Since 2013, over 200 school shootings have taken place in America. Within that time frame, over 159 deaths trace back to such tragedies (Everytown). These numbers may seem small until one associates them with faces. Instead of concentrating on those victims though, the assailants find themselves on the covers of every magazine stand and the focus of the six o’clock news broadcasts all across the country. While citizens desire to stay informed, does continual media coverage create future shooters? Studies have shown that copycat school shootings occur within 13-31 days of the original event (Towers et al). Such inspiration arises from the constant, mass media coverage each shooting receives. As a result of the contagious nature of violence, mass coverage of school shootings in the media influences others to follow. 

Due to the factors of exposure, susceptibility, incubation period, and transmission which school shootings contain, these shootings possess a contagious nature. Typically used in reference to a viral or biological disease, this contagion comes about through exposure to a similar event. By previous exposure to violence or the diagnosis of a mental illness, the likelihood of someone engaging in violent acts increases in comparison to someone who had a happy family life or was not a trauma victim. One must note that not all individuals who suffer from a mental illness, or even a majority of them, commit violent acts. Mental instability, however, does remain a qualifying factor (Slutkin). Regardless of someone’s mental state, exposure makes someone more predisposed to commit violent crime. Mental illness definitely serves as a component in the susceptibility of a shooter, but the media awakens violence. 

Like all viruses, an incubation period follows the initial contact with violence. When investigators delve into the life history of the shooters, they normally detect an incubation period. Marginalized individuals might appear normal yet they may have suicidal thoughts, feel neglected or mistreated, fall victim to bullying, etc. (Slutkin). Acclaimed sociologist Katherine Newman states, “School shooters are not all loners and they are not all bullied, but nearly all experience ostracism and social marginality. For some of these boys….it’s the perception of marginalization, despite evidence to the contrary, that matters most” (Fast 140). Rarely do these individuals strike others around them as murderers— yet the contagion of violence may already have spread and started to develop within them (NPR). Although not acted upon immediately, as time goes on, the crime incubates inside of them, waiting for their breaking point. At this time, they feel they must at last have some sort of control or recognition which they can gain from a school shooting and the fame it provides (Brown). Lastly, transmission serves as the final piece of the puzzle in how the media inspires copycat school shootings. The “violence creates more violence” mantra proves true in that violence transmits between individuals through victimization of violence or by watching violence take place (Slutkin).  The media serves as a means of transmission by repetitively analyzing the details of a school shooting. The constant coverage of school shootings acts as a catalyst, which causes the individual (whether a victim or not) to internalize the images and words surrounding the event, leading to the possible inspiration to commit a school shooting themselves. 

The news and social media act as external factors that trigger violent symptomatic responses. The news media, most directly, provides continuous coverage of a criminal who has committed a terrible, yet constantly talked of crime. By giving out the name, face, life history, and other details of the shooter, the news gives the assailant “fifteen minutes of fame”— the problem stands because this coverage lasts more than just fifteen minutes. This goes beyond informative coverage. The news serves as a means of glorifying the criminal. As Chris Mercer, the well-known shooter of Umpqua Community College, wrote, “seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight” (qtd. in Brown). One can and must expect inspiration to arise within susceptible individuals from such treatment. Social media also has its place within the provocation of criminals. The news media sets the tone for what the public views as currently popular. Living in a digital age, news spreads quickly through social media as well. Through social media, individuals see what others want them to see: the best of them— no matter what their life actually consists of or looks like. Those on the other side of the screen see the people within social media posts as strong, loved, and popular in contrast with how they may view themselves and, consequently, gain a warped view of reality. Due to the excessive amount of time spent on social media, adolescents, in particular, develop depression-like symptoms from the peer pressure and insecurities they face when constantly evaluating their own life with that of their “friend” (O’Keeffe et al 802). To a vulnerable person, this perceived reality may cause them to believe that the lives of those around them have attained perfection. This new worldview may differ greatly from real life. When susceptible individuals feel that everything they do turns out wrong, deceptive social media posts can heighten the suppressed desire to react violently. The media has power and influences behavior. This power leaves individuals feeling powerless or worthless—that they have somehow not measured up to the standards of the lives of others’. The depression created by social media can cause individuals to do anything in order to gain recognition or “likes,” even slaughtering innocent people. 

As the correlating evidence piles up, criminal justice professionals regard the media as largely at fault in the spread of copycat school shootings. Many argue that the cure for this issue resides in anti-gun legislation or mental health funding. One must remember, however, that out of the thousands of individuals who suffer from mental illnesses and the staggering statistic of gun owners, the majority of those people do not commit mass shootings (Fast 11). Also, while mental health funding and anti-gun legislation certainly have their place in beneficial, effective prevention strategies, a less discussed culprit abides: the media (Perrin). The media serves as a major factor in inspired violence and does so in two ways: through motivation and knowledge. The media motivates individuals to create school shootings through the promises of fame and popularity, as seen in the case of Brenda Spencer. In January of 1979, high-school junior, Brenda Spencer, told her classmates she “was going to ‘do something big to be on TV.” Her big break involved firing on Cleveland Elementary School in California where she killed two people and injured nine others (Evening Independent). The fame-driven horror does not end here however! 

The Virginia Tech Shooting of 2007 offers another instance of this. Committing the deadliest school shooting in American history to date, Seung-Hui Cho, a twenty-three years old English major, fatally shot 32 people on his college campus. His first round of rampage began before 7:15 in the morning when he killed two students in his dormitory. Breaking from the massacre for approximately two hours, Cho mailed a media packet to the NBC news station. Afterwards, Cho returned to his rampage shooting before police arrested him (CNN). He supplied the media with multiple posed pictures and a manifesto which spoke of his idolization of famed Columbine shooters and explained his need to follow-through with this act (Denver Post). While Cho associated religious factors to his need to kill, he obviously wanted the world to remember him by pre-planning a media packet for the press. In Brenda and Seung-Hui’s circumstances, along with so many others, they knew they would be the focus of the media for some time to come with their gruesome acts. The popularity brought about by school shootings, while not favorable, ensures a legacy that lingers on even after the death of the shooter (Fast 186).  The media serves not only as the means of inspiration for the crime, but also as the means of enshrining the criminal in time forever. By the continual reportage of school shootings, the media gives the shooter exactly what drove him to commit the crime in the first-place: eminence.  

The media motivates school shootings through knowledge by providing plans of previous school shootings. The media influences new school shootings by answering the who, when, where, and how questions for each previous case. Giving play-by-plays and uploading manifestos allow individuals to follow in the footsteps of their terrifying predecessors. Sociologist Zeynep Tufecki states that “establishing a plan of action… in which you can visualize your steps and their effects is important in enabling follow-through” (Tufecki). Sue Klebold, mother of famed Columbine shooter, Dylan Klebold, strongly advocates against releasing the manifestos of shooters due to the risk it poses against other vulnerable individuals. She claims that it not only gives others a false sense of security that someone they love stands unable to create such a tragedy, but it could inspire someone to recreate a similar shooting massacre (NPR). Media coverage affects family members by giving them reason to presume they are untouchable by the contagion of violence. Mass shooters do not always take the form of seemingly insane, erratic individuals—violence may still be incubating within them. The behavior that arises from the spread of violence may not be seen by others or, at least, may not be taken seriously. The media does a disservice to society by airing extensive coverage on school shootings because it inspires individuals to commit similar shootings and creates a false confidence of immunity to violence within communities by releasing details of previous school shooters and shootings. While the media believes the public deserves to know every detail surrounding these shootings to protect communities and satisfy their interest, they actually create a degenerative cycle of violence. By communicating the details of the shooters and their crime, the media only inspires copycat shootings and facilitates fictitious belief of exemption from violence, putting the people in harm’s way once again. 

While campaigns to end the extensive coverage of school shootings continue gaining momentum, some disapprove of these movements. This community of critics argue that by hindering the ability of the press to share such information, it actually harms the public. They oppose these campaigns based on their foundational belief that the public has the right to know what goes on, and understandably so because the Constitution protects freedom of speech and public press. By charging the media to withhold certain information on school shootings from the public, the government infringes on people’s rights to relay information or beliefs freely. Many are also concerned that if the government steps in to restrict certain information based on the beliefs of one group, there remains no facet of society outside of the government’s bounds (ACLU). While this presents a valid argument, one must look at the pre-existing parameters of free speech. Just as men or women cannot shout “fire” in a crowded movie theater or claim to carry a bomb on a plane, many instances of free speech tempered by safety subsist. Logically, the argument follows that if extensive media coverage serves as a carrier for school shootings, the media must follow the same criteria. The media exists as a means of protecting citizens by relaying important information— they were not established to merely sell subscriptions through dramatic or glamorous stories. Freedom remains the most basic right of any human being.  Without safeguarding the lives of students, however, freedom loses its relativism. Without life, freedom has nothing to protect. 

For some, the controversy over mass media coverage on school shootings strikes close to home. The Editorial Board of USA Today came to the conclusion that, while it may prove beneficial in some ways, restricting what the media releases and withholds to and from the public essentially calls into question the job of the news media entirely. They argue that if the news media cannot give the whole truth on such matters and delivering information the people want to know, this mindset will leak into other areas of journalism and the media becomes unreliable altogether (USA Today).  Taking it a step further, some even contend that the censorship of the media proves potentially dangerous as well as unconstitutional. Without sharing evidence and data collected from mass shootings, new and effective legislation may not be created and potential shooters may not be diagnosed (USA Today). In Dietz’s opinion, however, the media lies more at fault for school shootings than policy makers and their agendas (Dietz). Instead of worrying about how laws will develop, one must consider the lives that will cease to exist. The outpouring of violent images, videos, and audio recordings shown by the media opportunistically infect individuals with the desire to top the last shooter. The possibility of stopping the invasive epidemic of copycat school shootings persists, but the media must change its focus. Rather than displaying the graphic and sensationalized evidence, the media should focus on the victims. Even then, the media ought to refrain from over-broadcasting the topic for the sake of the victims and their families.  The media must find a way to speak truth and still save the lives of innocent students all across America who die due to these tragedies and the media that helped create them.

A potential solution to change the focus of media coverage in the case of school shootings stands. The DON’T NAME THEM and No Notoriety campaigns endeavor to end the contagious spread of school shootings by proposing a small amount of media coverage focusing on the need-to-know details alone. DON’T NAME THEM began at Texas State University in order to change the way the media reports mass shootings.  Law enforcement officials, the I Love U Guys Foundation (a foundation dedicated to keeping schools safe), and the FBI work together to combat school shootings all across the country (DON’T NAME THEM). These movements acknowledge the need for naming the shooter and giving out a picture for identification purposes, but only while the shooter evades police custody and remains a threat to other people (No Notoriety).  The extensive publicity each school shooting receives only helps to further spread the contagion of school shootings. By focusing on who committed the crime and the details surrounding the gory event, the crime continues to feed sensationalism. These campaigns seek to strip that element of excitement away and focus on the real stories of victims, their families, and the heroes who stopped the shooting in its tracks (DON’T NAME THEM). As the media continually flashes the life histories and portraits of school shooters, spectators grow increasingly intrigued by the criminals. The mass media coverage tracking the lives of the shooters creates a following for the them, albeit not positively. The DON’T NAME THEM and No Notoriety campaigns offer better answers on how to combat the pathology of copycat school shootings. Through giving just a few days of airtime concerning the necessary details about the crime, the public receive the information they wish to know while the victims and their families receive the honor and privacy they deserve.  

Legislators and mental health advocates constantly strive to create new acts to guard America’s students against those infected by the virulent contagion of school shootings. While legislation certainly has influence, the focus of this paper regards the media.  Inspiration derived from mass media coverage remains an important issue in today’s society. Leader of the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit, Andre Simons, claims, “The copycat phenomenon is real. As more and more notable and tragic events occur, we think we’re seeing more compromised, marginalized individuals who are seeking inspiration from those past attacks” (qtd. in NBC News). Both media and criminal justice professionals must work together to resolve this problem. “Techno-sociology” researcher, Zeynep Tufecki, writes that while she does not wish to point fingers to mass media as the main culprit for violent acts, she desires to educate the public on the possibility of remaining informed without receiving every detail surrounding these events (Tufecki). She specifically states, “It’s not a call for censorship. It’s a call for a desensationalisation of the coverage and not giving the killer publicity on the terms he seeks” (Brown). By following the suggestion of current campaigns against mass media coverage (such as DON’T NAME THEM and No Notoriety), the pandemic disease of inspired school shootings progresses towards a cure. Through stifling the attention the shooter gains, the media aids in eliminating the motivation to commit rampage violence. The news media establishes what the public deems as popular, so when it gives the majority of its airtime to such events, it’s no wonder copy-cat shootings follow suit. 

In addition to cutting down the coverage of school shootings, another solution lies within social media. If social media sites could ban certain photos, captions, and hashtags with keywords related to a recent/pass shooting, a decrease in public interest might occur. Although it may seem impossible to control everyone through this approach, this solution would function similarly to a vaccine—the more individuals you safeguard, the more lives you will save.  The interest of the public drives the media to air what it does in order to boost the number of viewers watching their program. While this provides a possible answer to snuffing out the contagion of mass shootings, some may remain wary of this. Many people act hesitant about this due to the confidentiality rights it presents and the bigger government it creates. In this case, the government, in conjunction with social networking sites, would filter uploaded posts based on this topic, considering the danger it poses to users. Does this infringe upon personal privacy rights? Perhaps. A rebuttal to this, however, argues that social media posts uploaded to the World Wide Web have already made themselves available for the world to see. Freedom of speech loses its privilege when it presents harmful consequences to the speaker and their audience. Safety precedes speech and, in this case, the security of American schools must precede social media posts. 

The United States leads the globe in the number of annual school shootings (Gupta). In light of this, the query of what creates these school shootings persists to this day. As one examines the evidence surrounding these school shootings, it becomes apparent that many fingers point to mass media coverage for spreading the contagion of copy-cat violence. While certainly more gun control plays a part in the answer to these shootings, criminal justice professionals consider many of the shootings avoidable. By cutting down the amount of coverage and details the news provides about shooters and the massacre they created, many individuals would no longer view rampage violence as a quick road to fame. Although censorship of the media brings into question violating constitutional rights for freedom of speech and press, as well as the role of the government, the prescription for decreasing sensationalism continues to strengthen. Creating asepsis of school shootings will undoubtedly present difficulties. The media, criminal justice professionals, psychologists, and policy-makers, however, must enforce the three-fold solution of downplaying the glorification of criminals (while still informing the public of significant events) set before them. Firstly, they must limit media coverage to basic information alone. The media should only report the location where the shooting occurred, the time it happened, and the number of victims involved. If the shooter eludes arrest, the media may also broadcast their name and picture, but that remains the single circumstance for such treatment. Secondly, the media should not over-broadcast the information surrounding the shooting. The media may report the information no more than three times a day (morning, afternoon, and evening) and must return to their normally scheduled news stories the week after the shooting. Lastly, they must educate the public on the importance of reducing the sensationalism surrounding school shootings and emphasize the need for victims’ families to mourn their loss without continually being reminded of the event that changed their lives forever. For the sakes of loved ones, neighbors, and students all across the country: let’s make America’s schools safe again. 
