Should we give publicity to a mass killer?

By Joe Sheller / Guest Column

I was a bit startled and irritated when I saw the front page of the Oct. 3 edition of the Gazette. There, above the fold at the top of the right side of the front page, was a story about – and picture of – a killer.

It was the shooter who had murdered nine people at an Oregon Community College. After exchanging fire with police, he turned his gun on himself and ended his own life. Thus, he joined a sad, pathetic, sick brotherhood: the legion of misfits who murder strangers in mass quantities.

And I joined the legion of readers grimacing and growling at my local newspaper.

The knee-jerk reactions that seem to follow each such tragedy are becomingly depressingly common. And it’s hard for me to disbelieve the conventional wisdom that our media habits help fuel the rising tide of death.

So what would I prefer the Gazette to do in covering such a story?

In a thoughtful blog post on the issue of how journalists should treat mass killers, former Gazette Editor Steve Buttry wrote: “It’s undeniable that the limelight that journalism provides is an incentive that appeals to mass killers.” (Read the full post at http://bit.ly/buttryblog.)

So this is the question I want to focus on: Did our local paper feed into a media pattern that promotes this kind of psychotic act? Is featuring a photo on its front page and a story about this murderous young man encouraging other twisted isolates to follow in his footsteps?

Do mass murders kill primarily to achieve notoriety?

I commented on Buttry’s blog post to complain about the Gazette story, and he replied that he’s not intending his post to be critical of an individual editor’s choice. He adds that he didn’t come to his current thinking about how the media might be playing into mass murderers’ hands until after he had left the paper.

In his post, Buttry noted that there are all kinds of factors that play into the trend of mass murders. I think he’s correct. Mass killings are not a problem with a single, easy solution.

But Buttry concludes his post with a pointed questions for journalists: “Why is denying the limelight to mass killers a less compelling reason to withhold a name and photo from news stories than protecting the privacy of rape victims or shielding government sources from accountability?”

On the other hand, in an Oct. 2 essay in the Washington Post, writer Phillip Kennicott labels the movement to not name mass killers, known as the “No Notoriety” movement, a “collective spectacle enacted to keep despair at bay.” He sees it as a way to avoid a harder conversation.

In its defense, the Gazette was not alone in the way it played the story. A similar story and mug shot appeared on the front page of the national USA Today section included in the state edition of the Oct. 3 Des Moines Register. Plenty of respected newspapers carried profiles of the killer on Oct. 3, including the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

I’m not a fan of a ritual ban on types of information. It’s too easy for me or anybody to second-guess the judgement of a newspaper and demand that they cover a particular topic in a particular way so that it doesn’t offend me. So, no, much as I despise mass murderers, a “Voldemort strategy” that turns a killer into he-who-must-not-be-named would go too far – it would be Kennicott’s meaningless “collective spectacle.” And no, I don’t think we trash the First Amendment in our justified frustration and rage about this senseless violence.

What can we do? What should the Gazette do or have done?

I can’t deny that the name of the shooter is news. Nor, frankly, do I take much umbrage with the actual Washington Post story that the Gazette reprinted on Oct. 3 – it’s factual, chilling and covers relevant information. So I don’t go quite as far as Buttry – I would not avoid printing the killer’s name.

But I would favor minimizing its use. In the Oct. 3 Gazette, I would have liked a very different placement of the story elements. I don’t think the killer’s mug shot should have been run on the front page. I would go so far as to start just the first two paragraphs of the story at the bottom of page one and then jump, strategically, so that the name wouldn’t even appear in 9 point type on page 1.

So yes, sadly, I agree with running the story. We do need to pay heed even to grim facts we don’t like.

As a professor, I try to teach many complicated ideas to future journalists. Any media outlet has to understand its audience. It has to be driven by its consumers’ needs. But sometimes honest journalism also requires a backbone – the ability to know when it’s important to do something unpopular because a topic must not be avoided.

Still, it would have been better if readers of the Gazette had not seen the killer’s name and picture above the fold on page 1.

Joe Sheller is associate professor of communication and journalism with Mount Mercy University in Cedar Rapids. He can be reached at jsheller@mtmercy.edu.