Whatever else, we know: attention on the killer on his terms helps inspire the next one. Or focus on methods. Don't. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/opinion/the-virginia-shooter-wanted-fame-lets-not-give-it-to-him.html …pic.twitter.com/u9wYXqQBNS
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
It is perfectly possible to cover such a horrible event without excessive focus on the killer, or exact methods in painstaking detail.
Mass killers come in a variety motivations, but they all want ATTENTION ON THEIR TERMS. Zero reason why we should comply so easily.
There is no need for videos of panicked people on loop, or the killer's face endlessly flashed to have a sensible coverage or discussion.
The road map to sensible coverage is possible, and I wrote about it in multiple pieces. Need editorial guidance—the opposite of censorship.pic.twitter.com/aiBG6K8h15
Understanding the role sensationalized attention plays doesn't mean ignoring other factors. Of course the world is multi-causal.
Many have been writing this for years. Zero headway. Media will talk about anything but media. People on social media better at restraint.
Media: the next potential mass shooter is watching the current media coverage intently. Right now. Your coverage is a factor in this crisis.
Yes, excessive focus on individual history is an illusion of knowledge and, sadly, a contributor to the problem.https://twitter.com/aj7773108/status/914852534380105729 …
More powerful example of influence of role modeling, norms, cultural imagery is that men commit mass shootings, women do not.
This is like saying cop shows and movies inspire serial killers. I don't agree but respect your position
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.