Does the average #GamerGater has about as much real understanding of “ethics in journalism” as a dirty sock?
Over on KotakuInAtion, which describes itself as “the almost-official #GamerGate subreddit” and “the main hub for GamerGate discussion on Reddit,” the regulars have given hundreds of upvotes to this little post on media “ethics.”
![[Ethics] CNN releases personal info of the Oregon shooter, despite law enforcement imploring the media not to. (vid.me)](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ethics2.png?resize=530%2C119&ssl=1)
To make sure everyone understands what an “ethical” issue this is, the post is helpfully labeled “ethics,” twice.
Now, it’s one thing to say “I wish the media would cover mass shooting cases less sensationalistically,” or “I wish the media would focus more on Chris Mintz, the hero who put himself in the line of fire in order to protect others, rather than on the cowardly killer.” There are plenty of things to criticize about the media coverage of the case.
But demanding that the media not report something because the police don’t want them to? That’s not “media ethics.” That’s being a lapdog.
It’s the job of the media to report things that the police don’t want them to report.
To their credit, there are some commenters making this point in the KotakuInAction thread. But they aren’t the ones getting hundreds of upvotes.
Apparently, to a lot of #GamerGaters, it’s “unethical” for the media to ever say or do something they disagree with.
If I had any optimism about these morons, I’d say it’s possible they’re pointing to that as a good example of ethical journalism.
IF.
Makes perfect sense once you realize “ethics in journalism” to a GamerGater means “Say what we want you to say and shut up about stuff we don’t want you to discuss.”
Question: Why didn’t the police want his identity to be released? Minimising glorification? If so, I understand and that’s definitely something we needs to find a solution for, but keeping it under wraps isn’t said solution. All that does is stop us from seeing patterns (read: Entitled white men with a history of misogyny and/or racism) and start the “Transgender Muslim!!!” conspiracy mongering.
*We need to. Would an extraneous S be an s-traneous?
I’m not sure I agree with the contention that journalists have a duty to report things the police would prefer them not to.
There are often good reasons that the authorities seek non publicity. This is something I’ve been involved with a lot. In the UK the Government can issue DA notices. That stands for Defence Advisory. The Advisory aspect makes it clear there is no compulsion; just inviting editors to consider the wider public interest.
There are many legitimate reasons for secrecy or withholding information. In the UK some ate matters of law (not naming complainants in sexual assault cases) and some are just convention (routes used in the transport of nuclear material)
@SFHC
In an attempt to not get too far into conspiracy theory land a few people have theorized that the sheriff in charge of the case is uncomfortable with the fact that the shoot is white with white supremacist leanings. Thus, the sheriff does not want the name of the criminal to be released and plastered everywhere so people don’t go “look, white people are bad too!”.
There’s also the case that the sheriff in charge doesn’t believe mass shootings are actually a thing so he’s probably trying to protect the identity of the poor victim who is atually a criminal mass murderer
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/john-hanlin-sandy-hook-truther
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/report-chris-harper-mercer-white-supremacist
Obviously take everything I’m saying with a grain of salt because it’s merely speculation on the parts of various people.
I’m not sure I agree with you here; it all depends on why the police does not want this information to be disclosed (I don’t know the answer). Back in January, during the shootings in Paris, the French media were eager to reveal anything they could, and notably broadcasted the fact that there was currently someone who was hiding in the building where some terrorists had taken hostages (putting his life in danger), and also gave reports about the positions of the police outside the building. This was fucking infuriating.
So reading “it’s the job of the media to report things that the police don’t want them to report” makes me wince. Now, the situation is probably totally different here, and you’re totally right that this concern about ethics is pretty rich coming from gators (it seems they’re just always on the side of the more powerful!)
Well, their understanding of free speech is “I can say whatever I want to say and can also harass you if you respond negatively” so I’m not surprised that their understanding of ethics in journalism is equally as self involved.
@username
… Oh eew. Okay, I was giving them wa-haaay too much credit, then. ಠ_ಠ
Let’s be honest: the reason #Gamergaters think discussing the shooter’s identity is an ethical issue is because they’re afraid he might get tied back to their movement if his online activities are thoroughly examined.
I mean there’s already that post on /r9k/ just before the attacks. And all the info coming forward now suggests the shooter was a stereotypical channer- a shut in robot obsessed with guns and white supremacy.
#Gamergaters don’t want the media to discuss the shooter’s online life because they’re afraid they might find a Twitter acct where the shooter supported #Gamergate or an account of his posting in KiA. At this point, that’s a real possibility.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure the gaters just identify with the sheriff because he’s a fellow right wing reactionary.
I’m not sure David really meant that the media has an obligation to report anything the police don’t want them to report. More like, sometimes it IS their job, like when covering cases of police brutality or corruption.
There is a big difference between reporting tactical details that could get someone killed, and reporting on the name and race of a mass murderer after the danger has passed. Let’s not conflate the two. We SHOULD be skeptical of law enforcement or military asking/telling media to not report on something. The Douglas County (Umpqua) sheriff said after Sandy Hook that his department would not enforce any gun control laws and that Sandy Hook was a false flag operation designed to drum up support for more gun control. It calls into question his whole handling of the situation at Umpqua CC.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/us/oregon-sheriff-shared-sandy-hook-conspiracy-theory-on-facebook.html?_r=0
Whenever authority tells you not to say something, you SHOULD take a good hard long look at the why of it and not just accept it unquestioningly.
However, the other point – that the accused should never be publicly named till convicted – has some merit.
I totally agree with you, MissyL! I just thought the wording of the post seriously lacked this nuance.
Also, I think idledilettante is most likely spot on. I can’t imagine them reacting this way had it not been a white suprematist-y, MRA-y white dude.
The media needs to report the truth tactfully but not dance around it just to appease people. It’s something people need to relearn, unfortunately.
@sff9
Agreed. I find it ironic that these are the same guys who routinely d0x women who reject them and publish their home addresses, workplaces, phone numbers, and pics of their families because they’re just SO evil, but dawg forbid the press publish the name and picture of a guy who allegedly planned and carried out a mass shooting. Because he’s one of their own.
It is weird that this is the shooting where the “let’s not give the shooter publicity” thing caught on, when some people have been suggesting that for years. What changed? Is this an example of “something to be done” that doesn’t bother the gun rights people?
BUTBUTBUT IT’S NOT DOXXING IF IT’S THE MEDIA! CHECK THE DICTIONARY! http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=doxxing
JEEZ!
The argument that I’ve heard for not talking about the shooter himself is that we don’t want to immortalize him because that encourages more shootings. Shooting up a school is a fast way for a twisted a**hole to get famous. Mercer even remarked on that in one of his blog posts — that someone who’s pretty much a nobody could instantly become famous by murdering people. There are a lot of twisted people out there who just want to be noticed and don’t care what they have to do to get there.
There are also media guidelines for reporting on suicides — don’t know how many in the media follow them — because depending on how you report suicides, it can encourage copycat suicides.
Chris Harper Mercer was a mixed-race person. His father was white. His mother, with whom he lived, was black. I haven’t (so far) seen any evidence that he was a white supremacist. He did seem to have been fascinated with Nazis. This might seem to be splitting hairs, but I think that it’s a complex issue. For example, consider this (Wikipedia, “Ku Klux Klan”):
This means that had Adolf Hitler himself immigrated to the United States, he might have been persecuted by the Klan.
Chris Harper Mercer was definitely pro-IRA. His father was from Great Britain, so that may have played a role in Chris’s pro-IRA stance. Chris was definitely fascinated with guns.
My conclusion is that this young man was troubled and came to the conclusion that killing others (toxic masculinity) was the answer to these troubles. The easy availability of guns in the United States (more toxic masculinity) made his plan possible. Toxic masculinity is all about power over others.
@MissyL
Yeah, these guys are nothing if not consistent–but only on their own behalf. It’s all about their own power and prestige, even if that power and prestige exists only in their own minds.
Respect for others? Ha, ha. Not so much.
Sometimes yes. For example, credible allegations of police harassment should be reported.
Sometimes no. For example, details of an ongoing investigation perhaps shouldn’t be reported.
And in the fog of current events, it’s not always easy to tell what should be reported and what shouldn’t.
That said, mainstream media are all too often stenographers to power.
Certainly there are times when the media will choose not to report on something for a good reason — not naming rape victims, for example. But they should be making that determination for themselves, not because the police tell them to. That’s my point.
I think this is likely. However bitching about it on Teh Internets won’t stop that if there is a real connection. In fact, if there is a real connection to this or any other act of violence and GG, bitching about it will just call more attention to them.
In that case, bitch away, Gators!