I recently referenced an article written by Megan McArdle in which she discussed mass shootings and suggested some ways to prevent them, along with the negatives of each potential solution.
I just came across her most recent article in which she elaborates on one of the points she suggested in her original write-up (banning extensive coverage of mass shootings) and discusses why she feels it could play an important role.
I’m going to quote the relevant portion of the article and provide the source at the end. I can’t guarantee you will be able to access her full remarks as online media is getting very selfish about sharing unless you PAY a subscription fee.
As for government restrictions on news coverage, the political and practical hurdles would be at least as daunting. Who decides what constitutes a violation? Do you trust anyone with that kind of power?
But while government censorship is dangerous, curbing one’s own speech is often just good judgment. News organizations should perform an experiment: Make it a tenet of journalistic ethics not to print the names or manifestos of mass shooters, or details of their lives, or even details of their attacks. Mass shooters seek notoriety; deny it to them.
Ending the wall-to-wall coverage would mean, yes, losing readers and viewers. The public would lose some information. Gun-control advocates would lose a campaigning tool. But the public policy aspects of mass shootings can be covered with aggregate statistics. The visceral details may make for a better story, a better PR campaign. But as long as there’s reason to think that they also make for more murders, we have a moral obligation to avoid them.
Source: The Herald Dispatch
So it would seem she advocates the news media reduce the sensationalism that seems to accompany each violent attack. Would such an action work? Maybe. Obviously it wouldn’t stop the killings, but perhaps it could/would serve as a deterrent.