Question - its it me or are these mass shootings receiving less and less national

[malaise]

coverage?

[slackmaster]

1. It's you. Overall violent crime rates have been falling since about 1994.

Don't fall for misleading vividness. It's what the media thrive on.

[Logical]

17. We do have a very high murder rate.

[Lizzie Poppet]

2. No, I don't think so.

They're extremely rare events (made to seem less so by the sensationalistic coverage), and all indications are that they have been becoming even less common for quite a few years now. But "if it bleeds, it leads" in our news media...

[Liberal_in_LA]

3. The aftermath coverage is less. The story fades away quicker. I still recall the McDonald's shootin

near San Diego... I think it was 20 years ago or more. Stayed in the news longer than the current stories do.

[malaise]

5. It's like it's not a big deal anymore

Maybe everyone is desensitized

[Enrique]

4. that's what it seems like to me

others on this thread claim otherwise, I don't have any data, but it seems to me that they're becoming more common and less covered.

[davepc]

8. The FBI regularly releasees a rhobust report on violent crime.

The trends are undeniable and consistently downward.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

[ladjf]

6. It's happening so often that people are becoming accustomed to hearing about yet another

shooting. Sad state of affairs.

[hack89]

14. Exactly the opposite

rates of violent crime are at historic lows. You have never been safer.





http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime

[ladjf]

15. What are the stats on "mass shootings" , which was the topic of the post ? nt

[X_Digger]

16. 'mass murder' is about the same as it was in the 80's (number of victims).

http://www.amazon.com/Mass-Murder-United-States-History/dp/0786431504

That's a really good read on the subject.

In the 80's there was an average of 161 people killed per year in 'mass murders' - defined as four or more victims within a 24 hour period. In the 90's? 163.

What's changed is the situation. In the first half of the twentieth century, it was mostly family annihilators. A farmer faced with the prospect of losing his farm, kills his entire family then himself. Those kind of mass murders were much more common then, but the average number of victims scaled pretty well with population.

Those kinds of killings are more rare roday, but 'workplace shootings' / 'going postal' have risen.

Of course the two other phenomenon at play here is the selective nature of memory and what's called 'telescoping'.

We don't remember all the days when nothing happened, only those when something did. Additionally, we tend to remember things either closer or farther back in time than they actually occurred. So the litany of '+1's we add to in our heads tends to ignore the time in between them, and we perceive them as being closer together than they actually are.

[ladjf]

18. Thanks for the informative replay. nt

[hack89]

19. Here is a timely CNN article

Despite the huge media coverage devoted to them, crime statistics show that there is no upward trend in mass killings -- defined as having four victims or more, not counting terrorism -- since the 1970s, he said.

But despite these high-profile cases, the chances of falling victim to a school or campus shooting are still incredibly slim, Fox said.

"Overall in this country, there is an average of 10 to 20 murders across campuses in any given year," he said. "Compare that to over 1,000 suicides and about 1,500 deaths from binge drinking and drug overdoses."

So while they are sad when they occur, school shootings are "very few and far between, and very unpredictable," Fox said. This suggests that authorities can do greater good by focusing on the prevention of suicide and substance abuse than trying to guard against a campus killer.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/us/us-mass-killings/

[ladjf]

20. Good info. Thank you.. nt

[gvstn]

7. Less coverage

5 people shot at a University would have been 3 days wall to wall coverage a few years ago. Aerial shots of the campus and talking heads filling airtime with conjecture etc. Now barely a mention and a little follow up the next day.

Seems a conscious decision to tone down coverage or a cost-saving one. But I can't even remember the one that happened just last month. I know it got very little coverage or I would have some idea where it happened. I think they started cutting down coverage after the big one at Virginia Tech.

[Loudly]

9. Exactly what the gun proponents want.

They parade out the "improving" statistics whenever multiple homicides occur at the whim of someone with personal problems/grievances.

It's all a blatant effort to smother righteous outrage at how convenient it was him for terminate innocents with extreme prejudice.

Access to guns and ammo is THE problem.

Now carry on dying Americans.

[malaise]

11. Ah ha you have raised exactly what's troubling me

Doesn't all this 'less coverage favor the NRA and are there any dots to connect?

[Loudly]

12. It's not an invisible hand.

It's just a grassroots delusion. And ratings dependent media outlets are very aware of what is popular from moment to moment.

What is consistently popular is enduring the risk of dying suddenly at the hands of another as a fair bargain for killing others at your own whim.

How healthy does THAT sound?

[malaise]

13. Not healthy at all

Here are photos from today
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/02/oakland-school-shooting-photos-from-the-scene/#end

[Remmah2]

10. Less media hype.

Some stories get repeated more than others.