Two Republicans have proposed a resolution in Congress that calls on the media to change its reporting practices around mass shootings, raising free press concerns from First Amendment advocates and mass violence experts.
U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Columbia, and U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, proposed the resolution that names “irresponsible and sensationalistic” reporting practices as a major factor in the recent rise in mass gun violence across the country, saying that “the media” “give(s) criminals the notoriety and infamy they desire.”
Ogles represents the district where a shooter killed six people, including three children, at the Nashville Covenant School in March.
“Media coverage of a mass public murderer routinely outweighs the coverage of the victims,” the resolution states, adding that “many mass public murderers have researched, studied and idolized past acts of violence using the sensationalistic coverage provided by many media outlets.”
But a push by Congress to tell journalists how to cover incidents of mass violence has garnered concerns from experts for its impact on the First Amendment right of the free press—and the potential harm of limiting coverage on an issue that poses a rare but ever-increasing danger to citizens.
“It’s disappointing to see that the resolution doesn’t distinguish between professional mainstream news media and the rest of the online pack,” said Ken Paulson, director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University and a former editor in chief of USA Today. “The truth is that professional broadcasters and daily newspapers have dramatically cut back coverage of a suspects in favor of focusing on the victims and the gun violence epidemic society is facing.”
Resolution presents First Amendment concerns, Paulson says
A proposal created by government officials advising reporters on how they can report on issues of massive public concern presents immediate First Amendment questions, Paulson said.
He said the perception that news organizations cover mass murders with nigh-salivating levels of voracity is incorrect, and can be proven with one simple, sad truth: there’s now too many incidents to cover.
“(Efforts to cut back on coverage) came about for two reasons: First of all, responsible news organizations do not want to contribute to the problem in any way and have taken steps to ameliorate any possible publicity issues,” he said. “The second reason, though—and this is tragic—is that are mass murders now happen so often that they no longer get the same level of attention from the news media.
“I believe the public sometimes confuses the coverage of unrelenting mass murders with excessive coverage of a single event.”
Even when in-depth coverage does occur, Paulson said, the breadth of coverage is usually due to the varying aspects of the case that present itself after the initial tragedy, like memorials of the victims, court battles in the aftermath, law enforcement failures or other long-term effects.
“Local news coverage of a mass murderer in the community is always going to get more intensive attention due to community interest,” he said. “In the case of the recent school shootings in Nashville, that coverage has also been intensified over the battle for the murderer’s personal writings. When lawsuits get filed or legislation is threatened, that inevitably gets public attention and coverage.”
The Tennessean is among the organizations suing for access to the records, but the news organization has no plans to publish the writings verbatim and has sought to center coverage on public policy, the victims and the community. The news organization, for instance, profiled each of the victims and their contributions and visited dozens of houses of worship following the March shooting to learn how the community was dealing with the tragedy.
Additionally, The Tennessean follows a number of guidelines to ensure thorough, ethical and empathetic reporting of tragedies such as mass shootings. Any coverage discussing the shooter, as per Tennessean guidelines, needs to focus on being “meaningful and explanatory,” rather than lurid. Reporting focuses on motive, contributing factors, red flags and how it could have been avoided, among other issues.
While The Tennessean believes in the news value of naming the shooter, it is often only done on first reference — the perpetrator is then referred to as the “suspect,” “gunman,” or “shooter.” Similarly, any photo of the suspect — if used — will rarely be seen as the main photo headlining the article, and instead be buried in the story where it is relevant but not central.
Who we lost:Victims of Covenant School shooting include daughter of pastor, head of school
What does the resolution seek to do?
Drawing primarily on a research article titled “Mass Shootings and the Media Contagion Effect,” written by Jennifer Johnston and Andrew Joy of Western New Mexico University, Ogles and Lee outline a number of changes they recommend to news organizations.
Recommendations include requests that news media not name or publish photos of “suspected public murderers” and not promote any particular “ideology or public policy change.” Instead, the resolution calls on the media to focus on “prioritizing coverage” of heroics “of any law enforcement, first responders or bystanders”
“There is an epidemic of evil people motivated by perverse beliefs to wreak havoc on the lives of innocent people,” Ogles, who has taken criticism for posing for a Christmas card with his family holding guns, said in a statement about the resolution. “Just a few short months ago, the Covenant School in Nashville was robbed of six precious lives in a horrific act of violence. The media was quick to report on the incident, combing for every gritty detail that could be uncovered about the shooter and (their) motivation. This resolution simply asks the media to do their work responsibly and stop sensationalizing the despicable acts of mass murderers.”
Lee agreed in the statement.
“By refusing to give mass murderers the attention they desire, we can effectively combat the ‘media contagion effect’ that fuels more violence,” he said. “Research shows that such irresponsible coverage can ignite violence and perpetuate a dangerous cycle of copycat killers. To break this pattern, we must advocate for a more balanced and ethical approach to reporting violent incidents, denying these cowardly perpetrators the spotlight they crave and ultimately preventing future occurrences of mass murder.”
The statement also cited Canadian clinical psychologist and right-wing internet personality Jordan Peterson as an expert on the issue, who said that society can “choose” to make mass shooting “exceedingly rare” if “the press and anyone else who has the attention of a wide swath of the public” stops reporting on mass shootings in ways done previously.
A number of factors at play in shootings, says gun violence expert
Jaclyn Schildkraut, the executive director of the Rockefeller Institute of Government Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium, said that the research article forming the basis of the resolution’s focus on news reporting as the main issue was misguided.
“With all due respect, they didn’t actually do any evaluation or data collection — this is more of a review of the state of the literature,” she said. “While there has been research done previously looking at ‘media contagion effect,’ it could never possibly be a causal relationship. It’s correlation at best.”
Schildkraut, who has been studying mass shootings since 2008, is a leader in the young-but-steadily-growing field of mass violence researchers.
“It’s very difficult to say what is the ‘biggest’ factor, or to quantify or to rank order any factor (leading to mass violence),” she said. “Mass shootings are extremely complex, multi-dimensional issues. And you can’t say that one thing is more important than another.”
According to Schildkraut, mass shootings often involve three main correlative factors: access to firearms, issues of mental health, and presence of violent or exploitative media.
“So you can’t say that one thing is more important than another thing,” she said. “Because the reality is we could debate this all day long — for example, if this individual didn’t have a firearm, would then he or she not commit a mass shooting? Now they could commit a bombing, they could commit a stabbing or something. Is it the access (to weapons) or the health?”
Schildkraut does agree there is correlation between media coverage of a shooting and the rate of violence or threats of violence in the aftermath. According to her, research done following the 2018 mass shooting in Parkland, Florida found that in the 30 days following the shooting, during peak news coverage, a notable increase in the number of threats was seen in the area.
But that still does not equal causation.
“If you have a situation where coverage is higher, then the potential for more shootings is also higher. That’s a correlation,” she said. “But unless somebody says, ‘I sat here and watched Fox News or CNN for seven hours, and because of that coverage, I went out and committed a mass shooting’— that is the only way you would have a causal effect.”
Because of this, Schildkraut believes the focus on limiting news reporter’s ability to cover such an incident is focused on the wrong aspect of this tragic trend.
“I think that when we are seeking to address the broader issue of firearm violence of mass shootings, we can’t pretend that the firearms are not part of that conversation,” she said. “By the same token, there’s a lot of other issues that we have to also be cognizant of the seeking to address.”
According to Schildkraut, the whole system should be questioned.
“There are so many things that lead up to that individual pulling the trigger,” she said. “What are the underlying grievances or motivations for committing the shooting? How did they acquire the firearms? Were they members of a prohibited category? The challenge at that point is not the firearm, but the system that let him acquire the firearm in the first place.”
More:Exclusive: Thousands of cases not yet linked in TBI background check system for gun purchases
She does agree with Ogles’ and Lee’s resolution on one aspect, however: not naming the perpetrator.
“Continuing to perpetuate their name and likeness through the media is a two-fold problem,” she said. “Number one, you’re rewarding people for killing a lot of other people by giving them exactly what they want. And number two, at the same time, we’re also telling other like-minded individuals ‘Hey, if you go out and do the same thing, we’ll also make you a celebrity.’
“That’s not saying that the media are causing shootings, however. What I’m saying is we know that there are ways to de incentivize the individuals who are perpetrating it. I think somewhere in here, we need to find a middle ground. I don’t think that we can just go blame the media for shootings: even if we could, it’s likely the lowest hanging fruit in this conversation.”
The USA Today Network – Tennessee’s coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
Have a story to tell? Reach Angele Latham by email at [email protected], by phone at 931-623-9485, or follow her on Twitter at @angele_latham
