bottom line up front (BLUF): media coverage systematically causes future mass shootings.
The effect of media coverage on mass shootings
Michael Jetter
Jay K. Walker
Our findings consistently suggest that media coverage systematically causes future mass shootings. These findings are consistent when accounting for weekday- and month-fixed effects, time trends, as well as characteristics of preceding mass shootings. A range of robustness checks support these conclusions. Using our benchmark estimation, a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that 58 percent of all mass shootings between January 1, 2013 and June 23, 2016 are explainable by news coverage. In terms of timeframes, news coverage seems to systematically raise the number of mass shootings in the following four to ten days and the effect reverts back to statistical insignificance after approximately 12 days.
With these considerations in mind, what can policymakers, media representatives, and commentators take away from our findings? Most importantly, our results advise journalists to report less on mass shootings.
For example, Perrin (2016) and the Meindl and Ivy (2018) advocate for a more cautious approach in covering mass shootings, precisely because of the potential for contagion. Interestingly, such
self-imposed media guidelines are employed in other areas where unintended consequences could emerge from increased coverage, such as the media attention devoted to suicides (e.g., see Pirkis et al., 2006, King, 2010, or Reporting on suicide, 2017). Perhaps the respective guidelines could serve as a starting point for a discussion regarding media coverage when it comes to mass shootings as well. We hope that this study helps to make such adverse consequences more salient in the mind of journalists and perhaps stimulates further research into identifying the causal relationships between media coverage of mass shootings and its potential consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment