 |
| School knifings Janghuai newspaper front page. |
How does media censorship affect what the audience perceives as important?
 |
| Second school stabbing newspaper illustration |
 |
| Later newspapers ran headlines about school security |
 |
| SIDA Media Notice |
ATTENTION:
In regards to the Taixing Kindergarten Injury Incident, notice has been received from higher levels that Xinhua reports are to be uniformly adopted. In light of the World Expo opening, this news shall not be placed on the front page for the time being.
 |
| Shanghai World Expo Opening Fireworks |
 |
| Shaanxi Murder Weapon |
Theoretical Perspectives
Critical Theory
First we chose to analyze the situation from a critical theoretical perspective. Critical theory is useful when critiquing one group’s use of media and texts to manipulate another group. In the case of the China knifings, we focused on the Chinese government’s censorship of the media, arguing that its suppression of the coverage of knifings was a deliberate move intended to maintain the status quo by stifling public speculation and unrest centered around the possible motives of the knifings (lack of support for the mentally ill, social inequity, poor school security, and the lack of recourse for frustrated citizens being among the most commonly cited issues we read.)
When we performed a content analysis of Chinese and Western news articles, blogs, and propaganda notices we observed that the government had indeed mandated reduced coverage of the school violence, shifting the focus first to improved school security measures (several government officials were quoting touting this) and then to the glory of the approaching Shanghai Expo. We believe that this shift in coverage was designed to reinforce the state-controlled hegemony; the Chinese government wanted its people – and the external world as well – to view to view it as a safe and prosperous nation untroubled by simmering social inequity or any of the other negative issues coverage of the school knifings seemed to have temporarily exposed."
The other theory we chose was agenda setting, which is used to examine media and the selection of news that are communicated to the public to be important or salient. Saliency, which is defined as relevancy and importance, is depicted through the quantity and the content of news stories. Chinese media is shaped by the country's government. We identified it as the "agenda setter" in our study. The state media reported on the knifings indirectly (improvements in school security), rather than giving attention to negative messages (such as social inequity, mental illnesses, societal backlash, and the connectedness of school knifings). When the knifings occurred close to the opening of the Shanghai Expo the Chinese media made security the most salient issue in its stories. Direct coverage of the knife violence was believed to have created insecurity and fear in Chinese citizens.
We also looked at the possible affect that China-based American media, Chinese bloggers, and other Western media had on the Chinese public's perceptions of saliency. Systemic agenda setting was not as pronounced when the Chinese-based American media covered the stabbings. It is not clear how, to what extent, or if Western media has reached Chinese citizens, nor is it clear what Chinese citizens view as important.
We also looked at the possible affect that China-based American media, Chinese bloggers, and other Western media had on the Chinese public's perceptions of saliency. Systemic agenda setting was not as pronounced when the Chinese-based American media covered the stabbings. It is not clear how, to what extent, or if Western media has reached Chinese citizens, nor is it clear what Chinese citizens view as important.
Questions to Consider
Carrie, Anna, Jean-Pierre
- How far is should a state be allowed to exercise its hegemonic power to promote greater ideological or economic interests?
- Is there ever a time when an agenda is set by a government institution or media organization that is beneficial to society?
- Considering school shootings in America, do you think allowing media coverage about school shootings or knifings might contribute to the copycat effect?
- What factors should be considered when reporting on crimes in relation to the government, culprits, victims, and citizens?
 |
| Chinese kindergartners at the scene of the crime |
Carrie, Anna, Jean-Pierre
In response to the second question here, perhaps it would have been even better if they had never printed the first story at all. I think that there are plenty of times when “the people” at large would be better off not knowing what goes on. This is a perfect instance of the manner in which our Western ideology holds us back from understanding how other societies, that don’t operate under our value system, work. Our ideology holds freedom of speech and transparency in the media above all other moral concerns in journalism, but when a society’s media is already so obviously state controlled, in a situation like this, what is the harm in preventing copycat cases through government mediation of how it is reported? The agenda is already clearly set and defined. The Chinese people are already aware of this characteristic of the news they read and see. China isn’t a Democratic country, and its citizens have little say in how the government operates, so as long as the government is going to be paternalistic then perhaps this is exactly the kind of situation that should be censored.
ReplyDeleteQ#2 - Yes, unfortunately, I do believe that media coverage about school shootings, knifings or other forms of violence can contribute to the copycat effect. It is interesting to note that (wikipedia - copycat effects):
ReplyDeleteIt has been shown that most of the persons who do mimic crimes seen in the media (especially news and violent movies) have in most cases prior criminal records, prior severe mental health problems or histories of violence suggesting that the effect of the media is indirect (more affecting criminal behavior) rather than direct (directly affecting the number of criminals)[1]
Obviously, it is difficult to place blame on any one party, aside from the criminal, but violent crime prevention should be a priority for a country. If many copycat offenders have past records or prior severe mental health problems, it leads me to question the health care and other social systems in place where people could seek help or get support and guidance. It is very difficult to determine a solution for the prevention of copycat crimes, my only idea would be to provide potential copycat criminals with information. Perhaps media articles could be required to include contact information for centers where people can get support. What ideas do you have to prevent the copycat effect? Many countries don’t have a social system in place to support people with prior criminal records or prior severe mental health problems.
Currently, there has been a rash of suicides and suicide attempts on college campuses around the nation. These suicides have been described as copycat events. Could they have been prevented if the universities provided more counseling, health services and support for the students?
This is a really interesting topic. Have they convicted all the perpetrators of these crimes? Are the reasons for committing these killings all related to mental health?
ReplyDeleteIn terms of question 1 I think this is a really good question, but one that is very difficult to answer especially coming at it from a western, individualistic perspective. In my opinion, the public has a right to know what is happening in their country but for China and their history of censorship and attempts to conserve their ideology in an increasingly globalized mediascape, it is a different story. I was very surprised that when the knifings first began, there was a lot of media coverage on it and pictures re-creating the incidence. That first picture in your blog was pretty disturbing. But then once that story began overshadowing the upcoming World Expo, the media coverage of the events was downplayed.
In regards to question 3 and the copycat effect, I think that if there is a lot of media coverage on such a high profile event like this, then there is the risk that it might spark the copycat effect, but I don't think that there is enough of an argument for the copycat effect that we shouldn't cover these events in the media. The media in China may have been feeling pressure from the government to stop covering these knifings in so much detail since they are being copied in other areas of China, but I think the coverage dissipated because of the upcoming World Expo and the fact that all eyes would be on China more than worries about the copycat effect.
3) I definitely agree that allowing media coverage about school shootings or knifings contributes to the copycat effect. It’s an easy and efficient way for copycats to get information and formulate a plan. However, I don’t think that this would justify not covering these events. Allowing media coverage also enables schools to see what has happened elsewhere and come up with crisis communication plans in case the same thing happens on their campuses. It may also help the public know how to better deal with this sort of situation if it were to happen to them. I agree with Danielle S. that the less coverage in China probably has more to do with the World Expo than fears of the copycat effect.
ReplyDelete#1 In my (western) opinion, only if a news story is untrue and massively disrupts society should the government possibly intervene (i.e. news story reporting “The World is Ending” or “China’s streets are riddled with killers”, etc). Although I realize this is very hard to determine which is probably why governments and media outlets very often get away with the “censorship for public good” idea. “Using legal and political force to secure unification” seems to be what the Chinese government is practicing and extends beyond simply protection of its citizens. Social cohesion seems to be of central importance to the Chinese government and “transformative hegemony” is being used as justification behind their censorship practices (Context of the St. Kizito Crime, p.4).
ReplyDelete#2 Hardly. When it comes to the safety and well-being of society – I may argue some influence is ok, but not necessarily agenda-setting. (i.e. research or evidence that might reveal one race or gender being more violent or less-intelligent than other, etc.) Still at this point I do not think an “agenda” is required as much as just a non-disclosure of this info.
Q3. I think this is a very controversial issue that the U.S. media deals with when it comes to school shootings, violence, etc. Media coverage can add to copycats because those who have carried out these attacks often times do it for attention. I am by no means saying that these horrific events should not be covered in the media but I think there is a way to do it in which the killers are not emphasized, but instead the tragedy of the lives lost is highlighted. I don’t agree with media trying to cover up incidents like what happened in China before the World Expo. They should still be reported on but perhaps without mentioning or giving attention to the violent individual.
ReplyDeleteHow far is should a state be allowed to exercise its hegemonic power to promote greater ideological or economic interests?
ReplyDeleteI think that in this case of the knifings, publicity (or lack thereof) of the first event was an important factor that could have helped other schools anticipate and possibly prevent the subsequent attacks. This was an issue of public safety. The state will have its influence on the media agenda, but in my opinion it should not prioritize its international image over the safety and well being of its citizens, which is the governments role. Whether readers extract a message of fear or caution is the responsibility of the writer/source.
In response to question 3: Yes, I think that reporting about school shootings etc does contribute to the copycat effect, however, I think that they should still be reported. Many times people want to leave their mark on the world or be remembered for their horrific act. When the media stops giving the air time to the criminal and focuses on the victims, the community moving forward and coming together, and possible solutions to the underlying problems, then I see the coverage as beneficial instead of as a way to get ideas about how to really go out with a bang and be remembered.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I can still remember Kip Kenkle's name (school shooting in Springfield, Oregon in 1998), and how scared I felt as a Junior in high school to know that this had happened so close to home. But I would rather know than not know. This shooting changed my day to day life and changed the way security was handled and opened the door to the importance of recognizing, treating, and understanding mental health issues.
3. If the media did not cover a school shooting in the United States there would be immediate criticism of the media outlets. The American public would feel lied to and begin to feel contempt for once trusted media. With this said, I do think coverage of such events do contribute to the copycat effect but not so much that the media deserves blame for future incidents. More consideration should instead be given to how coverage of such incidents can help prevent future occurrences. For example, the media coverage of the shootings in Jonesboro and Columbine caused my hometown to greatly increase security at local schools. On site police officers were on staff, mandatory identification had to be worn at all times, and all classrooms had to be locked after each start of class bell. I am sure similar measures were implemented at schools nationwide due in part to the extensive media coverage of previous school shootings
ReplyDeleteThanks for the great comments. The consensus of most of the media coverage we looked at felt that Chinese authority's copycat excuse was just a way to move attention away from the stabbings as the Shanghai World Expo approached. However, it would be a bizarre coincidence that random men from different parts of the country independently decided to go on a stabbing spree at local kindergartens.
ReplyDeleteCopycatting is surely an issue here. It sits under a larger umbrella of how the state deals with the society's mental health. The perpetrators were brought to trial the day after their assaults and executed over the course of the same week. It can be inferred that psychological evaluation was minimal and the findings were never made public.
This swift justice characterizes the Chinese authority's approach to such incidents. Their exercise of the media is another. The state wishes to protect its citizens. An example is that the media issued reports on the steps taken to beef up school security. Yet, in these stories the "why" part of the safety initiative was minimal or missing. The Chinese people can only have faith that its government knows best and act accordingly. This is a huge shift in thinking if you compare it to the United States where it is ingrained in our public conscience to use the press to question and critique every minute detail of our leaders.
Transformative Hegemony, like that discussed in the St. Kizitso reading, is a possible approach used by the Chinese state media. It is certainly what the authorities would like. However, Steeves claims that in this approach "the consent won is passive." This was hard to measure in our study mostly because the only sources we could examine were non-Chinese. Some of the video I watched on youtube contained local coverage of the events. There are scenes of parents frantic because they don't know where the paramedics (and police) had taken their injured children. Once the parents find the hospital they become upset because they are not allowed inside. This suggests that their could be criticism of the state from society, but we don't know. The very nature of the Chinese media is that it prevents us, as outsiders, from looking in.
Thanks for the great comments. The consensus of most of the media coverage we looked at felt that Chinese authority's copycat excuse was just a way to move attention away from the stabbings as the Shanghai World Expo approached. However, it would be a bizarre coincidence that random men from different parts of the country independently decided to go on a stabbing spree at local kindergartens.
ReplyDeleteCopycatting is surely an issue here. It sits under a larger umbrella of how the state deals with the society's mental health. The perpetrators were brought to trial the day after their assaults and executed over the course of the same week. It can be inferred that psychological evaluation was minimal and the findings were never made public.
This swift justice characterizes the Chinese authority's approach to such incidents. Their exercise of the media is another. The state wishes to protect its citizens. An example is that the media issued reports on the steps taken to beef up school security. Yet, in these stories the "why" part of the safety initiative was minimal or missing. The Chinese people can only have faith that its government knows best and act accordingly. This is a huge shift in thinking if you compare it to the United States where it is ingrained in our public conscience to use the press to question and critique every minute detail of our leaders.
Transformative Hegemony, like that discussed in the St. Kizitso reading, is a possible approach used by the Chinese state media. It is certainly what the authorities would like. However, Steeves claims that in this approach "the consent won is passive." This was hard to measure in our study mostly because the only sources we could examine were non-Chinese. Some of the video I watched on youtube contained local coverage of the events. There are scenes of parents frantic because they don't know where the paramedics (and police) had taken their injured children. Once the parents find the hospital they become upset because they are not allowed inside. This suggests that their could be criticism of the state from society, but we don't know. The very nature of the Chinese media is that it prevents us, as outsiders, from looking in.
Is there ever a time when an agenda is set by a government institution or media organization that is beneficial to society?
ReplyDeleteI think that this questions leads right into your third question. Of course, extensive coverage of the crimes can 1)generate a negative image of the country at an international level and 2) reflect poorly on the government and social system in China. When we break the situation down, clearly the Chinese government holds the power in this situation. The number one priority of the Chinese government is not the welfare of its people. This blog article is a few years old, but it discusses torture methods used in China by the government. The first three victims in the article are teachers. http://chinaview.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/photo-china-modern-torture-methods-10-death-bed/
The Chinese government is probably less than worried about the actual deaths and violence, but about its reflection on the state.
Those priorities aside, reduced coverage of the crimes prevents other citizens from trying to gain notoriety by committing such a crime. I think this presents important questions to ask about the social system itself: How can individual citizens share their beliefs and ideas in this particular society and how are they being stifled? Are these crimes a result of the mental or psychological effects of their inability to freely share their identity and thoughts? I think that the incident Jean Pierre brings up in his last comment is hugely interesting-that parents who become upset are not allowed into the hospital.
I am curious how memorial services are covered, or how the crimes and victims are commemorated publically? I think that this could illustrate a divergence between coverage of school violence in America and China that reflects significant underlying insight into the Chinese media agenda.
Considering school shootings in America, do you think allowing media coverage about school shootings or knifings might contribute to the copycat effect?
ReplyDeleteThis is a very touchy subject to comment on. I feel as if the answer could go either way. The media has a great amount of power over the public and has a certain level of responsibility to report things accurately and timely. On the other hand, if the media believes that their reporting could possibly cause more murders and horrendous acts, should they be allowed to NOT report an issue based upon their discretion (or the discretion of the government)? In relation to school shootings in America, I think that the media did the right thing by reporting the situations in much detail. For example, the detailed reporting of the Virginia Tech shootings gave the public a very intimate insight on what was going on in the shooters' mind along with ways that the school administration and counselors could have helped to stop the shootings or even prevent them from occurring all together. This reported information can positively affect a victim's reaction to a school shooting along with the way the school administration handles the situation and other unstable students. In contrast, if an unstable student read the details of the reported shootings, he or she could easily copycat the Virginia Tech or even idolize them. I believe this is a risk that should be taken.
1. WOW. Tough question. I think what would be important to know here would be what their greater ideological and economic interests? Are they taking advantage of people? Having a detriment the environment? Lessening the quality of life? If so, I think the absolutely should not be able to exercise their hegemonic power. Unfortunately, I think this is the case in many places in the world. The interests are in those of the few who hold the power and they could care less about the people below them, their quality of life, and our precious mother earth. If there could exist a state that had the purist of intentions, not sure what exactly this would be lie, but I would hope it would include preserving the earth, improving the quality of life of all people in more equal ways, promoting peace, improving physical, mental and emotional well-being of all its citizens.
ReplyDelete2. Yes. As agenda-setting tells us, the media to not tell people what to think, they tell them what to think about. China isn’t a democratic society and their government plays a monumental role in setting the agenda. But, in the US where democracy exist, the government and media conglomerates also have a control as to what the media covers and doesn’t cover. I think it is beneficial for people to receive accurate reporting of what is really going on. I know the media here in the US often tries to say they cover things without, or with minimal, bias, and try to be fair and balanced. I’m not buying it. From choosing to cover a story alone has an inherited bias. Why that article? Why in that way? Why those sources? Why not others? As much as we’d like to think media is fair, I think it is much safer to be aware that this is not always the case and take the media you consume with a grain of salt. Be a conscious consumer of media. I would assume people in China know their government is dictating what is covered in the media. Knowing that before they consume should allow them to take it into consideration when decoding the news.
3. It has been shown that in these cases covering them does sometimes lead to copycat crimes. For example in the case of the Columbine shootings, there were shootings that occurred after where the shooters actually admitted they were inspired by the Columbine killers. However, I do not think not covering the events is an option either. Even when this does not appear in the news it still happens. On NPR, there was an interview with a FBI Special Agent, Mary Ellen O’Toole, who profiles school shooters. She was being interviewed after 3 school shootings occurred in one week. She said it was not at all unusual for one shooting to be followed by another. She later attributed it to this very thing, the copy-cat ‘phenomena.’ Some individuals are impacted after seeing the event in such a way that motivates them to also act out violently. O’Toole said they do it to achieve notoriety, fame and attention. A psychology professor, Danny Azsom, that there is a direct relationship between media coverage and the copycat effect. He said ‘the greater the publicity, the stronger the copycat effect.’ Yet, he still argues that it’s not something you cannot cover. I do believe the media plays a large role in bringing about copy-cat crimes, but at the same time there is importance in the coverage. I feel these event cannot be overlooked and be lacking in representation. Is it really good for people to not know about what is going on in the world, sometimes in their own town, or even school as someone of you, and many others, have said?
ReplyDelete4. Maintaining the status quo? I think not. Change the state of existing affairs. Make them better. Improve the status quo. Make people think. Keep them informed. When reporting on crimes there needs to be certain sensitivity and the adversarial effects could be honed in.
I am APPALLED at the statement of not placing these stories on the front page and attributing the reason to the World Expo opening and not the safety of innocent children. Also, I would have like to know more about the reason the people gave for inciting the violence. Not that any reason to hurt another person in such a violent way makes it in any way acceptable. But really, what brought it along? Was it like the second approach of the media said, that the government needed to pay more attention to the mental health of its citizens? Were the mentally ill? Must have been to do such a horrendous thing.
QUESTION:Considering school shootings in America, do you think allowing media coverage about school shootings or knifings might contribute to the copycat effect?
ReplyDeleteWhile I do not feel media coverage produces copycat killings in the US since it is individuals predisposed to violent behavior who commit crimes such as these, I do feel the media certainly can add to the unwraveling of an already-disturbed iidividual. I do not feel the media can create psychotic conduct or construct mass murderers, only further complicate the minds of violent, antisocial people. In its potency and ultimate goal to reinforce existent power structures, the media attempts to standardize and assuage individuality. With this in mind, one can only conclude that the media prefers not to have isolated instances of individual violence since these can undermine the very structure it aims to perpetuate.
On a side note, I'm confused as to why this question was included since the US and China are such culturally opposite countries in terms of history, power structure, values and social attitudes. What occurs in US media and the resulting public reaction could theoretically be divergent from what might happen in China. Further, the school shootings in the US have generally been perpetrated by students with the exception of one foiled attempt by an adult male, while as far as I can tell, the crimes in China were carried out by adults.
This is going to be very subjective but as a citizen of a developing country and having a non-western perspective about this, I want to say that it is NEVER okay for a government institution to set the agenda. I would like to believe that the media in India is free and objective, but I know its not true. I think it is far better to know than not know - I would rather know what my government is doing wrong and where they are messing up, rather than not know. In India, things are routinely brushed under the carpet where the issue just hibernates and eventually, blows up into something that would just embarass the nation globally. A great example is the Commonwealth Games.
ReplyDeleteComing to the Knifings in China, I agree with Brittany - they should report the heinous crimes so that citizens are more vigilant about their own safety. It is better to be safe than sorry. Having said that, there is a way to report these crimes. Instead of making those killers sound heroic by giving them so much coverage, they should have focussed on the children, themselves. Is there any news coverage about the loss to parents of the children that were killed and families of the teachers? It is a tragic issue and that deserves to be spoken about.
I also think that the subsequent news coverage about what the schools are doing to ensure safety of the children is more to reassure the parents. The question to be asked by the media organisations is: Are the schools going to wait to implement safety measures until crimes like this happen? Whatever happened to these safety measure BEFORE?
Also, a question to the people doing this case study - on a side note, what is the take of the citizen media on this?
Is there ever a time when an agenda is set by a government institution or media organization that is beneficial to society?
ReplyDeleteDefinitely. Think of global warming issues. If the head of a media corporation mandated two stories about the consequences of global warming per day, it would keep this important issue at the front of the public's mind and encourage sustained action against it. Or think of it this way: If the government disallowed positive coverage of cigarette companies/cigarette smoking, would you object? Why or why not?
The issue with agenda setting is like the issue of censorship. The biggest problem is who should be allowed to set the agenda/censor information? If it is someone who shares your opinions or beliefs, you really might not mind, and could even see it as a positive thing. But of course, it's easy to imagine how someone could abuse such power. Who should have the right to do such a thing, and how is that person decided on? I think that no one SHOULD have the right to do so, but in our current state of affairs, it happens that media corporations DO have the power to do so. And I think that any lawyer would be hard pressed to find a case for why having that power is not the same as having the right, since after all, it is a private corporation. Whether they use that power for ill or for good is up in the air. But there's probably room to say they use it for both good and bad ends.
This same kind of logic probably applies to the Chinese government. Maybe they shouldn't have the power to censor, but the fact of the matter is that they do. And though it would be unpopular here in the West to think so, there probably has been/can be some good done by censoring media. It just depends on your perspective.
1- How far is should a state be allowed to exercise its hegemonic power to promote greater ideological or economic interests?
ReplyDeleteI like Dhvani's voice on this question. A state should be transparent regardless of the events. Media serves the people by informing the people. Or, at least, that is one approach to Media. I can also see the Chinese Government's reluctance to report and sensationalize an event the way the US Media would. I think there are cultural under tones at work if China were to report on the events in the same way the US does. China has a right to feel threatened. The US's status quo and hegemonic normativity is problematic. So I also understand and respect a country's need for privacy. It seems like the lack of coverage with China is at least as much about saving face internationally as it is saving face locally. Coming from a country and a culture that US normative values constantly criticize; I understand China's need for privacy. It's a way to protect against hegemony and it's a way to put a clear boundary with a power that devours any boundaries put on it. So, I guess I see and appreciate both sides of the issue. Covering the knifings is important, and necessary for the Media to actually serve the people, AND not covering as a need for privacy and a way to build a wall against an aggressively judging intruder is also understandable. I guess I would vote for a government that did cover the event but blocked the coverage from leaving its borders. This is impossible I know; however, I would vote for a society to be fully informed and in true dialogue with its government. And I would also vote for a society, culture, and country to have its privacy in the utmost when it's doing it's self-reflexive work. These are spaces that as outsiders, we have no right to witness or judge. The Chinese government is probably not dying to be judged any more then necessary and yet, in the Western world, we always know what's best for everyone . . . or at least, we make decisions that reflect that.
I especially appreciated Alexandra's insight into the Chinese people. I agree with her, that the Chinese are probably well aware their news media is a propaganda piece for the government. In the Middle East, the notion of free press is hard to come by with our governments. What is the result of this reality? We all know our governments are only speaking to defend themselves. Hence we are FAR more critical then the average American is. US Media is also extremely bias, but because of the propaganda so thoroughly being sold on a 'free press' and the concepts of a true living democracy in the West, Americans think their news sources are balanced and fair. Arabs, and I'm sure the Chinese, see through the smoke screens. As a populace we are much more critical, though if you believed common Western discourse about us, 'we' are the victims. Even though, I think an American who believes the way news in the Middle East is reported on, is much more of a victim intellectually at least.
3. Considering school shootings in America, do you think allowing media coverage about school shootings or knifings might contribute to the copycat effect?
As for Media coverage of the shootings and the copycat effect I liked what Julie had to say. Julie asks, is there a way to provide resources for people when issues are covered that are traumatic. I think there is something to be said about covering the news differently. We can still cover it, but I invite a more creative lens used to covering issues. Perhaps one that is more therapeutic then sensationalizing and destructive. I don't know what that would look like yet, but I pose this question to the group. How could we cover these issues in a way that decreases the copycat effect and INSTEAD increases people's well being?
Question #3: Considering school shootings in America, do you think allowing media coverage about school shootings or knifings might contribute to the copycat effect?
ReplyDeleteAnswer: Concerning this question, I am going to have to answer no. I do not believe that media coverage about school shootings or knifings contribute directly to the copycat effect. I do believe that they have an effect but not enough of one to be considered the soul or major reasoning of committing such an act.
Distraught beings that are essentially contemplating performing such an act can gain motivation from seeing the publicity and effectiveness. They know from previous cases that their story will get told and that they will accomplish their end goal to be heard and in a warped way seen as someone fighting for what they believe in. Case in point, the Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, stated that he saw Eric and Dylan, the Columbine shooters as martyrs. He clearly noticed and admired the horror they performed and it did have some of an influence in his motivation. However, and this is a big however, there are so many other elements that go into committing such an act.
For example mental health, which pertains to all the Columbine shooting, VT shootings and Chinese knifings. As well as, other outside influence such as video games, the social environment and treatment of these people, subcultures they may be involved in and access to destructive weapons. No sane person with the slightest bit of a moral consciousness would see something like a shooting or a knifing covered in the news and get the idea to go out and do it themselves. There would be far more incidents of such massacres if that were the case. These other weighing factors have a far greater influence on these people than the media. Again not to say the media cannot have an affect, as they rightfully do in certain cases, but it is not a weighing enough affect to consider the media as a main contributing factor.
Giving media coverage to issues like this can further help prevent future attacks. It brings awareness to factors such as bullying in schools, gun laws, mental health awareness and security. By gaining knowledge on what caused these people to perform such horrific acts, the information can help others see warning signs in other cases. For this reason and others, I believe it is necessary to report on such issues. For example, people have a right to know that a major life threatening attack has occurred either close to them or most likely close to someone they know. In the case of the knifings in China, whose to say that if the issue were covered more in the media and not censored by the government that others would have either help their kindergarten students from school or that schools could have been given the opportunity to increase security and prevent future attacks. Unfortunately this is not something that we will know unless these sorts of issues continue to happen over there and the media do increase coverage on the issue.
The Chinese media treatment of these knifings is of course troubling, but easily understood from a non-Western perspective. A previous comment mentioned the concept of "saving face", which is absolutely at work in most Asian societies. Even though it's obvious China needed to save face to the rest of the world on the eve of its Expo, I think the gov't was more motivated by the need to appear efficient at handling a problem in the eyes of its citizens. And of course most Chinese people know that information handed down to them is manipulated - but this is the "dance" that is constantly played out and largely accepted in many cultures (Viet Nam easily qualifies). Western critics can't stand this and I agree it's maddening, but for many non-Westerners, this is not the real issue at hand; the lack of media coverage may be seen as having little impact on the root causes of such horrendous crimes.
ReplyDelete