Society
Combating Copycat Violence
By Lane Jennings
Pop culture exploitation of criminal acts breeds more of them.
Terrorist attacks, as well as "random acts of violence" by
criminals and mentally unstable individuals, produce psychological effects more
far-reaching and potentially more destructive to society than the physical damage they
cause. Though the acts themselves may be impossible to prevent, there may be ways to limit
their wider impacts.
In his new book The Copycat Effect, social critic Loren Coleman
presents abundant evidence that news reports and fictional depictions of violent
acts—particularly suicide and murder—directly influence others to commit such
acts themselves.
The problem, as Coleman sees it, is similar to the spread of a contagious
disease. Just as infectious germs are passed along through contact with a sick person or
an object they have touched, witnessing or reading about a violent crime or suicide can
pass the idea of such behavior along to someone who would never have thought of it on
their own.
Of course, Coleman doesn't only blame sensational reporting and exploitive
media for this problem. Associations from history such as anniversary dates of shattering
events like the September 11 terrorist attacks can prove significantly symbolic occasions
for acts of violence. In the same way, places where suicides are known to have occurred
before, such as the Golden Gate Bridge, can act as a magnet for would-be suicides.
Adding guards and protective barriers at favored suicide locations and
practicing greater watchfulness around important dates can help reduce the danger from
copycat acts. But limiting the negative impacts of news and entertainment shows that
feature violence, whether realistic or glamorized, has proven far more difficult.
Coleman's preferred solution would be media self-control. As he puts it,
"The media has to stop using rampage shootings, celebrity suicides, bridge jumpers,
and school shootings the [same] way it uses tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes to get
people to watch their programs. Human behavior reporting impacts future human
behaviors."
With regard to suicide, a group of experts met in 1989 to address the
problem of why "clusters" of suicides often occur soon after a well-publicized
suicide story. These experts recommended to the Centers for Disease Control that print and
broadcast media should make it their policy to show no photographs of suicide scenes or
victims, provide no technical details about suicide methods, and in no way glorify
suicide. In 1995 the CDC issued more specific recommendations for the media, some of which
were later adopted by the World Health Organization. WHO also suggested including local
suicide-prevention hotline numbers in any coverage of a suicide story and having reporters
stress messages of sympathy for the grieving survivors.
Despite these recommendations for voluntary action, suicide reporting is
still generally sensationalized, and clusters of copycat suicides continue to occur as a
direct consequence, Coleman says. Ironically, this copycat effect is greatly reduced in
places where inadvertent censorship (such as with a newspaper strike) or some even more
sensational event (such as the O.J. Simpson case) effectively make ordinary crimes and
suicide stories seem relatively insignificant. Direct censorship can be still more
effective. Coleman cites a 1987 incident in Vienna, Austria, where authorities banned all
reporting of suicides in response to an "epidemic" of people killing themselves
in the subways. "In the four-year period following the forced removal of suicide
stories from the newspapers," Coleman notes, "the overall suicide rate decreased
nearly 20%," with a 75% decline in subway suicides.
Alternatives to Censorship
Though his main concern is suicides, Coleman calls on news and
entertainment media alike to act responsibly when presenting all stories and pictures
involving violence of any kind so as to minimize the chance of triggering a copycat
response. His goal is laudable, but such protective and cautious media self-control seems
highly unlikely to produce either accurate reporting or, in the case of dramatizations,
great art.
Instead of suppressing negative images, we could harness the power of the
media to serve society in a positive way. Publishers, broadcasters, and producers could be
encouraged to seek out more factual and fictional success stories in order to balance out
the drama of tragedy. Besides reporting murders and muggings every night, why not devote a
little time to covering nonviolent conflict resolutions among enemies or showcasing
achievements by inspiring individuals who deserve to be more widely known and imitated?
It may not be easy to buck tradition and make the reporting of "good
news" exciting, or to create story lines with believable heroes more attractive than
exaggerated villains—but it has been done before, and can be again. Consider how the
BBC and American radio networks covered world events in the early days of World War II.
There was bad news aplenty to report, but the reporters' tone and commentary put unwelcome
facts into perspective, while holding out realistic hopes for better times to come. Very
little airtime or column space was spent, in these years, reporting stories of crime or
violence on the home front. But there were many stories of how individuals and groups were
solving problems and helping meet the needs and goals of the nation. Clearly, wartime
censorship played some role here, but writers, reporters, and other media personnel were
willing to use their talent and ingenuity in creative ways to benefit their audience, not
simply get attention.
Today, news services seem to believe it is enough to report a story fast,
and speculate publicly on what the first available details might imply, with no need to
consider in advance the possible effects of their words and images. Stories of bad
news—especially reports of local violence or crime—raise fears and grab
attention, but when they dominate the public's media consumption, the effects can be
destructive.
It may be more difficult to make good news as compelling as bad news, but
it's not impossible. For instance, there could be a political talk show where elected
officials make deals on the air instead of trading insults and shouting one another down.
A Survivor-like reality show could emphasize a team's triumph rather than giving
the top prize to whichever individual can outwit and ultimately betray all rivals.
Although still quite violent, Fox's highly successful drama 24 focuses on how the hero
prevents crime (e.g., political assassination, nuclear bomb detonation, and other assorted
terrorist threats) rather than avenging it.
Instead of suppressing the media, as Coleman seems to recommend, we could
try harder to balance violent content with more positive stories that are dramatic and
worthy of potential copycats' attention.
Sources: The Copycat Effect: How the Media and Popular Culture
Trigger the Mayhem in Tomorrow's Headlines by Loren Coleman. Paraview Pocket Books.
2004. 306 pages. Paperback. $14. Check price/buy book
