume, and keep my intake within limits. Binging on bad news is just as ruinous for your health as stuffing your face with unhealthy foods 24/7. We already know to cut out junk food; many of us have not yet learned to also cut out junk news. There needs to be greater awareness of this problem. Well done to the OP for sharing this post.

For example, denying an Islamist motivation or connection when it obviously exists.

The real problem is the opposite: news channels claiming an Islamist motivation or connection when there clearly is none. It would be more accurate to report them as what they are: a gang of criminals, with a sprinkling of militant Wahhabists to give them a false pretence of being religious. I reject the notion that their 'ideology' (wahhabism) is based on Islam. As has already been pointed out thousands of times before, the actions of such groups directly contradict Islam; they cannot, therefore, be legitimately considered Muslim. The faith is defined by actions. It is these that determine whether someone is Muslim or not.

[Cope]

The real problem is the opposite: news channels claiming an Islamist motivation or connection when there clearly is none. It would be more accurate to report them as what they are: a gang of criminals, with a sprinkling of militant Wahhabists to give them a false pretence of being religious. I reject the notion that their 'ideology' (wahhabism) is based on Islam. As has already been pointed out thousands of times before, the actions of such groups directly contradict Islam; they cannot, therefore, be legitimately considered Muslim. The faith is defined by actions. It is these that determine whether someone is Muslim or not.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

If one were to apply this logic more broadly, one could argue that historical Islamic Empires were not Islamic, that historical Christian Empires were not Christian and that every Abrahmic conqueror was godless. You might further revise the last 1500 years of Eurasian history by contending that in their failure to conform to popularized 21st century religious interpretations, the overwhelming majority of pre-Postmodern Abrahmic rulers, both spiritual and temporal, were Charlatans.

Not only would you be wrong, but you still wouldn't prevent people from committing acts of religiously sponsored violence.

[jockmcplop]

Please try and stay on topic, there's hundreds of other threads to discuss Islam.

[Cope]

Please try and stay on topic, there's hundreds of other threads to discuss Islam.

My above comment is contextually relevant insofar as it begins to approach the existential denialism that a variety of mainstream media outlets adhere to. The baseless narrative spun by a significant proportion of Western politicians and established publications that diversity and mass-migration have necessarily positive effects is falling apart. Radical Islam's incompatibility with Western liberalism is a circle which cannot be squared. The suggestion of the poster to whom I was originally responding seemed to be that the news-media should first simply ignore the reality of radical Islamism, and second that it should convince itself and its readership that radical Islamic terrorists are not in fact Islamic. In short, if we all delude ourselves thoroughly enough, this problem will somehow solve itself. He seems to be missing the irony that it was and indeed is delusions of this caliber that enable the established media and politicians to convince Western electorates that not only is expansive multiculturalism desirable, but that those who oppose it ought to be perpetually shamed into silence. If Blairite "liberals" - who on a political level promoted multiculturalism to enhance the left wing voter base - had been more concerned with the social and cultural cohesion of their respective realms than with moral posturing and vanity projects then Europe could have protected itself from the spread of dangerous ideologies within its borders.

[jockmcplop]

Yes this thread only took 2 posts to predictably diverge into the same argument that happens on every single thread in the mudpit.
Not your fault epic_fail you were responding to another post but none of this has anything to do with the OP.
I'm not trying to be pedantic or annoying but I put some effort into researching the OP and its frustrating to see it instantly twisted to support other posters' pre-existing wish to have a debate about Islam and spread it all over the forum. I'm trying to start interesting discussion that you can't have in the mudpit because of this kind of thing.

[Blastoise Groudon]

Imagine if the media stopped covering mass attacks. The Right would have a field day! It would be a pretty sure way of getting Donald Trump elected for one thing. Frankly I think the Far Right is a considerably larger threat to Western society than Islamic terrorists and school shooters, especially since it's partially Far Right attacks on Muslims which are helping cause the polarised atmosphere which leads to more terrorism.

But at least the terrorists would be denied the larger platform that they are so craving.

[Cope]

Yes this thread only took 2 posts to predictably diverge into the same argument that happens on every single thread in the mudpit.
Not your fault epic_fail you were responding to another post but none of this has anything to do with the OP.
I'm not trying to be pedantic or annoying but I put some effort into researching the OP and its frustrating to see it instantly twisted to support other posters' pre-existing wish to have a debate about Islam and spread it all over the forum. I'm trying to start interesting discussion that you can't have in the mudpit because of this kind of thing.

The nature of discussions is that they diverge. The base premise of your original post - that the media is culpable in encouraging further terrorist attacks - is true only if one concludes that political decisions over the last decade have been influenced by significant elements of the mainstream press naively advocating, often ceaselessly, in favor of an unchecked multicultural Europe and mass-migration. The notion that the news-media promotes further Islamist attacks by exposing them is, in my view, a degenerate and cynical position. It is derived from the desire to suppress discontent with the social engineers who both created and inflamed the cultural tensions in Europe and the Middle East - tensions which are responsible for the continent's current predicament. Arguing that people ought be kept in state of ignorance so as to "no-platform" radical Islamism is nothing other than a regressive effort to conceal the catastrophic failures of liberal-left establishments and their supporters who created the present milieu. These people want to avoid facing up to their critical ideological deficiencies and the unsuitability of their continued role in shaping the future.

[jockmcplop]

ep1c fail please stop, the thread is more about mass killings than terror attacks, if you had read the OP you might even have noticed that the studies I referenced didn't use terror attacks as their data sets, and I didn't make any generalizations about such attacks. You just assumed that because you came into the thread wanting to rage about the left wing and muslims.
End of conversation, if you want to have the last word because you feel it makes you correct, go ahead.

But at least the terrorists would be denied the larger platform that they are so craving.

This may be true, but as I said before the media have to do their job.
I guess what I am arguing for is responsible journalism. 24 hour coverage of mass killings that goes on for weeks is inevitably going to lead to more mass killings. It doesn't have to be this way at all. The public can remained informed without having brutal violence shoved down their throats 24/7. No wonder everyone is so angry all the time.

[Blastoise Groudon]

ep1c fail please stop, the thread is more about mass killings than terror attacks, if you had read the OP you might even have noticed that the studies I referenced didn't use terror attacks as their data sets, and I didn't make any generalizations about such attacks. You just assumed that because you came into the thread wanting to rage about the left wing and muslims.
End of conversation, if you want to have the last word because you feel it makes you correct, go ahead.



This may be true, but as I said before the media have to do their job.
I guess what I am arguing for is responsible journalism. 24 hour coverage of mass killings that goes on for weeks is inevitably going to lead to more mass killings. It doesn't have to be this way at all. The public can remained informed without having brutal violence shoved down their throats 24/7. No wonder everyone is so angry all the time.

That's exactly what I believe. They can still do their jobs without helping the terrorists unintentionally with their 24/7 coverage.

[bigdaddy1204]

If the media didn't report ISIS style atrocities, there would be no point in doing them.

I'm going to re-post the above quote from my earlier post, because I think it addresses posts made both by the OP and by ep1c_fail.

Excessive media coverage is making the situation worse by encouraging so-called "Copycat" attacks, which is prettymuch what the dude in the video says. Reporting these events less would undermine the groups that use these tactics; the whole point of these attacks is to stir up media coverage and gain notoriety. If we deny them the coverage, there will no longer be any point in them doing it. The result would be fewer of these incidents, meaning less people would die. And we can all agree that would be a good thing.

[VINC.XXIII]

French tv BFMTV and french paper Le Monde(center-left to left sensibilty) has decided to not publish the Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray murderers' pictures, to very prevent passions(from haters as praisers).

http://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medi...5341_3236.html

[jockmcplop]

French tv BFMTV and french paper Le Monde(center-left to left sensibilty) has decided to not publish the Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray murderers' pictures, to very prevent passions(from haters as praisers).

http://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medi...5341_3236.html

This is exactly the way forwards. Confine the story to the facts, not the gory details, keep details of the killer out of the story at all costs. That way desperate mentally ill people without a voice won't see mass murder as way to be seen and heard by the world.

[DaVinci]

This is exactly the way forwards. Confine the story to the facts, not the gory details, keep details of the killer out of the story at all costs. That way desperate mentally ill people without a voice won't see mass murder as way to be seen and heard by the world.

That's currently in the discussion in the media-world of Germany, and many mere serious press-houses follow that.

[athanaric]

This is exactly the way forwards. Confine the story to the facts, not the gory details, keep details of the killer out of the story at all costs. That way desperate mentally ill people without a voice won't see mass murder as way to be seen and heard by the world.

Not sure how that's gonna work. The public has a right to know about the killer's motives, and about his or her ethnic and/or religious background, particularly if those are tied to the motive.
I do agree that we don't need a full biography made public (or a philosophical interpretation thereof), or any interviews with people who bullied some guy and after he ran amok, put up signs saying "WHY?11 [oh the humaniteeh]". Not sure what could be done to prevent opportunistic soulless s à la "Sun" or "Bild" to exploit every last detail for profit, though.
One measure to deter terrorists would be to deny them any funerary rites associated with their particular faith, and dispose of their bodies in the most insulting ways possible.

Media influence is just one small cog in the machinery. There's lots of other factors. Not having ethnic and religious tensions would help a lot. But that mostly accounts for terrorism. Bullying, for instance, occurs in pretty much all schools, regardless of ethnic makeup. Bullies will always find a reason.
In the end, you can keep terrorism down to a certain level if you implement the right policies, but there's never going to be absolute safety from good old-fashioned nutjobs.

[VINC.XXIII]

Honnestly trying to remember what can be gory or super trashy regarding terrorist attacks in France, I remember nothing especially shocking, french TV is not the place where you can find videos of beheading...
Secondly, State censorship about in vivo and/or post-mortem tortures in Bataclan(and subsequent french medias covering up, so from 13/11/2015) proves that many efforts are already performed to prevent peoples to get all details(which were very gory I agreed).

And details matter, killing someone is different from killing someone and torturing him/her. Take a cannibal, you can't convert his crime into something else, and if peoples get "inspired" by that, its really we have a big issue with that kind of psychotics.