How do you guys feel about limiting the media coverage of mass shootings as a means to reduce future shootings?

1. Well we can start by not calling kids in a school presently being massacred just to get the "inside" scoop.
   — PM_ME_UR_FAVE_PLACE


2. I think at least they should all agree not to identify the shooter by name or give info/history about him. They usually want attention,
   — Drew-


3. Even without considering that, I think they get too much coverage. A hundred individual deaths due to drunk drivers won't get the combined coverage of a dozen people shot at once. The level of reporting on the big stories skews the perception of people who never look at statistics. And after a few days on one story, I get sick of hearing about it anyway.
   — Brett42






4. It can be toxic, it give the appearance the its normalized and this could encourage more. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m glad we’re talking about it.
   — DPS1995


5. There are a lot of interesting opinions on here, but those of you who see no point in this, read up a little bit on the [copycat phenomenon](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/yes-mass-killings-inspire-copycats-study-finds-n386141). Mass shootings do inspire other crimes; media coverage of a shooter's face and name helps make this issue contagious.
   — Uses_Old_Memes


6. I’m not in favor of “limiting” media coverage since that would imply some authoritarian entity (like The State) would be doing the limiting. I am in favor, however, of the journalists reevaluating their journalistic ethics and acknowdge that they have a role in limiting harm by not celebrating or publicizing the identify of the shooter and thus revise their journalists standards and practices to not publish such information.
   — BartholomewOobleck