Content uploaded by Eric Madfis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eric Madfis on Apr 20, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218763476
American Behavioral Scientist
2018, Vol. 62(2) 151 –162
© 2018 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0002764218763476
journals.sagepub.com/home/abs
Article
Media Coverage of
Mass Killers: Content,
Consequences, and Solutions
Adam Lankford1 and Eric Madfis2
Abstract
In recent years, major media organizations have wondered if their coverage of mass
shooters actually increases the risk of future attacks, and have asked how their
reporting could be improved. In response, 149 experts have called for media to stop
publishing the names and photos of mass killers (except during ongoing searches
for escaped suspects), but continue reporting the other details of these crimes as
needed. Here, we review some of the most important scientific findings on (a) the
nature of media coverage of mass killers, (b) its consequences, and (c) solutions that
could help make this coverage safer, and summarize how new studies published in
this special issue of American Behavioral Scientist add to this valuable knowledge base.
Keywords
mass shootings, mass killings, media coverage, contagion, copycat effects
Introduction
In recent years, The New York Times has asked “How Should the News Media Cover
Mass Shooters?” The Washington Post has lamented “Another Massacre, Another
Media Quandary,” and Los Angeles Times has asked “Are the Media Complicit in
Mass Shootings?” Many experts have provided an answer. In an open letter signed by
149 scholars, professors, and law enforcement professionals who study mass shooters
and other perpetrators of crime, they call for the media to stop publishing the names
1The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA
2The University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, WA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Adam Lankford, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, The University of Alabama, P.O. Box
870320, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0320, USA, and Eric Madfis, Social Work and Criminal Justice Program,
The University of Washington Tacoma, Campus Box #358425, 1900 Commerce Street, Tacoma, WA
98402, USA.
Email: adam.lankford@ua.edu; emadfis@uw.edu.
763476ABSXXX10.1177/0002764218763476American Behavioral ScientistLankford and Mads
research-article2018
152 American Behavioral Scientist 62(2)
and photos of mass killers (except during ongoing searches for escaped suspects), but
continue reporting the other details of these crimes as needed (“Dear Members of the
Media,” 2017).
Similar statements have been made by the FBI, the International Association of
Chiefs of Police, the International Police Association, the families of some victims,
and some media members themselves (Lankford & Madfis, 2018). As a 2017 report
from the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit explained, “media coverage featuring the
offenders’ names, photos, and life stories only cements the legacies they seek to
achieve. . . . News media should refrain from naming the assailants, from posting their
photographs” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017). Among experts, the consensus
is that this would help prevent mass killings and save innocent lives.
Many members of the public also recognize these risks. In recent surveys, approxi-
mately 80% of respondents agreed that media coverage of mass shootings can make
offenders famous, and 70% agreed that this coverage can lead to copycat attacks
(Schildkraut & McHale, 2018). These views were commonly held among men and
women across different races and ethnicities and different political affiliations
(Schildkraut & McHale, 2018).
So why have most media organizations thus far refused to change? The majority of
journalists, reporters, editors, and news producers would not intentionally do some-
thing that would inspire future mass killers. Perhaps they are simply not aware of the
latest scientific evidence on this subject. For example, in our communications with
one veteran journalist, he asked “is there much actual research on this question out
there?” and suggested he was only familiar with “a couple of anecdotal examples of
mass killers who have said things like they want to be famous.”
These comments may be representative of what many media members have thought,
and thus provide a few important reminders. First, the media’s primary job is to inves-
tigate and report the news, not to conduct sociological studies on the effects of their
own coverage. They should not be expected to have that information unless we make
concerted efforts to share it with them. Second, people are often wary of overreacting
to recent events, but may feel more comfortable trusting scientific findings based on
larger bodies of research. In theory, this could create a challenge, because high-profile
mass shootings are relatively rare. More than 10 million people died from lung cancer
before it was widely accepted that cigarettes were the culprit (Proctor, 2012). If we
have to wait for 10 million mass shooting victims before changing how the media cov-
ers these incidents, it might take thousands of years.
Fortunately, media coverage of mass killers can be analyzed in a variety of valid
ways, including some that draw on well-established findings from large bodies of
research. Much is already known about (a) the nature of media coverage of mass
killers, (b) its consequences, and (c) solutions that could help make this coverage
safer. Below, we review some of the most important scientific findings and sum-
marize how new studies published in this special issue of American Behavioral
Scientist (identified with their authors’ names in bold print) add to this valuable
knowledge base.
Lankford and Madfis 153
The Nature of Media Coverage of Mass Killings
No one would be surprised that mass killers receive a lot of media attention, but it is
now possible to put these amounts in context. In the United States, the 1999 Columbine
school shooting was one the most highly media covered events of the entire decade
(Muschert, 2002). It received larger CNN audiences than both the 1992 and 1996 pres-
idential elections, the Rodney King verdict and LA riots, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait,
and the deaths of Princess Diana and Mother Teresa (Muschert, 2002). More recently,
data from mediaQuant—an independent company that collects information from more
than 100,000 English language news sources, including newspapers, television, and
online news—show that perpetrators of seven mass killings from 2013 to 2017
received approximately $75 million in free media mentions (Lankford, 2018). During
the months of their attacks, some mass killers received more coverage in dollar value
than some of the most famous American celebrities, including Kim Kardashian, Brad
Pitt, Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp, and Jennifer Aniston (Lankford, 2018). In many cases,
winning a Super Bowl or Academy Award garnered less media attention than commit-
ting a high-profile mass killing (Lankford, 2018).
There is also a strong correlation between the number of victims harmed in these
attacks and the amount of media attention that perpetrators receive. For example,
Duwe (2004) found that mass murderers from 1976 to 1999 who killed and wounded
more victims were significantly more likely to be featured in The New York Times. And
from 2000 to 2012, mass shooters who received this newspaper coverage also got
more of it—in terms of number of articles and number of words—if they killed more
victims as well (Schildkraut, Elsass, & Meredith, 2017). In a study published in this
issue of American Behavioral Scientist, Dahmen (2018) found a similar connection
after analyzing photographic coverage of mass shootings across 3,821 newspaper
front pages. Incidents with more victims (at Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook) received
significantly more front page photos and stayed on the front pages significantly longer
than an incident with fewer victims (at Umpqua Community College).
Some statistics are also available on how the coverage that perpetrators receive
compares with that given to victims. For instance, Dahmen (2018) found that, overall,
newspaper front pages contained slightly more total photos of deceased victims than
of perpetrators. However, on a photos-per-individual basis, newspapers gave more
attention to perpetrators than deceased victims by a ratio of 16 to 1. In addition, front
page photos of perpetrators were much more likely to be large or medium sized than
photos of victims, which were small or mug shot sized 91% of the time. As she points
out, these findings raise serious questions, because the Society of Professional
Journalists’ Code of Ethics (2014) specifically emphasizes that the media should “bal-
ance the public’s need for information against potential harms” and “avoid pandering
to lurid curiosity.” What function does the publication of perpetrator photos serve,
other than pandering to lurid curiosity? There is no scientific or even anecdotal evi-
dence of any kind that suggests mass shooters can be identified in advance based on
their looks, so publishing photos of them would seem to have no preventative value.
154 American Behavioral Scientist 62(2)
In fact, audiences may not be quite as interested in mass shooters as media organi-
zations commonly assume. In their brilliant experiment published in this issue, Levin
and Wiest (2018) tested public responses to three almost identical news articles about
a mass murder at a school. For each article, the headline, opening sentences, and photo
were the same—the only difference was whether the article focused on a mass killer,
a hero, or a victim. Their findings revealed that respondents were significantly more
interested in reading news stories about heroes than they were about perpetrators. This
stands in stark contrast to the current news media environment wherein accounts pri-
marily focus on killers (Robinson, 2014). In retrospect, however, perhaps it makes
sense that people would be more attracted to news stories about heroes than villains,
as long as the hero is faced with a compelling challenge or conflict. Throughout his-
tory, movies, books, poems, and plays that focus on heroes have been the norm; those
that focus on villains have been the exception. In fact, many writers advise that for
successful literary works, the presence of a villain is completely optional (Ingermanson,
2011; Wood, 2015).
More broadly, the possibility that media coverage of mass killers actually exceeds
public demand is also consistent with other empirical findings, which show that from
2013 to 2017, many mass killers got more coverage from newspapers and broadcast/
cable news than the public interest these killers generated through online searches and
Twitter seemed to warrant (Lankford, 2018). When the media put mass killers on the
front pages of newspapers and on every television news channel, the public may not
look away—but that does not necessarily mean this is what they really want.
The Consequences of Media Coverage of Mass Killings
The likelihood that media coverage of mass killings would have dangerous conse-
quences is consistent with two huge areas of empirical research. The first is research
showing that one of the media’s primary functions is agenda setting. Although the
media may not control what the public think of a subject—whether they approve or
disapprove of it—the media directly influence what the public think about—and how
often (Cohen, 1963; Lippmann, 1922; McCombs & Shaw, 1972). The scientific basis
for agenda setting is extraordinarily strong, and McCombs and Shaw’s (1972) seminal
article on the subject has been cited nearly 10,000 times.
The second major area is empirical research showing that media coverage provides
free publicity that can have similar effects as paid advertising. This free publicity can
significantly increase the number of consumers who are interested in a product, per-
son, or experience (Bao & Chang, 2014; Ogilvy, 2015; Ridout & Smith, 2008; Stephen
& Galak, 2012). Notably, even negative coverage can have this effect (Ahluwalia,
Burnkrant, & Unnava, 2000; Berger, Sorensen, & Rasmussen, 2010; Ridout & Smith,
2008). As just one recent example, during the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald
Trump received approximately three times as much free publicity from the media as
Hillary Clinton (Schroeder, 2016). Even though a lot of that coverage was negative, it
seemed to have raised his status and appeal among a sizable portion of the population
(Oates & Moe, 2016; Stewart, 2016).
Lankford and Madfis 155
Taken together, these bodies of research point to a few clear conclusions. First,
media coverage of mass killings leads to more people thinking about mass killings—in
both intended and unintended ways. In fact, the postattack coverage is largely inescap-
able as people go about their daily lives—browsing the Internet, checking the news,
reading social media—so these moments of thinking about mass killings quickly add
up. Second, the free publicity that mass killers receive essentially functions as a
national and international advertising campaign (Lankford, 2018).
Although the coverage of perpetrators is negative in tone, it may still have many
unintended consequences, such as making mass killings—as potential opportunities to
become famous—and mass killers—as de facto celebrities—more appealing to a small
fraction of audience members. The role of contagion and copycat effects as conse-
quences of media coverage of mass killers has been heavily documented in the schol-
arly literature (Follman & Andrews, 2015; Gould & Olivares, 2017; Helfgott, 2015;
Kissner, 2016; Langman, 2017; Lankford, 2016; Lankford & Madfis, 2018; Meindl &
Ivy, 2017; Murray, 2017; Perrin, 2016; Sidhu, 2017; Towers, Gomez-Lievano, Khan,
Mubayi, & Castillo-Chavez, 2015). Of course, psychologically healthy people do not
commit mass shootings based on what they read or see in the news, but there are
troubled and at-risk individuals who respond very differently (Follman & Andrews,
2015; Gould & Olivares, 2017; Helfgott, 2015; Langman, 2017; Lankford, 2016,
2018; Murray, 2017; Perrin, 2016; Sidhu, 2017). This makes sense: Even dangerous or
distasteful products, people, and experiences almost always garner more interest if
they are widely advertised than not advertised at all.
For this issue, Raitanen and Oksanen (2018) studied one of these consequences:
the rise of global online communities of people who express a deep interest in school
shooters. Some of these individuals appear nonviolent, while others pose a clear threat,
such as the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooter, who participated in these
types of online communities for 3 years before committing his own attack. Much like
media coverage of movie stars and professional athletes creates fans of those celebrity
types, media coverage of mass killers creates fans and followers as well. Raitanen and
Oksanen (2018) found that these people are fascinated by previous attackers for a
variety of reasons, including sexual attraction, deep sympathy, intense curiosity, or the
desire to commit their own copycat attacks. Their obsessions are largely fed by media
coverage of past perpetrators, which provides the names, photos, and life stories that
they craft into objects for future worship and share online. It is important to emphasize
that these communities are fascinated by the individual people who commit mass kill-
ings, not just their actions. If media continued to report on the behavior of mass killers,
without publicizing their names and photos, it would largely deny these communities
the celebrity figures they are built around (Lankford & Madfis, 2018).
Langman’s (2018) study on copycat offenders for this issue provides a similar les-
son. The primary problem is not that media publish details about mass shooting
attacks, because most copycats are not copying attack tactics, anyway. The problem is
that media unintentionally make mass killers into celebrity role models, who are then
worshipped as gods, heroes, kindred spirits, and even sex symbols by the people who
eventually commit mass killings of their own. This is not mere speculation: Langman
156 American Behavioral Scientist 62(2)
(2018) documents these effects in great detail by citing the words and actions of many
copycat offenders. For instance, much like some fans of celebrity movie stars or pro-
fessional athletes start repeating their role models’ famous lines or wearing their cos-
tumes or uniforms, copycat killers often imitate the language and appearance of
previous mass killers. These connections often appear deeply personal and can pro-
vide the source of inspiration for future attacks. But if the media refused to publish the
names and photos of mass killers, it would be hard for anyone to connect with these
perpetrators on a personal and emotional level. After all, most people do not choose
role models based solely on a description of behavior, if they have never seen that
person’s face and do not even know that person’s name. Furthermore, if media reported
the stories of mass killings in more responsible ways that did not glamorize perpetra-
tors or overly dramatize these events (as suggested by Meindl & Ivy, 2018), this may
similarly diminish both the quantity and potency of school shooting fan subcultures
and copycat behaviors.
Media coverage of mass killers also has other major consequences: for instance, it
rewards past perpetrators with fame, provides an incentive for future fame seekers to
attack, and provides an incentive for perpetrators to kill as many victims as possible in
order to gain more attention (Lankford & Madfis, 2018). In prior research, Lankford
(2016) documented 24 examples of perpetrators who openly admitted seeking fame or
who directly contacted the media to get it, and cited additional cases where there is
strong circumstantial evidence. Some of these attackers were even competing with
each other to become the most famous mass shooter in history.
Unfortunately, there appears to be a direct link between the rewards offered by this
media attention and the psychological traits of those willing to kill for them. In this
issue, Bushman (2018) makes an extremely compelling case that many mass shooters
have narcissistic tendencies. He draws evidence from prior studies, government
reports, psychiatrists who have examined past perpetrators, and offenders’ statements
that correspond to items on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. As Bushman was
completing his article, current events provided yet another case: the 2017 Las Vegas
shooter was reportedly a “status obsessed narcissist” according to the law enforcement
officials in charge of that investigation, which suggests that he may have been a fame
seeker as well (Bailey, 2017). The danger is that narcissists often want to be the center
of attention and are willing to use aggression to protect their egos, and the media are
essentially offering them a stage.
On a societal level, this problem is further compounded by the fact that narcissistic
tendencies and desires for fame appear to be rapidly increasing in the American popu-
lation (Joiner, 2017; Pinsky & Young, 2008; Twenge & Campbell, 2009). This sug-
gests that media are rewarding mass killers with fame at the worst possible time:
during an era when these rewards are more desperately coveted than ever before. But
if media refuse to give these narcissistic killers the fame they desire, that would remove
one of their major motives for attacking in the first place.
In addition to the new findings described here, many other researchers have col-
lected evidence on the various consequences of media coverage of mass killings.
Unfortunately, an all too common one has been misinformation. For example, too
Lankford and Madfis 157
often, media accounts have promulgated inaccurate stereotypes and given viewers and
readers the misguided sense that most mass shooters are psychopathic or psychotic
loners (Madfis, 2014). Many scholars have also documented the excessive public fear
that people have of these attacks, largely due to the news they consume (Altheide,
2009; Madfis, 2016, 2017). Such deadly incidents certainly warrant major concern and
consideration, but problems emerge when people, including community leaders and
law enforcement officials, believe that mass killings occur far more frequently than
they actually do (Madfis, 2016). These misconceptions may be attributable to the
extensive volume of media coverage given to mass killings and the sensationalistic
ways in which coverage often focuses on perpetrators rather than on less exciting sta-
tistics about how rare these events actually are. In contrast, safer media coverage could
potentially reduce both copycats and public fear by avoiding the description of any
particular mass killing as part of an increasing trend, as this can serve to normalize the
behavior and exaggerate the prevalence of the problem (Meindl & Ivy, 2018).
Solutions for Making Media Coverage of Mass Killings
Safer
In accordance with the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics (2014), the
media already limit their reporting of some types of information to minimize potential
harms. For example, except in rare cases, they typically refrain from using profanity,
slurs, epithets, and other offensive language, even when it was used during a newswor-
thy event. They also typically avoid publishing images that contain nudity, sexually
explicit material, graphic violence, or corpses of the recently deceased. In addition,
major media organizations usually do not publish the names and photos of victims of
sexual harassment or sexual assault, unless the victims consent to being identified.
These decisions are all admirable. However, if the media are willing to limit their own
coverage to avoid being offensive or violating personal privacy, they should certainly
adopt a similar position when there is the potential to save lives.
And in fact, there are already some existing media policies with precisely that goal.
For instance, the media typically refrain from releasing information that would jeop-
ardize national security, if publishing it would clearly put lives in danger. Media cover-
age of suicide is also far more responsible than it used to be. Although stories about
suicide appear to have inadvertently inspired copycat suicides for hundreds of years
(Phillips, 1974), those potential consequences are now widely recognized. Both the
World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
have issued recommendations for media coverage of suicide, and most journalists,
reporters, editors, and producers are now aware that they need to be careful to avoid
producing contagion and copycat effects.
For this issue, Meindl and Ivy (2018) draw lessons from the media’s suicide pre-
vention efforts and apply them to mass killings. These are not completely distinct
subjects: Part of mass killing contagion may be attributable to suicide contagion,
because a high percentage of mass killers are suicidal as well. As these authors explain,
contagious and imitative behaviors have been studied for decades, and a lot is known
158 American Behavioral Scientist 62(2)
about how to prevent them. For instance, to reduce the likelihood of imitation, it is
important to avoid making the potential role model seem like someone of high social
status (e.g., a celebrity), to avoid rewarding that individual in any way (e.g., with sen-
sationalist coverage, fame, or attention), and to avoid portraying that individual as
competent (e.g., at accomplishing a mission or sending a message). Even coverage
that identifies individual mass killers and then characterizes them as dangerous,
aggressive, or menacing may be considered an attractive reward and sign of compe-
tence by some potential imitators.
Along with providing a series of recommendations for safer news reporting, Meindl
and Ivy (2018) also outline how the media could help reduce mass killings through
proactive information campaigns. Past media efforts have successfully changed public
perceptions of other highly imitative behaviors, such as smoking and alcohol use. With
mass killings, there may be a similar opportunity to degrade the allure of both these
attacks and their perpetrators among the audiences who find them most intriguing.
In the final article of this issue, Lankford and Madfis (2018) make a pragmatic and
evidence-based case for the change advocated by 149 experts at the beginning of this
piece. We ask the media to stop publishing the names and photos of mass killers
(except during ongoing searches for escaped suspects), but continue reporting the
other details of these crimes as needed. The article (a) reviews additional evidence on
the consequences of media coverage of mass shooters, (b) outlines the proposal and
how it would mitigate those consequences, (c) shows that its implementation is realis-
tic and has precedent, (d) discusses anticipated challenges, and (e) recommends future
steps for consensus building and implementation.
It is important to clarify a few things about this proposal. First, its scientific basis
does not depend on the assumption that all mass killers are fame seekers or copycats, or
that changing media coverage in the prescribed ways would stop all mass killings. For
comparison’s sake, smoking cigarettes has been proven to increase the risks of lung
cancer, but not all people with lung cancer smoked cigarettes, and reducing cigarette
smoking has not stopped all lung cancer. The key is making meaningful progress.
Second, the proposal is not a call for censorship or for government-mandated rules
to dictate how mass shootings may and may not be covered. Rather, it is a call for
media organizations to recognize their role in exacerbating this problem and to volun-
tarily make their coverage safer. If media stop publishing perpetrators’ names and
photos, these attackers’ identities will still be a matter of legal record and known by
many people, including law enforcement investigators, journalists, witnesses, fami-
lies, and local community members. The important thing is to deny mass killers the
celebrity status, fame, and free advertising that can be so dangerous.
Third, neither the proposal nor this special issue are designed to blame the media
for past mass killings. Until recently, the risks of publishing perpetrators’ names and
photos were not even known by many scholars, so the dangerous information that
appeared in news reports also appeared in our books and articles. But no longer.
Offenders’ names are largely absent from this special issue, which demonstrates how
effectively this entire subject can be discussed while minimizing potential harms. It is
actually far easier than commonly assumed: even in short articles with repeated
Lankford and Madfis 159
mentions, replacing an offender’s name with the year, attack location, and a word like
“shooter” or “suspect” (e.g., “the 2007 Virginia Tech shooter”) typically alters the
article’s total words by less than 1%.
This is why the opportunity to make media coverage of mass killers safer is so
exciting: it may strike that rare balance of being extremely low cost and extremely
high benefit. If major media organizations stop publishing perpetrator’s names and
photos, the actual words they use while reporting the news will be almost indistin-
guishable from the words they used before. They will not need to hire any new pho-
tographers or spend any more money on photos than they did before. The public will
not suddenly start ignoring media reports on major news events, such as mass killings.
In all likelihood, this will simply become the new normal, and future generations will
take it for granted that the news is reported this way, much like current generations
take it for granted that cigarettes are not advertised on television.
And most importantly, according to the consensus from many experts, innocent
lives will be saved. The individuals who are not shot and killed while they are at
school, work, church, or the movies will never realize how fortunate they were to
avoid becoming tragic victims. But at least for them and their families, it will have
made all the difference.
Looking forward, we also hope that the new insights gleaned from this special issue
about media coverage of mass killers will lead to deeper understandings of the causes
of these deadly attacks and how to prevent them. By building on this growing body of
scientific knowledge, scholars, law enforcement officials, and media members may be
able to develop new transformative solutions which have yet to be envisioned.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the generous and insightful reviewers who helped make this special
issue possible: Jesse Abdenour, Nils Böckler, Kyle Holody, Stephanie Howells, Michael Jetter,
Erin M. Kearns, David Kennedy, Ralph Larkin, Jennifer Murray, Glenn Muschert, Paul Perrin,
Michael Rocque, Christine Sarteschi, and Julie Wiest. Your input significantly enhanced the
quality of the final product, and we look forward to reading more of your research and scholar-
ship in the future. We would also like to thank Editor-in-Chief Laura Lawrie, whose support and
encouragement throughout this process has been tremendously appreciated.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
References
Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R., & Unnava, H. (2000). Consumer response to negative publicity:
The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 203-214.
160 American Behavioral Scientist 62(2)
Altheide, D. L. (2009). The Columbine shootings and the discourse of fear. American Behavioral
Scientist, 52, 1354-1370.
Bailey, H. (2017, November 3). Portrait of Las Vegas gunman: A narcissist on a losing streak.
Yahoo News. Retrieved from https://www.yahoo.com/news/portrait-las-vegas-gunman-
narcissist-losing-streak-120720948.html
Bao, T., & Chang, T. S. (2014). Why Amazon uses both the New York Times best seller list and
customer reviews: An empirical study of multiplier effects on product sales from multiple
earned media. Decision Support Systems, 67, 1-8.
Berger, J., Sorensen, A. T., & Rasmussen, S. J. (2010). Positive effects of negative publicity:
When negative reviews increase sales. Marketing Science, 29, 815-827.
Bushman, B. (2018). Narcissism, fame seeking, and mass shootings. American Behavioral
Scientist. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0002764217739660
Cohen, B. (1963). The press and foreign policy. New York, NY: Harcourt.
Dahmen, N. S. (2018). Visually reporting mass shootings: U.S. newspaper photographic cover-
age of three mass school shootings. American Behavioral Scientist. Advance online publi-
cation. doi:10.1177/0002764218756921
Dear Members of the Media. (2017). Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4Z7V
kWcwLk-SjFJc00tdmI1eW8/view
Duwe, G. (2004). The patterns and prevalence of mass murder in twentieth-century America.
Justice Quarterly, 21, 729-761.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2017). Making prevention a reality: Identifying, assessing,
and managing the threat of targeted attacks. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/file-
repository/making-prevention-a-reality.pdf/view
Follman, M., & Andrews, B. (2015, October 5). How Columbine spawned dozens of copycats.
Mother Jones. Retrieved from https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/columbine-
effect-mass-shootings-copycat-data/
Gould, M. S., & Olivares, M. (2017). Mass shootings and murder-suicide: Review of empirical
evidence for contagion. In S. Stack & T. Niederkrotenthaler (Eds.), Media and suicide:
International perspectives on research, theory, and policy (pp. 41-66). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Helfgott, J. B. (2015). Criminal behavior and the copycat effect: Literature review and the-
oretical framework for empirical investigation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 22,
46-64.
Ingermanson, R. (2011, April 26). Is your novel required to have a villain? Advanced Fiction
Writing. Retrieved from https://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/blog/2011/04/26/is-
your-novel-required-to-have-a-villain/
Joiner, T. (2017). Mindlessness: The corruption of mindfulness in a culture of narcissism.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Kissner, J. (2016). Are active shootings temporally contagious? An empirical assessment.
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 31, 48-58.
Langman, P. (2017). Role models, contagions, and copycats: An exploration of the influence of
prior killers on subsequent attacks. Retrieved from https://schoolshooters.info/role-mod-
els-contagions-and-copycats-exploration-influence-prior-killers-subsequent-attacks
Langman, P. (2018). Different types of role model influence and fame seeking among mass
killers and copycat offenders. American Behavioral Scientist. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/0002764217739663
Lankford, A. (2016). Fame seeking-rampage shooters: Initial findings and empirical predic-
tions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 27, 122-129.
Lankford and Madfis 161
Lankford, A. (2018). Do the media unintentionally make mass killers into celebrities? An
assessment of free advertising and earned media value. Celebrity Studies. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1080/19392397.2017.1422984
Lankford, A., & Madfis, E. (2018). Don’t name them, don’t show them, but report every-
thing else: A pragmatic proposal for denying mass killers the attention they seek and
deterring future offenders. American Behavioral Scientist. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/0002764217730854
Levin, J., & Wiest, J. B. (2018). Covering mass murder: An experimental examination of the
effect of news focus—killer, victim, or hero—on reader interest. American Behavioral
Scientist. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0002764218756916
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York, NY: Harcourt.
Madfis, E. (2014). The risk of school rampage: Assessing and preventing threats of school vio-
lence. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Madfis, E. (2016). “It’s better to overreact”: School officials’ fear and perceived risk of ram-
page attacks and the criminalization of American public schools. Critical Criminology, 24,
39-55.
Madfis, E. (2017). In search of meaning: Are school rampage shootings random and senseless
violence? Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 151, 21-35.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-218.
Meindl, J. N., & Ivy, J. W. (2017). Mass shootings: The role of the media in promoting general-
ized imitation. American Journal of Public Health, 107, 368-370.
Meindl, J. N., & Ivy, J. W. (2018). Reducing media-induced mass killings: Lessons from sui-
cide prevention. American Behavioral Scientist. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/
0002764218756918
Murray, J. L. (2017). Mass media reporting and enabling of mass shootings. Cultural Studies:
Critical Methodologies, 17, 114-124.
Muschert, G. W. (2002). Media and massacre: The social construction of the Columbine story.
Boulder: University of Colorado.
Oates, S., & Moe, W. W. (2016, August 25). Donald Trump and the “oxygen of publicity”:
Branding, social media, and mass media in the 2016 Presidential primary elections.
Paper prepared for the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting 2016,
Philadelphia, PA.
Ogilvy. (2015, July 20). Survey finds earned media more essential than ever in today’s modern
communications model. PR Newswire. Retrieved from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-
releases/survey-finds-earned-media-more-essential-than-ever-in-todays-modern-commu-
nications-model-300115249.html
Perrin, P. B. (2016). Translating psychological science: Highlighting the media’s contribution
to contagion in mass shootings: Comment on Kaslow (2015). American Psychologist, 71,
71-72.
Phillips, D. P. (1974). The influence of suggestion on suicide: Substantive and theoretical impli-
cations of the Werther effect. American Sociological Review, 39, 340-354.
Pinsky, D., & Young, S. M. (2008). The mirror effect: How celebrity narcissism is seducing
America. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Proctor, R. N. (2012). The history of the discovery of the cigarette–lung cancer link: Evidentiary
traditions, corporate denial, global toll. Tobacco Control, 21, 87-91.
162 American Behavioral Scientist 62(2)
Raitanen, J., & Oksanen, A. (2018). Global online subculture surrounding school shoot-
ings. American Behavioral Scientist. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/
0002764218755835
Ridout, T. N., & Smith, G. R. (2008). Free advertising: How the media amplify campaign mes-
sages. Political Research Quarterly, 61, 598-608.
Robinson, M. B. (2014). Media coverage of crime and criminal justice (2nd ed.). Durham, NC:
Carolina Academic Press.
Schildkraut, J., Elsass, H. J., & Meredith, K. (2017). Mass shootings and the media: Why all
events are not created equal. Journal of Crime and Justice. Advance online publication. doi
:10.1080/0735648X.2017.1284689
Schildkraut, J., & McHale, R. (2018, February). Covering rampage: News consumers’ percep-
tions about mass shootings in the media. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of
Criminal Justice Sciences, New Orleans, LA.
Schroeder, R. (2016, May 6). Trump has gotten nearly $3 billion in “free” advertising.
MarketWatch. Retrieved from http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-has-gotten-
nearly-3-billion-in-free-advertising-2016-05-06
Sidhu, S. S. (2017). Name no names: The role of the media in reporting mass shootings. Journal
of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 56, 3-4.
Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.spj.org/
ethicscode.asp
Stephen, A. S., & Galak, J. (2012). The effects of traditional and social earned media on sales: A
study of a microlending marketplace. Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 624-639.
Stewart, E. (2016, November 20). Donald Trump rode $5 billion in free media to the White
House. TheStreet. Retrieved from https://www.thestreet.com/story/13896916/1/donald-
trump-rode-5-billion-in-free-media-to-the-white-house.html
Towers, S., Gomez-Lievano, A., Khan, M., Mubayi, A., & Castillo-Chavez, C. (2015). Contagion
in mass killings and school shootings. PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0117259. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0117259
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The narcissism epidemic: Living in the age of enti-
tlement. New York, NY: Free Press.
Wood, R. (2015, June 24). How to write a compelling conflict without a villain. Standout Books.
Retrieved from https://www.standoutbooks.com/how-write-conflict-without-villain/
Author Biographies
Adam Lankford is an associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at The University
of Alabama. He is the author of two books and many peer-reviewed journal articles on various
types of criminal behavior, including mass murder, mass shootings, and terrorism. His research
findings have been covered by media outlets in the United States and more than 40 countries
worldwide.
Eric Madfis is an associate professor of criminal justice at The University of Washington
Tacoma. He has published numerous articles and book chapters about the causes and prevention
of mass murder in schools and other settings. His book, The Risk of School Rampage: Assessing
and Preventing Threats of School Violence (2014, Palgrave Macmillan), explores how threats
of multiple-victim rampage shootings are assessed and prevented in American public schools.