On media and massacres

A frenzied media and a disturbed angry lone assassin in search of massive attention have coalesced in a Colorado cinema like a perfect storm.

This is not the first, nor will it be the last time unfortunately. The ghastly details of the tragic slayings in Colorado are now common knowledge. Yet many experts agree that dramatic, hysterical publicising of the perpetrator and his crime can feed the so called copycat compulsion.

So how do we reconcile the legitimate need to know, respond and inform with the potential for inciting further violence from other vulnerable, disturbed individuals 'out there'? Furthermore, with so much information instantly available on the internet, is any kind of containment and control possible?

Significantly the Aurora tragedy occurred almost upon the anniversary of the Breivik killings in Norway. Jonus Gahr Store, the Norwegian Minister of foreign affairs has written in The New York Times of remaining open and democratic about this event. Legal proceedings were in an open court.

Some have criticised this as possibly inciting more violence. But the approach was unique and seems to have been calming. There was genuine bipartisanship — the issue did not become a major political flag waving opportunity — and the Norwegian people have responded with reflection, honesty and open grief.

There has not been an emphasis on revenge. Instead the goal has been to reduce the likelihood of reprisals, by open grieving and unsensational reporting.

In sharp contrast the media and politicians have maintained a reactive rather than reflective response to the Aurora mass shooting. There has been a shrill focus on gun laws. The consensus has been, 'You can't have a genuine debate on gun reform in an election year'.

Media and lone protagonists who commit very public mass murder have traits in common. They seek to dramatise, enthrall, send a message, tell a story and to rise above the pack. Selling the news can cross the line that separates reporting and informing from the intent to seduce and shock.

The media's business model is not conducive to the straight factual, low-key reporting recommended by forensic Psychiatrist Park Dietz. Dietz recommends that reporting should remain localised to the community in which the event occurred, and that other news outlets should make its reporting as boring (yes, boring) as possible.

But the news media, like people such as the Aurora shooter James Holmes, are out to gain mass attention.

Dietz recommends that the horror of the event does not become part of a 24/7 news cycle, that body counts are not featured and that the perpetrator is not pictured and described as some kind of anti hero (i.e. evil genius).

So how can the media attain its goal of mass interest without itself engendering the next horrific news story?

Even so called 'factual' straight reporting can mislead if used to embellish a histrionic narrative

When Arlene Holmes was phone by journalist Mathew Mosk regarding the shootings in Aurora, she was said to be 'unsurprised', saying 'you've got the right person'. America's ABC News came out with guns blazing, running the headline: 'Aurora Suspect James Holmes Mother: "You have the Right Person".'

Holmes claims she was quoted out of context: 'I was awakened by a call from a reporter about 5:45 in the morning. I did not know anything about a shooting in Aurora at that time. He asked if I was Arlene Holmes and if my son was James Holmes who lives in Aurora, Colorado. I answered yes, you have the right person.'

One answer to the horror of Aurora may lie in a spirit of non opportunistic, deep engagement with the grief and tragedy by the public media and political leaders. Perhaps then it will be possible to comfort the bereaved including the family of the perpetrator.

This could lead us to have honest open discussion that includes how to best prevent further occurrences of tragedies such as the Aurora massacre.

Lyn Bender is a Melbourne based psychologist.