I just read a fascinating article in Saturdays Wall Street Journal citing hard evidence that limiting press coverage of negative events (they studied suicide but suggested the same strategy would work with rampage killings) can reduce those events by as much as 75%. We all experience a desire to make sense of such tragedies, and the media obliges with days or weeks of excruciating detail about the perpetrator, his motives, and the reactions of the aggrieved community. So heres the hard question: Would you be willing to be denied all of that information to reduce the likelihood that another shooting would occur? The coverage would be brief and devoid of details, something like, An unidentified assailant killed six in an attack at the Lakeshore Mall today; police captured him immediately. Profiles of the victims would follow, but there would be no focus on survivors grief, as rampage killers seek to have a negative impact. Is that a fair trade? Our unquenched curiosity, our unanswered questions, for the lives of innocents? Please, weigh in. Heres the article: online.wsj/news/articles/SB10001424052702303309504579181702252120052
Posted on: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:49:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015