Lately I think that no notoriety is the right way to think about it.

That is to say, I agree with youtube censoring columbine videos and the modern approach of covering massacres.

Columbine was the perfect storm of publicity though and there isn't a way to top it.

Lately I just feel sick watching old news coverage of the event and I just can't believe they all fell for this bullshit.

I do partially agree, but not so much on censoring the Columbine videos. Many of those videos contain useful information and simply hiding them or taking them down will only frustrate. I hate to say it, but the "damage has already been done" for Columbine. As for modern shootings and how they're covered, I'd say there should be limited notoriety, rather than none whatsoever. If the events as a whole aren't blown up (with some exceptions) and the shooters aren't everywhere on magazine covers and treated like "celebrities of the week" then that would certain help slow down the prevalence of mass shootings/murders, but of course it will never be stopped entirely.

I disagree. With no notoriety there is always the possibility of the event being forgotten because of the lack of news coverage however treating mass shooters like celebrities (Rolling Stone with the Boston Bomber) would possibly help stop some mass shootings. Also, maybe one or two copycat shootings will be prevented from this censorship of videos relating to Columbine but it is probably the most well known mass shooting of all time so censoring videos really does nothing to stop copycat shootings.

I disagree with censoring pretty much anything unless it’s either literal child porn or private personal information that could put its owner at risk if revealed to the public; personal information of dead mass murderers certainly doesn’t count as such. There might be other exceptions, but these are two I can think about off the top of my head.

That being said, I’m not thrilled by the early media approach to the coverage of Columbine. Treating mass shooters like celebrities, while not detrimental on a larger scale, could surely inspire some younger, psychologically malleable would-be perpetrators (although other things could do the same and that’s a whole different topic that probably shouldn’t be discussed here). Also it’s just distasteful, though I - obviously - don’t consider “it’s distasteful” to be a sufficient reason for banning.

However, it doesn’t have to be no notoriety vs all of the notoriety without any possible third option. Censoring everything, apart from making life harder for those despicable morbidly curious folks (me being one of them), would keep the general public unaware of potential red flags and likely do more harm than good. It would also cement the already very common belief that mass shooters are inherently evil and “not human”, which would lull people into a false sense of safety (“I’m normal, my family and friends are normal, none of us will do evil things because we are not evil!”). Red flags in and of themselves are also a whole different and awfully complicated topic, thus all I’m going to say is that the info about what video games and movies the killers liked is usually irrelevant. Not that it should be withheld (not at all), but I’m fairly sure everyone knows what I mean.

(sorry if this post is incoherent as hell, it’s hours past midnight here and I can barely type)

The news coverage I was referring to was the Leeza talk show video. Everyone was sick of Columbine at that point and the show was about the December Time Magazine cover article about the Basement Tapes.

An overwhelming majority of a panel (87%) said this coverage was glorifying the shooters.

And yet it was still being covered in a sensationalist way.

I think that actually, the glorification of shooters is something that the media should stop doing as they themselves push for shooters to have that image that they wanted to have. I just think that the content on YouTube should not be censored, for learning or informational reasons, however sensationalism should.

I'm part of the No Notoriety group. It was really kickstarted by this wonderful woman, Caren Teves, whose son Alex was killed in the Aurora theater shooting protecting his girlfriend. Coni Sanders and the Mausers are big supporters.

For those who think these events will be forgotten because of NoNotoriety I think you're misunderstanding the point. The whole idea is not to not talk about what happened, its to make sure the focus on the event is on the victims not the killers. Unless you're into groups like this one or do a lot of true crime research, how many people can name all 12 Columbine victims, all 12 Aurora victims, every child who died at Sandy Hook or the names of the 17 killed in Parkland? Now how many of those same people, regular Americans who watch the news can name Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Adam Lanza and/or Nikolas Cruz? I guarantee a lot more than the former.

We still want these events to be remembered, we want to use our tragedies to make change and ensure no one else has to go through such hell and that no more innocent victims are gunned down just because they're at school or see a movie. Most importantly we want the victims to be remembered. When the news covers the shootings we want the focus to be on the innocent lives lost and ensure their memories continue. We don't want every front page covering these events to have giant pictures of the killer, each day bringing new stories about the killer, their background, their family, their motivations. We want our loved ones faces, the faces of the innocent victims to be the focus of these stories.

There's tons of research supporting the more these murderers are glorified the more likely it is to inspire copycats looking for their own fame and notoriety. We're okay with the initial reports to mention who the shooters are. That's a fact of the event and newsworthy. But after that they're just the killer, the murderer, the perpetrator.

So thats the goal. No one is trying to erase history or cover things up or make sure these events are forgotten by the public, quite the contrary. We just want to ensure its the victims who get the news coverage, the aftermath of these horrible events, the human cost, the lives and dreams lost. Not their murderers.

I don’t mean to sound harsh, but I think people are always going to be interested in the perpetrators and not the victims. To put it very simply, everything that deviates from the norm is interesting. The victims tend to be just regular normal people who happened to be unlucky enough to get killed at random; mass murderers are exceptions to the general pattern of human behavior. So are serial killers, cult leaders, and so on and so forth. Besides, like I said before, knowing the killers’ background, motivations, etc. might be useful for identifying red flags.

Also, if I were to be killed in a shooting, I would hate to be talked about in the same fashion as victims usually are (in my case it would be a bunch of lies anyway). Honestly I’d prefer to not be remembered at all. But that’s just me.

milennialrebelette wrote:

I'm part of the No Notoriety group. It was really kickstarted by this wonderful woman, Caren Teves, whose son Alex was killed in the Aurora theater shooting protecting his girlfriend. Coni Sanders and the Mausers are big supporters.

For those who think these events will be forgotten because of NoNotoriety I think you're misunderstanding the point.  The whole idea is not to not talk about what happened, its to make sure the focus on the event is on the victims not the killers. Unless you're into groups like this one or do a lot of true crime research, how many people can name all 12 Columbine victims, all 12 Aurora victims, every child who died at Sandy Hook or the names of the 17 killed in Parkland? Now how many of those same people, regular Americans who watch the news can name Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Adam Lanza and/or Nikolas Cruz? I guarantee a lot more than the former.

We still want these events to be remembered, we want to use our tragedies to make change and ensure no one else has to go through such hell and that no more innocent victims are gunned down just because they're at school or see a movie. Most importantly we want the victims to be remembered. When the news covers the shootings we want the focus to be on the innocent lives lost and ensure their memories continue. We don't want every front page covering these events to have giant pictures of the killer, each day bringing new stories about the killer, their background, their family, their motivations. We want our loved ones faces, the faces of the innocent victims to be the focus of these stories.

There's tons of research supporting the more these murderers are glorified the more likely it is to inspire copycats looking for their own fame and notoriety. We're okay with the initial reports to mention who the shooters are. That's a fact of the event and newsworthy. But after that they're just the killer, the murderer, the perpetrator.

So thats the goal. No one is trying to erase history or cover things up or make sure these events are forgotten by the public, quite the contrary. We just want to ensure its the victims who get the news coverage, the aftermath of these horrible events, the human cost, the lives and dreams lost. Not their murderers.

I can name all 13 people who were murdered at Columbine, but that's the only mass shooting where I know the backgrounds of the victims, really.

Sadly, I think even the memorial videos they make now, such as the 20th anniversary coverage, can inspire baleful interest in some people.

I mean, not as much as some other coverage.

Are there studies that show how many mass shooter do it for fame and notoriety?

That the thing, especially with all of the true crime podcasts and documentaries, the perpetrators will be more "interesting" than the victims. Since no one is going to delve into the pasts of those who were killed and see what kind of person they were, they will always be the kind people whose smile lit up a room.

I know that sounds harsh, and it is not meant to, but the media is going to focus on the bad, not the good. I think the media does stoke the flames though, absolutely! I would love for them to follow best practices and not sensationalize every incident.. but I don't see that happening, though I think the have gotten a bit better.

Is it really relevant anymore? It seems like there is new shooting every two or three days, and people forget about those almost immediately. Like, what was the name of Boulder shooter? It happened less than a month ago. What notoriety? Do people even care anymore?

Ligeya wrote:

Is it really relevant anymore? It seems like there is new shooting every two or three days, and people forget about those almost immediately. Like, what was the name of Boulder shooter? It happened less than a month ago. What notoriety? Do people even care anymore?

Yeah there is less notoriety given to the perps now, partly because its so banal now.

But the sensationalizing of earlier incidents didn't help.

Then again there were other mass shooting incidents like McDonalds, Luby's, which didn't stick in the public consciousness.

Maybe because it was less shocking for middle aged men to do it.

Screamingophelia wrote:

Are there studies that show how many mass shooter do it for fame and notoriety?

That the thing, especially with all of the true crime podcasts and documentaries, the perpetrators will be more "interesting" than the victims. Since no one is going to delve into the pasts of those who were killed and see what kind of person they were, they will always be the kind people whose smile lit up a room.

I know that sounds harsh, and it is not meant to, but the media is going to focus on the bad, not the good. I think the media does stoke the flames though, absolutely! I would love for them to follow best practices and not sensationalize every incident.. but I don't see that happening, though I think the have gotten a bit better.

Actually there's been a lot of change already with the media that has come about as the direct result of NoNotoriety, especially in Colorado. 9News and Kyle Clark specifically were the first to commit to ensuring their reporting followed the NoNotoriety guidelines. That happened within about a year or so of the Aurora theater shooting. They all now refuse to publish or show photos of the shooter. They mention their names as a matter of public record in their initial reports and subsequently refer to them as the alleged shooter/the shooter etc.

Because of the work and outreach from people like Caren Teves, Sandy Phillips (Jessica 'Redfield' Ghawi's mom) and other from the Aurora survivor and family community as well as people like Coni Saunders, Linda Mauser, Annemarie Hochhalter, Paula Reed (a Columbine ACE teacher and Rachel and Daniel Mauser's debate coach, she spoke at Rachel's funeral) and others from Columbine most national news outlets and their local subsidiaries, like NBC, ABC and even the AP newswire follow these protocols as well. The group isn't quite as active as it once was because of these major accomplishments.  A lot of people still do some outreach and reminders when necessary.

Look at the Denver news coverage of Aurora vs. the recent King Soopers shooting in Boulder or even the Highlands Ranch STEM shootings. You'll see the difference if you're looking for it.

milennialrebelette wrote:

Screamingophelia wrote:

Are there studies that show how many mass shooter do it for fame and notoriety?

That the thing, especially with all of the true crime podcasts and documentaries, the perpetrators will be more "interesting" than the victims. Since no one is going to delve into the pasts of those who were killed and see what kind of person they were, they will always be the kind people whose smile lit up a room.

I know that sounds harsh, and it is not meant to, but the media is going to focus on the bad, not the good. I think the media does stoke the flames though, absolutely! I would love for them to follow best practices and not sensationalize every incident.. but I don't see that happening, though I think the have gotten a bit better.

Actually there's been a lot of change already with the media that has come about as the direct result of NoNotoriety, especially in Colorado. 9News and Kyle Clark specifically were the first to commit to ensuring their reporting followed the NoNotoriety guidelines. That happened within about a year or so of the Aurora theater shooting. They all now refuse to publish or show photos of the shooter. They mention their names as a matter of public record in their initial reports and subsequently refer to them as the alleged shooter/the shooter etc.

Because of the work and outreach from people like Caren Teves, Sandy Phillips (Jessica 'Redfield' Ghawi's mom) and other from the Aurora survivor and family community as well as people like Coni Saunders, Linda Mauser, Annemarie Hochhalter, Paula Reed (a Columbine ACE teacher and Rachel and Daniel Mauser's debate coach, she spoke at Rachel's funeral) and others from Columbine most national news outlets and their local subsidiaries, like NBC, ABC and even the AP newswire follow these protocols as well. The group isn't quite as active as it once was because of these major accomplishments.  A lot of people still do some outreach and reminders when necessary.

Look at the Denver news coverage of Aurora vs. the recent King Soopers shooting in Boulder or even the Highlands Ranch STEM shootings. You'll see the difference if you're looking for it.

And how does it work for state of Colorado? Where shooting in the mall with ten victims happened - two? Three weeks ago? I think people often say "concentrate of victims, not on the shooters" - well, can anyone name victims of this shooting without googling? Or even googling? Media is obviously not interested in victims, so in the result even big shootings with 10 victims, with 8 victims, are forgotten within days. If not hours.
And this "No Notoriety" stance is pretty obviously doesn't prevent new shootings. I don't claim that media should investigate every new shooter, plast his face on the cover of Time or Rolling Stones, or print his face on every front page. But it's freaky how quickly those huge shootings are forgotten.

morgenroede wrote:

Also, if I were to be killed in a shooting, I would hate to be talked about in the same fashion as victims usually are (in my case it would be a bunch of lies anyway). Honestly I’d prefer to not be remembered at all. But that’s just me.

Your smile doesn't lighten up the room?

Ligeya wrote:

milennialrebelette wrote:

Screamingophelia wrote:

Are there studies that show how many mass shooter do it for fame and notoriety?

That the thing, especially with all of the true crime podcasts and documentaries, the perpetrators will be more "interesting" than the victims. Since no one is going to delve into the pasts of those who were killed and see what kind of person they were, they will always be the kind people whose smile lit up a room.

I know that sounds harsh, and it is not meant to, but the media is going to focus on the bad, not the good. I think the media does stoke the flames though, absolutely! I would love for them to follow best practices and not sensationalize every incident.. but I don't see that happening, though I think the have gotten a bit better.

Actually there's been a lot of change already with the media that has come about as the direct result of NoNotoriety, especially in Colorado. 9News and Kyle Clark specifically were the first to commit to ensuring their reporting followed the NoNotoriety guidelines. That happened within about a year or so of the Aurora theater shooting. They all now refuse to publish or show photos of the shooter. They mention their names as a matter of public record in their initial reports and subsequently refer to them as the alleged shooter/the shooter etc.

Because of the work and outreach from people like Caren Teves, Sandy Phillips (Jessica 'Redfield' Ghawi's mom) and other from the Aurora survivor and family community as well as people like Coni Saunders, Linda Mauser, Annemarie Hochhalter, Paula Reed (a Columbine ACE teacher and Rachel and Daniel Mauser's debate coach, she spoke at Rachel's funeral) and others from Columbine most national news outlets and their local subsidiaries, like NBC, ABC and even the AP newswire follow these protocols as well. The group isn't quite as active as it once was because of these major accomplishments.  A lot of people still do some outreach and reminders when necessary.

Look at the Denver news coverage of Aurora vs. the recent King Soopers shooting in Boulder or even the Highlands Ranch STEM shootings. You'll see the difference if you're looking for it.

And how does it work for state of Colorado? Where shooting in the mall with ten victims happened - two? Three weeks ago? I think people often say "concentrate of victims, not on the shooters" - well, can anyone name victims of this shooting without googling? Or even googling? Media is obviously not interested in victims, so in the result even big shootings with 10 victims, with 8 victims, are forgotten within days. If not hours.
And this "No Notoriety" stance is pretty obviously doesn't prevent new shootings. I don't claim that media should investigate every new shooter, plast his face on the cover of Time or Rolling Stones, or print his face on every front page. But it's freaky how quickly those huge shootings are forgotten.

Its never been advocated as the solution to gun violence. Its one of so many things that are needed to start to make a dent in this epidemic. Its also something that effects survivors, victims families and in some cases entire communities. Thats a positive benefit that shouldn't be overlooked.

Like I said since most national news outlets and their local subsidiaries have changed how they report, recent articles and reports don't show the things we did and still advocate for. Not because its not needed but because we've already succeeded in so many ways on a national level.

As far as studies linking media coverage to copycat shooters, there's tons. Here are just a few.

A PhD report on the APA (American Psychological Association) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

An extensive study and report that incorporated FBI research on Adam Lanza, linking Columbine, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (behind a payroll, if you're associated with a university you might be able to access it for free)

The first of many FBI reports indicating that media coverage is one of the multiple, but nevertheless substantial contributors to increasing rates of mass shootings.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There's been an entire theory created called Mass Shooting Contagion Thoery in the aftermath of Columbine and subsequent shootings, that has been studied and researched by sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and criminologtsts just to name a few, all establishing reputable, peer reviewed, evidence of causation of media coverage contributing to an increase in mass shootings.

Of course that alone doesn't cause mass shootings nor does that mean the NoNotoriety victories leading to the majority of major US news outlets changing how they report mass shootings was supposed to prevent them and has obviously failed. As those studies show media coverage is one of many factors, and they must all be addressed to make a massive impact. But you have to start somewhere and its also a victory for survivors everywhere.

If you're familiar with the Rebels Project, almost all members were supportive of NoNotoriety and while it hasn't stopped the PTSD triggered each time many survivors see another shooting in the news, there's been a massive difference between the impact of media coverage on shootings for victims families and friends as well as survivors. Two positives came out of a well directed communal effort, with no real negatives. You can still research the crimes, get all the details and look into shooters backgrounds if you choose. But there's no need for weeks of front page papers and every TV news outlets covering nothing but the murderer, giant mugshots and pictures of the last face many of our loved ones and for some themselves saw. You may feel differently but for the survivor communities, its been a huge victory.

milennialrebelette wrote:

Screamingophelia wrote:

Are there studies that show how many mass shooter do it for fame and notoriety?

That the thing, especially with all of the true crime podcasts and documentaries, the perpetrators will be more "interesting" than the victims. Since no one is going to delve into the pasts of those who were killed and see what kind of person they were, they will always be the kind people whose smile lit up a room.

I know that sounds harsh, and it is not meant to, but the media is going to focus on the bad, not the good. I think the media does stoke the flames though, absolutely! I would love for them to follow best practices and not sensationalize every incident.. but I don't see that happening, though I think the have gotten a bit better.

Actually there's been a lot of change already with the media that has come about as the direct result of NoNotoriety, especially in Colorado. 9News and Kyle Clark specifically were the first to commit to ensuring their reporting followed the NoNotoriety guidelines. That happened within about a year or so of the Aurora theater shooting. They all now refuse to publish or show photos of the shooter. They mention their names as a matter of public record in their initial reports and subsequently refer to them as the alleged shooter/the shooter etc.

Because of the work and outreach from people like Caren Teves, Sandy Phillips (Jessica 'Redfield' Ghawi's mom) and other from the Aurora survivor and family community as well as people like Coni Saunders, Linda Mauser, Annemarie Hochhalter, Paula Reed (a Columbine ACE teacher and Rachel and Daniel Mauser's debate coach, she spoke at Rachel's funeral) and others from Columbine most national news outlets and their local subsidiaries, like NBC, ABC and even the AP newswire follow these protocols as well. The group isn't quite as active as it once was because of these major accomplishments.  A lot of people still do some outreach and reminders when necessary.

Look at the Denver news coverage of Aurora vs. the recent King Soopers shooting in Boulder or even the Highlands Ranch STEM shootings. You'll see the difference if you're looking for it.

Yes! I lived here when STEM and the recent Boulder shooting happened. I agree with you. I have a little more information on STEM just due to some things I had to research for class, but I have heard nothing sensational or about the shooter at all with the Boulder shooting.

Ligeya wrote:

Your smile doesn't lighten up the room?

Not at all...

milennialrebelette

What do you think of youtube censoring videos of the Columbine killers? I think it's the right thing to do, even if it's inconsistent.

No Notoriety doesn't even make sense for most shooters. Who the fuck is going to be inspired by Ahmad Alissa the fat 21 year old balding man who shot up some random grocery store? Nobody.

Sturmer wrote:

No Notoriety doesn't even make sense for most shooters. Who the fuck is going to be inspired by Ahmad Alissa the fat 21 year old balding man who shot up some random grocery store? Nobody.

If the media sensationalized it they could be.