Jane Galt is blogging about "Terror's Little Helpers" -

...terrorists use sensationalism to vastly amplify their message. They know that horror and drama capture the media's attention, so they manufacture them. This is why instead of merely executing their victims, they cut off their heads on camera and broadcast the videos. When that gets old, which it will, they will come up with something even more awful....the emphasis on the recent beheadings has largely been driven by the availability of appalling video

...There are multiple reasons that the media hasn't addressed this: they don't want to be thought of as "helping" the Bush administration by playing down gory Iraq coverage; they are exquisitely sensitive to the perils of self-censorship;

This is a topic I've bemoaned several times in the past and it's something that's always generated feisty comments.    Jane brings up the example of school shootings as a place where simple, tactical moves by the press could have partially addressed the problem -

I remember thinking, as the media bemoaned the "epidemic" of school shootings during the 1990's, that there was one very effective way to treat the epidemic that no one had mentioned: stop printing the names of the perpetrators, or putting their pictures on television. My understanding is that a significant portion of the motivation was the adolescent desire to be superlative at anything, including evil, if nothing better was available. The boys wanted to be known far and wide as the worst $#@%!s on the planet, and the media co-operated. If the media had toned down the coverage of the shootings, and kept the perpetrators anonymous, those who were contemplating shootings would have a significant part of the payoff taken away.

But this solution was never considered. Partly because there is a competitive instinct in the media, and no one wanted to be the guy talking about housing policy while CNN poached their viewers with wall-to-wall school shooting coverage. Partly, I suspect, because the journalists and editors had other political agendas they wanted to push with this story, about adolescence and gun control. But mostly, I think, because media organisations are profoundly uncomfortable with the idea that they play a part in creating the spectacular violence they cover, and so no one brought it up.

However, a more important example is presented by one of her commentors.   It demonstrates that in at least one case, the Media did recognize the problem they were creating and voluntarily regulated their behavior -

I'd like to point out that there is one small area where the media studiously ignores publicity-seeking troublemakers:Doofuses who interrupt a sporting event by running out onto the field. Used to be the camera would follow their every move until the cops brought them down. Now the cameras get aimed at the dugout until the drunk guy is led away, and oftentimes no one at home is even aware anything happened.

Have these incidents decreased since the decision was made not to broadcast these guys? I would bet yes.

I did a little digging and found another place where the press has adopted voluntary reportage restraints - Suicides -

According to numerous research studies, prominent media stories about suicide are associated with a significant increase in suicide attempts within the media outlet's coverage area. Adolescents and young adults seem to be especially susceptible to suicide contagion.

In order to help reporters and community officials learn about this problem and minimize the risks, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Association of Suicidology have endorsed a set of recommendations to consider when reporting about suicide. These recommendations include background information as well as examples of media reports that are more likely or less likely to promote suicide contagion.

The shocking thing about the "bad press behaviors" the CDC lists w.r.t. Suicides is that they're nearly identical to the types of behavior I whine about w.r.t. the latest car bomb or beheading -

• Simplifying the rationale
• Repetitive / ongoing / excessive reporting of the event
• Sensationalist coverage
• Presenting Suicide as a tool for accomplishing an ends (!!)
• Glorifying the persons who commit it
• Focusing on the individual's positive characteristics

Perhaps when Andrew Sullivan wonders if liberal society is almost trying to commit suicide he ain't too far off.

---