Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is it absolutely necessary to continuously give the criminal's name and show his picture? On CNN today, some of the commentators said they weren't going to give the guy's name but as soon as they were off, the regular reporters started it back up again.
Why give them the publicity they desire - and give future killers a reason to carry out their deeds? They say any publicity is good publicity.
Since very few people actually know the killer, how is the name and image important at all?
The media doesn't divulge the name of sexual assault victims by some sort of agreement (or is it a legal prohibition???). Can't they get together and do the same with crimes like the one today? Maybe make it available on-line after a couple of clicks for those who are truly curious.
Whether a photo glamorizes or aggrandizes a killer may be in the eye of the beholder. I have absolutely no problem with criminal's name and picture. They are criminals. They have no rights.
There might be a tension between the pressures of reporting news and not wanting to reward terrorists with publicity. But I dread the day when journalists turn timid about reporting, and important truth just to appear to be sensitive and politically incorrect.
Journalism is about exploring the facts as far as they can take them. When someone is murdered, or when mass shootings happen, or when bombs go off, or when World Trade Centers are destroyed, it's their duty to explore those issues to the fullest extent possible. The public has right to know the details. We should not stifle bad or unpleasant news.
I'm not implying that the criminal needs protecting. I'm saying, why give them the notoriety they crave. This guy in Roanoke waited to do it on live TV, with the camera facing the reporter. If he wasn't looking for his name to go down in infamy with the rest of the jerkoffs, why did he do it in this manner. If NONE of the JOs were well known, there wouldn't be much sense, would there?
I'm not saying withholding anything, just put the name and image where it isn't on the front page of the paper/TV constantly- where someone would have to look a little to find it and not become a household name. How many deranged kids are dreaming of becoming 'famous' like the Columbine murderers?
If the recent ones weren't newscasters, we wouldn't know their name, only their killer's.
Whether a photo glamorizes or aggrandizes a killer may be in the eye of the beholder. I have absolutely no problem with criminal's name and picture. They are criminals. They have no rights.
There might be a tension between the pressures of reporting news and not wanting to reward terrorists with publicity. But I dread the day when journalists turn timid about reporting, and important truth just to appear to be sensitive and politically incorrect.
Journalism is about exploring the facts as far as they can take them. When someone is murdered, or when mass shootings happen, or when bombs go off, or when World Trade Centers are destroyed, it's their duty to explore those issues to the fullest extent possible. The public has right to know the details. We should not stifle bad or unpleasant news.
Good post, although I would point out that even convicted criminals retain some rights.
There doesn't seem to be too much shame anymore in committing crimes and being caught.
In some neighborhoods it is a rite of passage to be arrested.
In the case of more heinous crimes like we saw with the reporters being murdered or in the case of the Boston marathon bomber I don't want to see their faces or hear their names. What is sad is the media grabs on to a image say of the marathon bomber and they show it again and again. His mug was even on the cover of the Rolling Stone magazine. Talk about glorifying his ugly deeds!
There was so much attention given to the terrorist twerp that the victims were almost forgotten.
If someone checks out of society and commits a horrible crime I don't think they should be glorified in any way. It only serves to incite some other loser to try and make a name for himself.
It will be tough to change the way the media operates. As they say in the newspaper business "if it bleeds it leads"
The news is the news and the public has a right to know but why glorify the perp?
I was talking about this the other day. I agree that journalists should report all the pertinent facts and info available, but they can do so without saying the name or showing a picture of the suspect. They DO do these things for fame and attention. The majority of them kill themselves after their rampage, so if it was just about suicide they would just off themselves at home, but they choose to make a display of themselves first so they are never forgotten. That is why people murder celebrities and other public figures, especially if they are huge fans and/or are obsessed with them, because it ties them to that person for all of time. Trials or clips of, should not be aired on TV either. Just the facts.
I think swifter punishment - especially in obvious cases would help the issue.
Some people should get the death penalty no more than 2 weeks after the crime. Our justice system is so bloated and slow - by the time people are punished, there is no tangible link to the crime. Punishment is a deterrent to crime - both direct (punishing the criminal) and indirect (others that see punishment and link it to the crime).
Would the names and pictures distract you from your understanding of the event? We have right to know who did it.
We have right to know who was the gunman. He killed 10 people. He is a mass murder. He doesn't have ANY rights.
The gunman as 26-year-old Chris Harper Mercer. A law enforcement official said shooter Chris Harper Mercer had body armor with him and was heavily armed, with a large amount of ammunition - enough for a prolonged gunfight.
A law enforcement official told CNN three pistols and one rifle believed to have belonged to the suspect were recovered at the scene.
Here is his picture: Chris Harper Mercer: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com
It doesn't surprise me that the ignorant news media gives these killers exactly what they wanted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
