Last week, on March 15, 2019, an Australian-born neo-Nazi opened fire on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing 50 Muslim worshipers and injuring over 48 others before being captured by police.
In the wake of this tragic massacre, New Zealand's prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, stated that she would never mention the shooter's name because she didn't want to grant him "notoriety".
This is, of course, a familiar call. Since the 2012 shooting in Aurora, Colorado, there has been an online campaign known as #NoNotoriety, which seeks to pressure media organizations into not mentioning the names or backgrounds of mass shooters. In recent years, it has gained significant traction, and, following the New Zealand massacre, it has again risen to the forefront.
Whenever the shooter's name, Brenton Tarrant, is mentioned by a news station, angry tweets flood the news outlet decrying the supposed "glorification" and "humanization" of the shooter by the media. They demand that the news outlets never mention the shooter or his background, and encourage others to do the same.
While I understand why proponents of #NoNotoriety do not wish to mention a shooter's name, I think that this is a major mistake. I have written about mass shootings before, and I always mention the shooter's name. Is that because I want to "glorify" them? No. Is that because I want to "humanize" them? No. Is that because I want to grant them notoriety and fame? No.
I mention the shooter's name for the same reason the media does: Because, regardless of what one feels, the fact remains that the shooter is an important part of the story. We cannot properly address a mass shooting without mentioning the shooter's name.
Now, I find it to be fascistic and borderline authoritarian for someone to demand that a news outlet censor content that they don't like, but setting that aside, there are many other reasons we need to mention the shooter's name and talk about his life.
You see, if we ignore the shooter and condemn him from memory, then we forget about how and why he committed such a terrible atrocity. We ignore the circumstances and factors that led him to become a mass murderer.
The notion that mass shooters commit their crimes for "notoriety" is patently false. The VAST majority of mass shooters do not care about whether or not they are known, and, if they do show a desire for fame, it is usually secondary or even tertiary to their other goals.
A mass shooter's primary goal is to kill people, not to gain notoriety. His primary goal is to inflict pain and suffering on other people, not for infamy but to satisfy a twisted, internal desire.
Furthermore, the notion that discussing the life of a mass shooter somehow "humanizes" him is also simply not true. In fact, it is the opposite that is true. NOT mentioning the shooter's name is what humanizes him, because it does not distinguish him from the rest of the population.
Take this example: Pretty much everyone knows the name of serial killer Ted Bundy. Some have complained that Bundy's notoriety served to grant him the infamy he always desired, but that was not the case. Because he became so notorious, Bundy became universally hated, and, when he finally went to the electric chair for his crimes, few people, if any, protested his execution.
Because the public knew of Bundy's evil and cruelty, and had a name to associate it with, it gave the PUBLIC a sense of closure when he was executed. In the end, Bundy died a hated man with few friends and no sympathy. That was a death he richly deserved, and it would not have been possible had he not been notorious.
But, perhaps, the greatest flaw with the #NoNotoriety movement is that it defies human nature. Regardless of what #NoNotoriety proponents want, a shooter will always be infamous. There is no way that a shooter can kill 50 people and NOT become notorious. Media outlets will always report his name, as they should, and no amount of angry tweets or trending hashtags will ever change that.
When I write my articles, I always have an important underlying message. To convey that message, it is often essential that I include graphic details of a crime, because my message cannot be properly interpreted unless I include them. I don't like to include such details, but I do so anyway because I know that my message is important.
Naming a shooter is one of those details. I have to name the shooter in order to get my message across, and there is no way around it. That is exactly why the media mentions a shooter's name; not because they WANT to, but because they HAVE to.
Of course, I have the utmost sympathy for victims of mass shootings. There is no reason that we should discount their lives and their names in favor of covering the killer. The victims are more important, in the end, than a mass shooter.
But my concern is with PREVENTING more people from becoming victims, and part of that process requires mentioning the name of the shooter. It may not be pleasant. It may not feel comfortable.
But, in the end, it is absolutely essential if we are to prevent such incidents from happening again.
We need to analyze every detail of these shooters' lives in order to study what went wrong, why it went wrong, and what we can do to prevent another tragedy.
Failing to do so; failing to analyze the life of a shooter, and failing to study how we can stop another tragedy - THAT would be the greatest insult to the legacy of the victims, not mentioning the shooter's name.
Comments
Post a Comment