Category Archives: journalism
Gizmodo, one of the many Gawker blogs, has what can be described as an antagonistic relationship with its readership. Someone posts an article, and the comments will be full of individuals complaining about errors. Someone else posts an article, and the same thing happens. Then Gizmodo will post an article about how people should respond to them, like the trolling article mentioned in a previous post. This will cause more complaints. Rinse and repeat. As this is a Gawker site, many of these articles will be posted in day because the staff members are told to produce. A site that updates multiple times a day is going to get traffic, traffic means money via ad revenue, and the quality of the writing means nothing so long as readers click something. The goal is clear. Read the rest of this entry
Francis Bacon (1561-1626):
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects; in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate. [Source]
This is not news to anyone. We all see it daily. I am certain we all practice it to some degree. What bothers me is that we individually do not need to do this anymore. The news media does it for it us. Before we get the opportunity to separate the facts from the opinions we support, we have the facts separated from the opinions we are told to support. The results leave us very narrow.
Are there any objective news sources left? Are we supposed to sit back and let the media set our opinions and objectives for us? Is being aware enough to combat this? What can the common person do?
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.
I remain cautiously optimistic for the Wii’s latest science ficiton shooter game, Dead Space: Extraction. I didn’t get the opportunity to play much of the original Dead Space on a friend’s console last year, but it was definitely an intriguing world to explore. Plus the Necromorphs are amazing creatures in that they require strategic dismemberment rather than the usual shoot-until-dead game play style found in other games.
I jumped at the opportunity to read 1Up’s preview of the game, found here. I’m disappointed. Not in the game but rather in the preview itself. Video game journalism is probably already a joke to the world of journalism, and I think I have finally been let in on it. Writer Justin Haywald, one can tell, is doing his best to be an objective reviewer. His enthusiasm is on the game itself, but everything else he writes is suggestive of his belief that the Wii is a video game console for children.
He is not alone in that thought process. Many gamers across America subscribe to the believe that the little white console with motion controls is what you buy for your kids after they graduate from their V-Smile. Nintendo has targeted the system at families as a whole and so produces games that are family-friendly, so it’s guilty of causing the initial association. However, games that are fine for the whole family cannot truly be considered games for children or games that are not adult. Most Zelda games employ brightly colored graphics, but I most would hesitate to dismiss them as games for children.
What the previewer really means to say is that Dead Space: Extraction is the next in the slowly developing line of M-rated games for the Wii. Of the three consoles out on the market, the Wii has the fewest M-rated games. Saying “adult games” instead of “M-rated games” displays a bias, even if unintentional. The connotation when using the word adult is suggestive of being grown up and therefore better, which is why it is used so often when discussing games for consoles. Those players usually mean to imply that the games of choice in their hobby are age appropriate and therefore to be accepted. Mature themes, mature language, and (mature) graphic violence are the things that are appreciated in adulthood.
Which is interesting because those are qualifiers for the Mature rating tag. People don’t simply say that the games are M-rated, they instead say adult or mature because it suggests more than an arbitrary label. It suggests adulthood and having grown up from bright colors and enemies who disappear in puffs of smoke. Sex, profanity, and violence are the makings of a true adult.
I’ve played both MadWorld and House of the Dead: Overkill, and I would not describe either one as remotely adult. Both are M-rated, but MadWorld is simply a gratuitously violent game with an abundance of swearing and sexual humor, and House of the Dead: Overkill is…damn, it’s the same thing. The swearing and sexual humor are incredibly juvenile, and there’s certainly no rich message to be found in either game. These are simply games painted in the very adult color of blood red to sell better to children – especially adult-aged children.
Coming across a preview like Haywald’s helps me to realize that gaming journalism is far from mature itself. Journalism is supposed to be about objective reporting. What I found here was the writer’s willing perpetuation of a marketing strategy. Video game journalists are not reporters. These journalists are a form of extended marketing for video game companies, meaning that they’re simply salespeople. I’m suddenly very happy that most of the big name video game publications have gone under.
Research says mothers are responsible for the social outcomes of their children, but I just want better reporting on research
Bad research leaves me uneasy. Bad reporting of research leaves me feeling even more uneasy, especially if the reporting happens to be released by a major news outlet. When the actual research isn’t freely available, thanks to the monetization of the research sector, it becomes difficult to find who is more to blame when a report is released.
I find a CNN article in my newsfeed regarding mothers and their role in developing children’s social skills. I enjoy the subject and greatly appreciate the role it plays in showing the importance of parenting above and beyond all factors in a child’s development – decreasing the amount of blame we can put on the media. But the report, as you might suspect, leaves me feeling uneasy.
From the beginning, I have to point out that there’s a cultural difference, since the research was done in the UK. It is difficult for me to say anything about the difference in family dynamic there and here. What immediately irks me about the research is the lack of focus on the father’s role in the development of the child. The research assumes that the father plays a lesser role, and dually assumes that the mother’s role is to focus on children for some unknown reason. Zelinger’s quote at the end of the piece is appropriate in that she frames it as the responsibility of the parents, but everything else seems to make mothers shoulder the burden more so then men.
Is the mother focus due to the nature of the research or due to a spin that the journalist, Elizabeth Landau, put on the article? It is difficult to say without all of the facts. If the latter, the result is my disappointment in CNN for allowing a writer to do that. If the former, then I have even more disappointment to dole out to the involved parties. The researchers should be aware of the additional factors and already looking into the role of the father in the developing social sensibilities of the children as well as a deeper review of the family dynamic in modern times – since fathers are not the primary breadwinners and mothers do not all stay at home. Additionally, Landau should be charged with the responsibility of not only informing readers of the research but also of the cultural differences inherent and the shortcomings a 14 year study may yield. Those reporting on psychological research should be informed enough to provide readers with appropriate caveats. After all, there’s a difference between saying, “I read an article that said that this research says…” and saying, “I read an article that said the following research was suggestive of…”