Short video interview of researcher,

http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/worldtoday/is-media-coverage-driving-increase-in-mass-shootings-in-usa/9010878

The media already know what ethics to apply and why it is crucial. But over years they have thumbed their noses and refused to comply voluntarily. Obviously audience numbers and advertising profits come before lives,

http://www.reportingonmassshootings.org/

Who holds the media to account, since they are not doing that themselves. Not the cynical, sleazy politicians (Oz pollies are riding the LA ambulances too, disgusting). What about the public? But how?

leoj,

Would it be too cynical of me to suggest that these incidents are a boon to the media: cheap to run, and of great interest to a ghoulish audience?

Thanks for drawing attention to the audio.

They are also a boon to creatures in politics and for those who influence them for their own gain as well. Disgusting.

I have also taken this up here from another tack,
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7956&page=9

I believe it is sick individuals who are to blame and it will get worse because for notoriety there will be an "I can do more mentality".

That means sicko's will try to outdo what the last highest count was in victims and damage.

The only way to stop that is to not give them the limelight.

If they don't get lots of publicity even if dead it defeats a large reason for doing whatever they did.

The Los Angeles Times tells us that -

"Media outlets have long taken the position that
they simply report the news. But experts who study
mass violence say they are also part of the story,
because the intense coverage that such tragedies
receive can inspire new shooters."

We're told that "The perpetrators of these attacks
are often disillusioned young men, and they inhabit
the same publicity-obsessed culture as everybody else.
Killing offers the prospect of becoming a household
name."

Dewey Cornell, a forensic clinical psychologist at the
University of Virginia stated, "This seems like a way
to achieve some recognition and respect they lack in
their daily lives."

With few formal studies on the role of the media, experts
can only offer observations.

Sherry Towers, a researcher at Arizona State University
has conducted one of the few studies looking at connections
between shootings. However she also points out in the
article that this phenomenon does have its limits,
noting that mass shootings remain rare in Canada even though
most people there live close to the US border and are exposed
to the same news coverage. She suggests that "the difference
could be that Canadians have more regulated access to
firearms."

The conclusion seems to be that much more research is needed
to dissect the various factors that may be at work. However,
media definitely does seem to be complicit in mass shootings.

Would you like to question the WHO and US protocols for media publication where suicides are concerned? Because most of those mass murderers are suicides.

This publication is from highly reputable sources,
http://www.reportingonmassshootings.org/

It is time the Oz media, politicians and commentariat acted responsibly.

Besides, they could be attending to their own backyard,
"Murder rates in NT towns of Katherine, Tennant Creek worse than US, Government figures show"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-09/murder-rate-katherine-tennant-creek-worse-than-united-states/9029834

and another sorry business that remains outstanding,

"Medical mistakes: a silent epidemic in Australian hospitals
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3778256.htm

..By some estimates, as many as 18,000 people die every year as a result of medical error, while 50,000 people suffer a permanent injury.

But there is no systematic collection and linking treatment error data, so it is impossible to know for sure how many medical mistakes cause serious harm or death. ..

LORRAINE LONG: From what I've found about one in 10 patients will experience a mishap. One of the most severe I've found is wrong site surgery, meaning the wrong eye, wrong leg, wrong hip, even the wrong patient...

But Lorraine Long argues little has changed since the report was handed to the government in the 1990s

LORRAINE LONG: I don't see a reduction in medical error at all. I still see cover-ups, I still see the lengths health departments will go to smother things and destroy records. But the errors are just the same, I'm not seeing a reduction.

And you would think that with all the recommendations made by coroners around the country, and those recommendations being paid attention to and implemented that systems would be better. "

and the kicker,
"ELEANOR HALL: Emily Bourke with that report. And tomorrow we'll bring you a report on the scale and impact of prescribing errors in Australian hospitals and whether the new era of electronic medication management systems will make a difference."