There are many words that could be used for mass shooters. Most wouldn’t be appropriate in this space. But here’s a term that I think also fits: infamy seekers.
Our culture seems so enthralled with fame. It’s like a disease. Who doesn’t want attention and adoration? It’s a basic desire, but our nation has gone wild with this base drive. It’s impossible for most of us to have wide-scale fame. So, certain people go the other way with it — if they can’t be loved, they’ll embrace being hated. We’ve watched that disease of fame-seeking turn truly malignant and spread in metastatic fashion through our society, like a terrible cancer. Infamy seekers decide bad attention is better than no attention. I’m sure there are many motives in those misguided minds. But attention is surely near the top. They want to be noticed.
But how do you cure cancer? I mean actual cancer. It’s tough, right? There are no simple answers. This awful societal disease is similar. I absolutely think better gun laws make sense as one answer — not the only one. I don’t want to rehash a column from two weeks ago, but I liken guns to traffic. We drive where we want, but we have rules. Guns should be the same.
Still, the gun debate is one facet of this societal cancer. We have a true social disease. And coping with that illness requires our attention, our intellect, and our most good-hearted efforts in many ways.
Local educators gathered in the school board meeting room Friday to talk about these issues. I heard the same perplexed question that haunts me. What drives someone to lash out and kill? We all have our theories. But how do you get inside the heads of these disturbed people and steer them back toward care, not carnage?
One idea is to avoid naming the shooter. Let’s deny them what they crave: attention. I’ve heard this quite a lot and given it considerable thought. When people suggest this, I think they’re looking at one ugly facet of media coverage and not the useful part. Let me explain: yes, a number of media outlets, particularly cable networks, are horrible in their incessant repetition of sensational news. I never watch cable news. I don’t respect their form of journalism, because I think it’s purely aimed at keeping viewers entertained, angry or scared — not informed. I think it’s a detriment to society, not an attribute. It’s just not for me. If you produce 24/7 content, your quality is going to suffer. It’s inevitable.
But the idea of not naming the shooter sounds like a good idea until you consider a serious complication. If you go to journalism school, the first thing you’ll hear in the introductory class is who, what, when, where, why and how. These questions are the backbone of journalism. That’s because they are the questions any human inherently wants answered when news happens. An explosion killed 10,000 people today. Oh no? Where? “Ugh, I don’t know. Is the ‘where’ important?” Yes, dummy, the ‘where’ matters! The “who” is just as essential as the “where.” “Who” blew up 10,000 people? We kind of want to know. All of those questions are important to us.
So, if you legislated that no media could report the name of a mass shooter, then what would happen? Well, the “who” would remain as a question. You can’t legislate away man’s inherent drive for the answer. Consequently, the “who” would still be answered, just in informal ways, not official media sources. Basically, you’d give social media the lead on reporting “who.” You’d give conspiracists the microphone. I think shooters must be named, just like the location of a news event needs to be given. It’s part of the public record. The “who” is always followed by “why?” That’s also fundamental to our drive to understand.
However, I loathe all the outlets that try to use a killer to grab eyeballs in a repeated, sensational manner. Beyond the immediate breaking-news element, you can recognize a certain laziness that begins to set in, where tragedy is put on repeat and talking heads are paid to spout opinion after opinion without any new information really revealed. The media business model includes unhealthy incentives. Companies try to use tragedy for profit. That’s the outrage, not the fact that a basic tenet of journalism, the “who” and the “why” are considered. Any self respecting journalist always tries to fulfill the “who, what, when, where, why and how.” But journalists also recognize the old saying “if it bleeds, it leads.” Human minds are drawn to conflict. And as some journalists aim for thoughtful information gathering and analysis in a civic-minded way, there’s always going to be a segment of the industry that is merely using “if it bleeds, it leads” to make a buck. If you recognize this effort, you should quit paying attention to that media outlet as a source. Think about it. Why do they keep doing it? Well, because people watch. So, don’t watch! Don’t be part of the awful problem!
Another theory is that video games create a culture of killing. I think shoot-‘em-up games are awful. I don’t want my kids playing them. I feel like there’s something soul-killing in them. I don’t like slasher films for exactly the same reason, because I don’t like the depiction of life as cheap. It bothers me. Nevertheless, I’m not sold on the correlation between video games and mass shootings in America. That’s because these shoot-‘em-up games are not purely American. They are played all over the world. If there was a correlation between video games and shootings, then wouldn’t there be mass shootings everywhere? No, I don’t think these games are good, but I can’t buy them as a primary culprit unless other nations where they are played have the same problems. However, I do agree that the games are troubling. I don’t want them in our house.
I don’t have great answers for curing this social cancer. But I think we need to keep talking and keep working toward solutions. I like the fact that the Florida teens cried out, because getting shot in school is absolutely not normal. School shootings shouldn’t be accepted as a thing that just happens and that kids must learn to live with, like weather events.
No, these shootings aren’t acceptable. And our society needs to work together, without such awful malice, to keep kids safe. None of us has the power to cure the disease alone. But we can each figure out a way that we can do a small part, whether it’s mentoring a kid, talking with legislators, attending meetings to offer input, or just listening and trying to understand.
These small efforts are the opposite of seeking fame or infamy. They are the effort to do small, anonymous good works. Those efforts are truly the way any society digs itself out of any hole. We need that right now. We need it desperately. Perhaps there’s a small part you’re playing, or might play, to help, not hurt.
Zach Mitcham is editor of The Madison County Journal.
To comment, visit The Madison County Journal Facebook page or send a letter to the editor with your first and last name and town of residence to zach@mainstreetnews.com.
