Why The Press Should Identify The Shooters In Mass Killings (Op-Ed)

The most controversial question ever asked in a Presidential Debate came in 1988 when CNN's Bernard Shaw stumped Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis with a hypothetical capital punishment question. What if some criminal raped and murdered his wife Kitty Dukakis? Would he still oppose the death penalty?

Michael Dukakis famously stumbled over the question and ultimately failed to answer it in the only rational way any person could. "No, of course I would want that criminal to pay with their lives. But that is why as a society we don't make decisions based on any individual's desire to obtain justice. Decisions made for the society as a whole might not satisfy some individuals. But one of the prices we pay for living in a democracy. And in a democracy often the best we can do is balance the impact on individuals while still making the best decisions for all of us."

I've thought about that moment a few times in the recent 24 hours as I've watched a debate go on about whether the press should report the identity of the person or persons responsible for mass shootings.

I'm not going to pretend that I understand the point of view or the pain suffered by someone whose loved one was murdered in such a horrific fashion. My college girlfriend was murdered in our apartment and her murderers were never identified. So I have a keen understanding of what it means to suffer a great loss. I know what it feels like to look for meaning in an event that has no logic or reason. I suspect that if I had a loved one die at the hands of a mass murderer, than I would want to do whatever I could to minimize my pain and find meaning in the chaos. Even if it was something as small as not providing the shooter any small amount of public notoriety. But despite all of that, I still can't fully comprehend the pain suffered by these families.

As each mass shooting takes place, the number of voices pushing for journalists to not identify the shooters has increased. The arguments against identifying the shooters vary, but generally
center around a couple of points. One argument is that some shooters have expressed the desire to get attention and publicizing their names only rewards their actions. Some people also point to some compelling studies that show a drop in teenage suicide clusters following a change in the way the press reported on the facts surrounding individual suicide cases.

Both of those arguments make some sense, although I am not convinced either point is compelling enough to ignore the basic facts of a mass shooting. And in fact, I believe that ignoring the identity of the shooter and the basic facts of the shooting only make it more likely that we'll see more mass shootings and additional pointless deaths.

Yes, a search for fame is likely some factor in some of the killings. As is a lack of affordable mental health care, bullying in schools and a society where it's easier every day to live an isolated and lonely life.

But focusing on those factors allows all of us to disregard the thing that each of these mass killings has in common: the easy access to guns. It's not a coincidence that the United States is the world leader in mass murders. As a society we've made it easy for any person who is unhappy with their lives, who is seeking fame or revenge or just a way out to kill scores of people whose only crime is being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The epitome of this moral disconnect is Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin, who asked that news organizations not report the identity of Chris Harper Mercer, the man responsible for the Oregon school massacre. This is a man who in previous months has extensively proclaimed that neither he nor anyone in his department would enforce any federal attempts to increase background checks or other limitations on the ability to purchase a weapon. This is a man who has previously speculated that the Sandy Hook/Newtown massacre might have been some sort of government conspiracy. And yet when a massacre lands in his hometown, he's most concerned with whether the press will publicly identify the shooter.

And that's the problem with these efforts to convince the press not to name the shooter. It's a solution to a problem that is only tangential to the issue at hand. Yes, we should be working on all
the factors that might make it more likely for mass shootings to occur in the future. But focusing on the publication of a shooter's name is about as helpful as campaigning to put armed guards in every movie theater or school. These are solutions designed to make us feel better and less hopeless while allowing us to ignore the difficult task we all know needs to be tackled.

Now as a journalist I do believe there are some ways that we can responsibly limit the damage from a mass shooter that commits these crimes in an effort to gain fame. We don't need to publicize the contents of their "farewell" or any sort of "manifesto" they leave as an explanation. Their crime is the epitaph they picked for themselves and that is the way they should be best remembered.

Yes, guns don't kill people, people do. But as someone recently said to me, Vicodin doesn't kill people, people do. But we don't allow everybody to buy painkillers at swap meets or stores without the proper documentation. As a society we agree that there be some limits on who can purchase painkillers or drive a car. And yet we still seem incapable of enacting laws that respectfully balance gun access with some limits on who can purchase them.

I'm not some stereotypical gun-hating liberal. I was born in a smallish town one generation removed from the farm. I grew up around guns and agree that there's nothing inherently wrong with owning one.

But the sad truth is that when that next mass shooting inevitably happens, it won't be the fault of the press for identifying Chris Harper Mercer. It will be on us, because we all know what needs to
be done. It's a difficult task and won't happen in a year or even five. Each death that takes place is on us and our inability to move past easy political slogans and fear-mongering by politicians who care more about their office than doing the hard work of governing.

It's easy to blame the press or video games or the politicians or the family that raised the shooter. But that blame is nothing but an excuse to make us feel better about our inaction. It's easier to focus on small tangential causes than it is to do the horrifically difficult work it will take to change the way American society views gun ownership. It's easier to tweet our angst about the shootings and say things like '"this will never change." We should in the streets protesting, showing up at every public political event asking the tough questions and demanding politicians on both sides move past the pat, carefully vetted answers. Most of us don't want to do that and because we're afraid of confrontation, we allow these shootings to happen again and again.

When the next shooting happens, this will be on all of us. Again.