Category Archives: censorship
Today is a blackout day for crowdsourced information site Wikipedia as well as crowdsourced time wasting site Reddit in order to inform people of and protest the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA. These sites, and others, are doing what they can to keep the internet an ethereal place for free communication. There’s a lot to be said about SOPA, and it’s sister bill PIPA, but those sites and others will be much more informative than this blog. (EDIT: Consumerist is devoting the day to articles on SOPA.) The short of it is this: The acts would give the media companies the power to contact internet service providers and basically block any site that they see is violating their copyright in any way. An example of such would be Monster Cables’ attempt to shutdown Craigslist because someone used the site to try to sell his old Monster brand cables. If passed, SOPA would give Monster that power.
While the venom spewed at the bill is justified from my point of view, I want to take a moment to explain that some of the arguments people are expressing against SOPA don’t work. Mainly that our internet usage is a fundamental freedom. It’s not. The internet is privilege, and its remaining this free for so long has been an honest, amazing blessing. What people don’t get about the bill that makes it so frightening is that none of this was ever guaranteed to those of us on the user end, and the passage of the bill would only serve to define this chaotic world that we’ve taken for granted. And while we would see it as a horrible wrong, they would be within their rights. Unfortunately, to ensure that our usage becomes a fundamental freedom, we need to see this through. Only in the bill’s defeat can we have legislation that guarantees us anything at all.
But I don’t know how strong my faith is in things turning out well. Right now we can only hope for the best.
There was a bit of hubbub recently regarding Katy Perry and her musical skit on Sesame Street‘s being pulled before it could air. The reason cited appears to be a complaint about her exposure – her cleavage was showing on a children’s show. While I am not a fan of Perry’s and prefer not to draw more attention to all of it, it is only fair to show the video. Read the rest of this entry
OK, so this discussion is going to go in an odd direction before it gets steered toward its point. Bear with me, alright?
CNN recently conjured up a story based on a 4 year old computer game about raping women. The game, Rapelay, is old news; so is its controversy. I do not have to explain the game play or specific details about the game. I will actually spare myself from trying the game myself. Anyway, someone at CNN dug up this game and wanted to spark a discussion about how Japan needs to control its game designers. Some were displeased due to the negativistic attitude for Japan, and some were displeased because this sounds like censorship.
Nogami Takeshi, a manga creator, decided to respond to CNN with an open letter. The highlight of the letter, for reporters in the blogosphere as well as myself, were these statements:
Those products are developed for rational adults. You surely don’t believe that a rational adult would be influenced by such a game into committing rape, do you?
I assume that you are capable of distinguishing fiction from reality like we do. Are you not?
Those are very salient statements, compelling the reader to rationalize and say, “Well, I doubt I would be compelled to perform heinous acts after playing a game. I suppose the man has a point.” Heck, I was convinced for a while.
Then it dawned on me that he is wrong. He may not be wrong for the Japanese culture, about which I can say only a little as a non-citizen, but he is wrong about American culture. It pains me to say this because I loathe the studies about the negative influence the media has, but from the American perspective a game like that should be able to compel the average person into performing heinous acts. The media is supposed to influence the public.
I sound like a paranoid theorist whenever I discuss social control with people, especially when I am unable to discern its source. However, the most basic example to cite is in the advertising of trends, which comes in waves. There are things that the masses are simply supposed to like and will like, and the media is there to constantly deliver the content and tell you to like it. That is basic social control. The media is influencing it. It tells you what music is good. It tells you the most popular movies. It tells you that you are an outsider if you do not participate. (In a sad reversal, you are still being controlled if you make it a point to avoid them because you are told to do so, and you are still under their thumb if you are the type who strongly advertises that you are standing on the outside. Honest apathy is the sign of someone existing beyond the influence.) But like I said, that is social control at its most basic.
It gets more complicated when you discuss politics and the obvious party lines of the media conglomerates. The reporting is thus made poor because it shows bias in either direction, but the overall debate between both parties is healthy and keeps the citizens within boundaries. What boundaries? Two parties, two extremes on the political spectrum, set core beliefs, and a rejection of new notions.
No culture is without indoctrination for its citizens, but there is certainly a reliance on the media influence in America. When people are taught to be Americans by the TV they watch the websites they read, I can no longer be upset that a researcher thinks Mortal Kombat might put it in my mind to harpoon someone and uppercut him off a bridge. Of course I will not do it, though. I am rational enough to differentiate the fiction of the game from reality. Other people might not be able to do so. Not to mention the fact that the media is making it confusing: Reality television is rarely real these days, and biased news outlets should make one question if the news is true or false based on the angle taken. How are we to know anything?
I guess I will have to stay tuned until they tell me.
For those who missed it, the author of the previously mentioned book (see below) responded to my entry. He disagreed with me, and I disagreed with him. I stopped responding, though. It wasn’t a discussion but rather someone being really defensive and simply saying, “I’m right! You’re wrong!” Still, the reach of that entry was impressive, especially in that it was responded to within 2 hours of its being posted. Maybe I’ll discuss Paramount and their irresponsible treatment of the Star Trek franchise next.
Edit: The comments originally posted with the previous entry did not transfer over to WordPress, so I’ve decided to include them here for prosperity.
- Loren Coleman said…
- I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to read most of my book, and commenting thoughtfully on your feelings, insights, and critiques in response to The Copycat Effect.
I won’t address everything you raised, but allow me to reply to some general items you discuss.
First and foremost, my book is clearly not a call for censorship, but an attempt at awareness, an alert regarding research findings tied to behavior contagion linked to media reporting. It also is a challenge for the media to begin a discussion on the topic to fine tune the reporting on mass violence.
Indeed, I directly address the issue of censorship on pages 255-256, in my subsection “Time for the Media to Wake Up.”
As I say there, I am not “asking the media to stop reporting the news.”
Regarding whether there is a research basis to my book, I discuss the ignored and neglected studies on this topic from the 1970s-present, in various locations in the introduction, pages 137ff, and elsewhere.
The book is not meant to be comprehensive, and does serve as an awareness primer, to be read in conjunction with the training incorporated in various manuals I’ve written and consultations I have delivered. It makes no claims for being an overview book on the characteristics of the vulnerable suicidal individuals who are triggered, but only a beginning survey on the subject that was ignored before my first book, Suicide Clusters came out in 1987.
As to my training, skills, talents, and background, I need not get into a lot of defensive verbage here. A brief reading of my lifework demonstrates schooling (Anthropology ’65-’69, BA ’76, Masters in Social Work ’78, Ph. D. programs in Soc. Anthrolopolgy and Family Violence, not completed), professional experience (mental health work 1967-present), university teaching (1980-2003, including 23 semesters of delivering a course on documentaries/news journalism), filmmaking (1984-2003), a fulltime senior research position at the Muskie School/USM (1983-1996), suicide/school violence consulting for the State of Maine (1998-2007), and media consulting (1969-present), which has given me lots of real life background experiences and research data for the book.
My sincere best wishes for a safe holiday season,
December 3, 2009 1:43 PM
Gospel X said…
- Wow! Simply, wow! I really don’t know what to say. It’s hard to be a snarky commentator when the author of the book actually responds to such an obscure blog. At this point I feel almost disrespectful.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my critiques. My discussion of your credentials was not meant to imply that your thoughts were any less valid. I just like to see research trials and so forth. I completely believe in the copycat effect, but I want to see the effect tested (and, like you suggested, used for positive actions if possible). I also understand that your book is not a call for censorship, but asking for the news to alter their approach and wording can definitely be interpreted as such. I like your suggestions, but I don’t think they’ll work.
I appreciate your reading and responding so quickly to my blog, and I look forward to reading more of your work in the future. It is my hope that some of it is incorporated in the program I will be attending in the future (or I’ll find a way to incorporate it). Have yourself a happy holiday.
Unfortunately, if you don’t have email follow-ups on, this will not reach you directly. The reason for my posting this on the blog is to make sure that people are aware of the dialogue. (And I don’t have your e-mail address.)
December 3, 2009 5:52 PM
Loren Coleman said…
Actually, the book directly addresses “experiments in natural occurrences” (trials) that tend to prove my hypothesis. See pages 180 and 258, when accidental censorship (post-9/11 terror reporting pushed school shooting media attention from the front pages), newspaper strikes, and mandated blackouts (in Vienna) on certain reporting has resulted in less school shootings, suicides, and specifically, in a good test tube situation in Austria, a drop by 75% in subway suicides.
Furthermore, the model of the media guidelines is based on those created almost 30 years ago which lessened the number of teen suicide clusters (a large problem in the 1980s in the USA), which had been directly linked to media-influenced behavior contagion.
BTW, my email is well-published as
and my snail address is
Loren Coleman, PO Box 360, Portland, ME 04112.
I don’t plan on commenting on every single book that I read, but we will call this two in a row for now. I recently read through Loren Coleman’s The Copycat Effect. The book left me unfulfilled. I picked it up some time ago thinking that it would be a discussion of the information age and the proliferation of individuals copying what they see in the media. Instead the book was largely a collection of historic suicides, mass murders, and murder-suicides and similar ones that occurred shortly thereafter (or annually, in some cases). What the book lacked was actual discussion of a trigger or specific psychological precedents in individuals who display this copycat effect. The author instead points a finger, and the blame, at the media itself for showing and discussing these horrors.
The author’s conclusion contains a list of 7 suggestions to the media in order to reduce the copycat effect. I will reproduce the suggestions below, in what may be the closest I come to a severe copyright violation, and provide my own (non-expert/unprofessional) commentary.
1.) The media must be more aware of the power of their words. Using language like "successful" sniper attacks, suicides, and bridge jumpers, and "failed" murder-suicides, for example, clearly suggest to viewers and readers that someone should keep trying again until they "succeed". We may wish to "succeed" in relationships, sports, and jobs, but we do not want rampage or serial killers, architects of murder-suicide, and suicide bombers to make further attempts after "failing". Words are important. Even the use of suicide or rampage in headlines, news alerts, and breaking bulletins should be reconsidered.
In other words, this means the media should censor itself. Speaking of failures and successes in suicides and such is actually proper terminology. We discussed that at length in my grad level classes. The word the author uses throughout the book is “completed” in order to describe a successful attempt. What that suggests is that attempts that don’t get finished are therefore incomplete, and we live in a culture that speaks poorly of people who leave things unfinished. I’m not sure if that’s good wording. Of course, one has to ask what else there is to say? And what words other than rampage or serial killers? The new words would mean the same thing, and what you would create then is a rotating list of words to describe the same thing. The ultimate solution, sadly, is to leave the news unreported.
2.) The media must drop their clichéd stories about the "nice boy next door" or the "lone nut". The copycat violent individual is neither mysterious nor healthy, or usually an overachiever. They are often a fatal combination of despondency, depression, and mental illness. School shooters are suicidal youth that slipped through the cracks, but it is a complex issue, nevertheless. People are not simple. The formulaic stories are too often too simplistic.
I waited through the entire book for this, characteristics of copycat individuals. Instead of suggesting an intervention, though, the author says that the media should take responsibility. What about the schools? What about the parents? It’s ironic that it’s stated that people are not simple and the stories shouldn’t be presented as simple but the solution itself oversimplifies.
3.) The media must cease its graphic and sensationalized wall-to-wall commentary and coverage of violent acts and the details of the actual methods and places where they occur. Photographs of murder victims, tapes of people jumping off bridges, and live shots of things like car chases ending in deadly crashes, for example, merely glamorize those deaths, and create models for others–down to the method, the place, the timing, and the type of individual involved. Even fictional entertainment, such as the screening of The Deer Hunter, provides vivid copycatting stimuli for vulnerable, unstable, angry, and depressed individuals.
There’s a case to be made for these vulnerable individuals’ latching onto anything in this situation. If not the sensationalized and graphic, then the implied yet disturbing. This is another suggestion for censorship. I can’t get behind that. It’s another situation in which I suggest interventions over censorship.
4.) The media should show more details about the grief of the survivors and victims (without glorifying the death), highlight the alternatives to the violent acts, and mention the relevant background traits that may have brought this event to this deathly end. They should also avoid setting up the incident as a logical or reasonable way to solve a problem.
I can’t disagree with this. Detailing the grief of survivors and victims is a great way to bring light to the situation without dwelling on the methodology, but highlighting alternatives doesn’t make enough sense to me. The world is full of alternatives. The problem may be that the individual sees the horrid act as the last resort, ignoring all other suggestions. I can’t stress this enough, but maybe we should be publicizing interventions along with those relevant background traits.
5.) The media must avoid ethnic, racial, religious, and cultural stereotypes in portraying the victims or the perpetrators. Why set up situations that like-minded individuals (e.g., neo-Nazis) can use as a road map for future rampages against similar victims?
Chances are that like-minded individuals such as neo-Nazis already have in mind who they want to hurt. Ethnic, racial, religious and cultural information might be helpful information, especially in terms of studying what has happened and why. This then turns into another case of censoring the news. That’s not helpful.
6.) The media should never publish a report on suicide or murder-suicide without adding the protective factors, such as the contact information for hotlines, help lines, soft lines, and other available community resources, including e-mail addresses, websites, and phone numbers. To run a story on suicide or a gangland murder without thinking about the damage the story can do is simply not responsible. It’s like giving a child a loaded gun. The media should try to balance such stories with some concern and consideration for those who may use it to imitate the act described.
I agree that protective factors should be provided, but it’s not the responsibility of the news to provide it. I say it would be the goodwill of the news to provide it. As for comparing the information provided by the news to giving a child a loaded gun, that’s disgustingly extreme. You know what’s more like giving a child a loaded gun? Giving a child a loaded gun! Hasn’t anyone ever read a story about a child committing an act of violence or self-harm and then asked, “Hey, how did that kid get the weapon(s) in the first place?”
7.) And finally, the media should reflect more on their role in creating our increasingly perceived violent society. Honest reporting on the positive nature of being alive in the twenty-first century may actually decrease the negative outcomes of the copycat effect, and create a wave of self-awareness that this life is rather good after all. Most of our lives are mundane, safe, and uneventful. This is something that an alien watching television news from outer space, as they say, would never know. The media should "get real" and try to use their influence and the copycat effect to spread a little peace rather than mayhem.
As it stands, the book merely makes the case for the copycat effect, but it’s not a scientifically proven theory. Given that information, it hasn’t been tested. How do we know that the copycat effect can lead to positive behavior? Sounds like an idea for a follow-up book, but I have a feeling that won’t be written. (Which leads one to wonder if the Mr. Coleman is hypocritically cashing in on the sensationalization of death and murder himself.) An idea on a whim like that makes for a poor suggestion, although I do like the idea of reporting on more positive news stories.
Obviously, I don’t like blaming the media for people’s ills. It will likely contribute in various ways, no doubt, but it’s hardly the source or the place to implement the solution. And let me be clear, censorship is not the solution. Education and awareness make for better solutions, but they’re often ignored because they’re far from simple.
There was a time when educational system included more mindful subjects like philosophy, or we could call it critical thinking. If more individuals were brought up with a better understanding of how to interpret the media, there would be fewer problems with it. If our educational system also included classes on being more inclusive and understanding of people, even better. If we could ultimately find a way to help foster more benevolent feelings and provide individuals with solid social support structures, we’d be many steps closer to utopia. I realize fully that the last one is a stretch and a nigh impossibility, but one can dream. After all, we provide individuals of autism with lessons about the importance of empathy and reinforce it for years. Why not for individuals on the more normative spectrum?
Loren Coleman’s book is ultimately successful in arguing for the prevalence of the copycat effect in American (and Japanese) society, but the fault of the book is that the individuals reading it already agree. The book’s lack of discussion on triggers and precedents makes the whole thing come across weak, and at times it literally reads like a list of unfortunate incidents. The inclusion of a list of suggestions by a man whose field of study doesn’t even involve the effects of the media (he’s got a Master’s in Social Work but he’s primarily, I kid you not, a cryptozoologist) is completely understood and good natured but also of little merit. However, just as I was easily able to pick at his suggestions, I expect my responses will be just as easily dissected and dismissed. The book, much like this entry, may be best regarded as the ice breaker for a larger discussion about the role the media plays in our lives and the responsibilities the individuals on both sides of the transmissions.