Nothing Exceeds Like (Certain) Excessive Coverage, Part 2

**Note: The following could be deemed upsetting, so you can leave this page if you want. Plus, discretion is advised

Last week on the Extra Sessions page, I mentioned the excessive coverage that news networks spend on reporting each and every mass shooter doing more harm than good, along with mentioning that there is more than one reason why such reporting does do more harm than good. Let’s get into them, starting with the next paragraph, which [and the other two subsequent paragraphs] might contain some upsetting content, so discretion is advised.

So, for starters, the national news spends multiple segments within their allotted run time talking about the same exact thing from many different angles to the point of their higher-ups being exploitive about as such. Granted, not everyone will see/hear the news at the same exact time, whether it’s noon or 6:30 at night. But like I said, even with those specific start times when it comes to an allotted runtime for a newscast, those that report about something, such as a mass shooting, from many different angles do so in that allotted runtime to the point of it being too much.

Two, a situation such as that Las Vegas mass shooting that happened back in early October 2017, was one of the many mass shootings that was covered from many different angles within the allotted time of a singular newscast. This was especially true about CNN anchor Erin Burnett, who constantly reported about it all throughout the episodes of her show that followed that tragedy. And although I don’t remember everything word for word that was said in those then-brand-new episodes, I do know that she said things, such as “Up next, we’ll interview the shooter’s ex-girlfriend to find out from her what his motives were” and “Up next, we’ll interview the shooter’s brother to find out from him what his motives were”. And of course, with those two excerpts being said, I found that it was unnecessary to devote that much coverage to that shooter (Stephen Paddock), who ended up taking his own life after ending the lives of others in cold blood, because Burnett and people of her ilk were A] Giving that heinous individual a lot of posthumous attention that he quite frankly didn’t deserve, B] Resuming the precedent of giving other heinous individuals the same exact amount of undeserved attention and C] Giving way too much detail about that shooting and other shootings, to the point of them resuming the ongoing cycle of giving more heinous individuals ideas on how they can carry out mass shootings of their own. 

Three [which is an extension of Point B], it has been rumored more than once that mass shooters want to go down in history [the movie Hello Herman alludes to this rumor] as being known for carrying out their heinous plans. And if that’s just a rumor, then the constant coverage spent on them feeds into that, whether intentionally or not.

Look, I’m not saying that the media should completely ignore the mass shootings that have occurred, because we need to be informed on all important things. However, they need to stop the constant fixation of reporting about a mass shooting during most of the runtime of a particular newscast, along with them needing to cut it back on providing so [too] much detail [CNN’s Jake Tapper reporting about the detailed notes of that Kentucky bank shooter] about each and every mass shooting, as all of that will resume the cycle of giving more possible mass shooters the idea[s] of causing even more tragedy. And hopefully, the media realizes the slight changes that they have to make in their reporting, as it’s time for them prioritize doing the right thing instead of chasing both ratings and relevancy.