The answer is it ruins the narrative of the conventional media and people will bring up all sorts of excuses to defend why it’s fine for a ‘trans’ person and not for anyone else. Henceforth, they sweep that under the carpet and forget about it.
Both are indefensible. Anyone defending either side is just part of the problem.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, newspapers frequently reported on suicides in detail. It was observed that the reporting on suicide had a potential epidemic effect. As a result, a standard was adopted in which suicides were generally not reported on at all, except where the person or context was notable, in which case few details are transmitted.
If a readership constantly encounters stories about suicide, that will surely increase suicidal ideation within that readership.
It seems a similar standard needs to be worked out for mass shootings. Simply not reporting on these events isn't reasonable. Nor is (unintentionally, negligently, or corruptly) helping a mass murder realize their goals by publishing their manifestos or making them famous.
4 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 22.8 ms ] threadThe answer is it ruins the narrative of the conventional media and people will bring up all sorts of excuses to defend why it’s fine for a ‘trans’ person and not for anyone else. Henceforth, they sweep that under the carpet and forget about it.
Both are indefensible. Anyone defending either side is just part of the problem.
If a readership constantly encounters stories about suicide, that will surely increase suicidal ideation within that readership.
It seems a similar standard needs to be worked out for mass shootings. Simply not reporting on these events isn't reasonable. Nor is (unintentionally, negligently, or corruptly) helping a mass murder realize their goals by publishing their manifestos or making them famous.