What to Know About a Tennessee Media Resolution That's Raised First Amendment Concerns
Two Republican lawmakers, Representative Andy Ogles (South Carolina) and Senator Mike Lee (Utah), have proposed a resolution that seeks to change media reporting practices surrounding mass shootings. Their primary argument is that the media's "irresponsible and sensationalistic" coverage of such events contributes to the rise in mass gun violence by granting perpetrators the notoriety they desire.
“Media coverage of a mass public murderer routinely outweighs the coverage of the victims,” the resolution says, and continues that “many mass public murderers have researched, studied and idolized past acts of violence using the sensationalistic coverage provided by many media outlets.” While their intentions may be to address a pressing issue, this resolution has stirred concerns among First Amendment advocates and experts in the field of mass violence.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the freedom of the press, ensuring that journalists have the right to report on issues of public concern without government interference. When government officials advise reporters on how to cover these issues, it raises immediate questions about First Amendment rights. Ken Paulson, the director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, immediately noticed a discrepancy within the resolution: “It's disappointing to see that the resolution doesn't distinguish between professional mainstream news media and the rest of the online pack,” he said. “The truth is that professional broadcasters and daily newspapers have dramatically cut back coverage of suspects in favor of focusing on the victims and the gun violence epidemic society is facing.”. Mass shootings are now so frequent that they no longer receive the same level of attention, and the public often confuses continuous coverage of different events with excessive coverage of a single incident.
“[Efforts to cut back on coverage] came about for two reasons: First of all, responsible news organizations do not want to contribute to the problem in any way and have taken steps to ameliorate any possible publicity issues,” he said. “The second reason, though—and this is tragic—is that mass murders now happen so often that they no longer get the same level of attention from the news media.”
Media outlets such as The Tennessean follow strict guidelines to ensure ethical and empathetic reporting of mass shootings. They prioritize victims and the community, refraining from publishing shooters' personal writings verbatim. Additionally, when referring to the shooter, they use terms like "suspect," "gunman," or "shooter" rather than the individual's name. While naming the shooter may have news value, it is done sparingly and not prominently featured.
Ogles and Lee's resolution draws heavily from a research article titled "Mass Shootings and the Media Contagion Effect." The resolution offers recommendations that include refraining from naming or publishing photos of suspected public murderers and avoiding promotion of any particular ideology or public policy change. Instead, the resolution urges the media to prioritize coverage of heroic actions by law enforcement, first responders, or bystanders–with a heavy emphasis on law enforcement.
“There is an epidemic of evil people motivated by perverse beliefs to wreak havoc on the lives of innocent people,” Ogles, who openly posed for a Christmas card with his family all holding guns, said in an official statement. “Just a few short months ago, the Covenant School in Nashville was robbed of six precious lives in a horrific act of violence. The media was quick to report on the incident, combing for every gritty detail that could be uncovered about the shooter and (their) motivation. This resolution simply asks the media to do their work responsibly and stop sensationalizing the despicable acts of mass murderers.”
However, experts are not sure that this resolution is without an ulterior motive. Jaclyn Schildkraut, a gun violence expert, suggests that the focus on media reporting in the resolution may be misguided. “With all due respect, they didn't actually do any evaluation or data collection — this is more of a review of the state of the literature,” she said. “While there has been research done previously looking at ‘media contagion effect,’ it could never possibly be a causal relationship. It’s correlation at best.” Moreover, their assessment of contributing factors leaves much to be desired.
“It's very difficult to say what is the ‘biggest’ factor, or to quantify or to rank order any factor (leading to mass violence),” she said. “Mass shootings are extremely complex, multi-dimensional issues. And you can't say that one thing is more important than another.” To address the problem comprehensively, it is essential to consider all these factors–but what even is the limit of “factors”? “So you can't say that one thing is more important than another thing,” she said. “Because the reality is we could debate this all day long — for example, if this individual didn't have a firearm, would then he or she not commit a mass shooting? Now they could commit a bombing, they could commit a stabbing or something. Is it the access (to weapons) or the health?”
Schildkraut agrees with the resolution on one aspect: not naming the perpetrator. Continuing to publicize their names rewards them and incentivizes others with similar intentions. However, she also stresses that blaming the media for mass shootings oversimplifies a multifaceted issue. “If you have a situation where coverage is higher, then the potential for more shootings is also higher. That's a correlation,” she said. “But unless somebody says, ‘I sat here and watched Fox News or CNN for seven hours, and because of that coverage, I went out and committed a mass shooting’— that is the only way you would have a causal effect.”
While the proposed resolution by Ogles and Lee aims to address the serious issue of mass shootings, it raises concerns regarding First Amendment rights, and in light of similarly repressive First Amendment violations perpetrated by bad actors such as Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor who has been accused of taking revenge on the Walt Disney Company for exercising its right to free speech, is cause for concern among journalists. Responsible journalism has already adapted its practices to minimize the glorification of perpetrators, focusing on victims and the broader societal context of gun violence. Experts in the field argue that the focus on media reporting overlooks other crucial factors contributing to mass shootings. Balancing the imperative of responsible reporting with the protection of First Amendment rights remains a challenging but essential task in the pursuit of meaningful solutions to this grave problem–but not a task that journalists can shy away from.
