"No Notoriety" for killers

[PerkingFaintly]

Obviously there are a lot of threads about the horrifying events in Plymouth.

I wonder if MNers would be interested in following the "No Notoriety" protocol?

A quest for notoriety is sometimes part of the killer's motivation, and has also been shown to motivate copycat killings.

"No Notoriety" doesn't mean we completely avoid naming a criminal or discussing their acts. It just means we don't help boost their personal fame. So for example we don't use the name in headlines or thread titles.

More info here:

nonotoriety.com

nonotoriety.com

NO NOTORIETY MEDIA PROTOCOL
To reduce rampage acts of mass violence due to media-inspired fame.

• Adhere to the journalistic principle to "Minimize Harm," keeping in mind the responsibility of balancing the public's need for information vs. potential harm.

• Recognize that the prospect of infamy serves as a motivating factor for other individuals to kill and inspires copycat crimes.

• Report the facts surrounding the mindset, demographic and motivational profile, without adding complimentary color to the individual or their actions, and downplay the individual's name and likeness, unless the alleged assailant is at large.

• Limit the name to once per piece as a reference point, never in the headlines and no photo above the fold. Refuse to broadcast/publish self-serving statements, photos, videos and/or manifestos made by the individual. After initial identification, limit the name and likeness of the individual in reporting, except when the alleged assailant is still at large and, in doing so, would aid in the assailant's capture.

• Elevate the names and likenesses of all the victims killed and/or injured to send the message their lives are more important than the killer's actions.

• Agree to promote data and analysis from experts in mental health, public safety, and other relevant professions to support further steps to help eliminate the motivation behind mass murder.

IT'S A MATTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
No Name. No Photo. #NoNotoriety.

Yes I would be interested absolutely

Any discussions around crimes should be driven by experts who seek to understand and prevent crimes from happening again. A lot of other discussions are just people speculating and winding people up. Although some discussions are good to try and find ways to make changes which reduce the chance in the future. for example, I welcome the day that people recognise that the internet brings a lot of dark minded people together in a way just not possible before.

It’ll never happen though.

I watch a news show that has been doing this for years, they focus on the victims and the event, no photo of the perpetrator, not even named. I think it is right.

And I'm sure there must be MNers for whom this is very local.

to anyone in the area.

Richard McCann has asked the media not to refer to his mothers killer as the Yorkshire Ripper as it causes distress to family and even his own children, and wants just the name of Peter Sutcliffe to be used.

I agree to this.

I agree. I've seen without looking for the story the cowards face. Name the coward, put a picture in the body of the text, no need to put it on front page.

But how can we learn anything from this or reflect on it without discussing motive/ the killers personality traits etc?

This should definitely be implemented across all media. I have just finished Laura Richards deep dive podcast during which she refused to use the R##### name and referred to the killed as PS throughout.

@Blendabrethin

But how can we learn anything from this or reflect on it without discussing motive/ the killers personality traits etc?

We certainly can discuss them.

We don't need the name in the headline or a picture above the fold to do that.

We also don't need to act as publishers, word-for-word, for any "manifesto" they have made.

But thinking back to some of the most egregious dramatic reporting of yesteryear, we don't need, for example, lots of humanising local colour about what they had for breakfast – to make us feel closer to them.

The protocol is absolutely NOT a suggestion that motive should be unexamined.

The protocol is just to help us not get sucked into the "drama of their personal story", or inadvertently contribute to lionising them (via demonising them in lavish, breath-bated detail and creating an anti-hero).

Yes!

@Blendabrethin

But how can we learn anything from this or reflect on it without discussing motive/ the killers personality traits etc?

Unless you’re an expert, any discussion is just speculative gossip.

We also don't need to act as publishers, word-for-word, for any "manifesto" they have made.

Agree. All of it.

Yes I agree, like in the BBC/Danish drama about the Swedish journalist Kim Wall, where the murderer is never seen, never named.

It was The Investigation.just mentioned as a cross reference.

@Iggly I'm not an expert but I do work in an area of public policy where this sort of thing is relevant (sorry, that's vague but details would be outting). In fact, under the current prevent strategy, pretty much anyone anyone in a public sector role needs to understand what to look out for in terms of radicalisation/ red flags. The way in which intelligence is gathered on people who may cause harm to the public relies on ordinary people, in everyday roles (e.g. school teachers and youth workers) familiarising themselves with the psychological and behavioural traits that indicate that someone is vulnerable to radicalisation. It is helpful to show people what this looks like.

Even from a non-professional perspective, reflecting on what we have learnt from this situation can be more than just 'speculation and gossip'. For instance, I had a really interesting debate today with my partner about the causes of male violence, whether or not the media and judicial system play a part in excusing it, how our own personal experiences colour our view of the killers motivations and our political views on what could be done to stop such incidents, whether psychology is a real science and the creeping hold psychologists have in the setting of public policy.

I live right next to where this happened.
I am so very sick of seeing his face everywhere, I am not even saying his name.
Let’s focus on the victims. The young child and her father
His wife is a nurse at the hospital here. She’s a mother who’s probably worked long hours without breaks during a pandemic. The other victims are just lovely, normal people.
Let’s see what we can do to help the families left behind. Support them. Help them.

@YesIDoLoveCrisps

I live right next to where this happened. I am so very sick of seeing his face everywhere, I am not even saying his name. Let’s focus on the victims. The young child and her father His wife is a nurse at the hospital here. She’s a mother who’s probably worked long hours without breaks during a pandemic. The other victims are just lovely, normal people. Let’s see what we can do to help the families left behind. Support them. Help them.

So so sad. I can't imagine what the families are going through. It must be so hard for the whole community. I'm in Devon too, not Plymouth but such a shock

[quote Blendabrethin]@Iggly I'm not an expert but I do work in an area of public policy where this sort of thing is relevant (sorry, that's vague but details would be outting). In fact, under the current prevent strategy, pretty much anyone anyone in a public sector role needs to understand what to look out for in terms of radicalisation/ red flags. The way in which intelligence is gathered on people who may cause harm to the public relies on ordinary people, in everyday roles (e.g. school teachers and youth workers) familiarising themselves with the psychological and behavioural traits that indicate that someone is vulnerable to radicalisation. It is helpful to show people what this looks like.

Even from a non-professional perspective, reflecting on what we have learnt from this situation can be more than just 'speculation and gossip'. For instance, I had a really interesting debate today with my partner about the causes of male violence, whether or not the media and judicial system play a part in excusing it, how our own personal experiences colour our view of the killers motivations and our political views on what could be done to stop such incidents, whether psychology is a real science and the creeping hold psychologists have in the setting of public policy.[/quote]
That’s fair enough. I guess what I mean is general speculation on message boards like this, which can be seen by anyone and everyone. Plenty of people who really don’t know what they’re talking about.

I try not to get sucked into speculation. I have an opinion and think things need to change in our society - but that’s about it.

Anything related to the perpetrator will boost them if that's what they desire. There's much history previously for this. Their photo, their MO, an E-fit, being referred to as the killer of "..." These sickos look for a reference to themselves in any form, it doesn't have to be their name in print. Even seeing the names/photos of their victims once identified. It's just a win for them. The public can try to avoid glorifying them (as they would see it) but it's unavoidable one way or another due to the media coverage of the crime(s) they've committed. Rightly or wrongly, they'll get their 15 minutes (or more).

I absolutely agree - I had similar thoughts this morning when a Telegraph headline popped up on my phone. Let’s just ignore these men and focus on the victims.

I completely agree. My thoughts are with the victims and their families, not the person responsible.

As an aside, but a related point I also thought the P&C commissioner being interviewed on the today programme this morning was dreadful. It was really not appropriate in my view to witter about the community being shocked without showing any compassion for those at the heart of this.

Totally agree. They should focus on the victims and give as little detail as possible about the perpetrator, they’re always losers anyway.