It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
This week, I watched in horror with most of America, as yet another person unleashed a furry of bullets in a busy Portland, Oregon, mall killing two and injuring others. But my horror was twofold. The first misery came as I heard the names and numbers of victims and thought about the pain they and their families will endure for the rest of their lives. The second dose came as I held my breath, hoping and praying the media wouldn’t amplify the violence. But they did. They did exactly what they needed to do to influence the next perpetrator to lock and load. They named the shooter. They described his characteristics. They detailed the crime. They numbered the victims. They ranked him against other “successful” attackers
We need to discuss the merits and morality of a law. I don’t suggest a broad one – but one that matches responsibility with influence. It’s already illegal to use free speech to incite others to criminal acts. So if we know a particular kind of speech is inciting violence, how can we appropriately limit it? Is there a way to do so without creating a slippery slope that limits all speech that tenuously connects to some kind of mischief? And if a law is the wrong device, what can we do to make Stephen King’s response the norm rather than the exception? For example, we know naming a shooter amplifies his or her influence. We know that when his or her race, gender and other personal characteristics are detailed, those who see themselves as similar are far more likely to feel a sense of permission to follow suit. We know details of the crime act as a virtual workshop for would-be acolytes. And for heaven’s sake, when body counts are not only reported but even compared to previous perpetrators, you incite a hideous competition. It’s time our media leaders wake up to the fact that they are not just reporting these crimes. Depending on how they report them, they are accomplices in them. It is also time our legislators consider taking up the task the media appears unwilling to assume. We need to match responsibility with influence.
Joseph Grenny
Investment Committee Chairman
…..
A co-founder of Unitus, Joseph Grenny is co-founder and chairman of VitalSmarts, where he has co-authored and contributed to eight books in the areas of personal and organizational effectiveness, including the New York Times bestsellers Influencer, Change Anything, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations. His work has been translated into more than two dozen languages and has been used by more than 300 Fortune 500 companies.
VitalSmarts has been on the Inc. 500 fastest-growing companies list for three years in a row, and the founders were also chosen as Ernst & Young’s Entrepreneurs of the Year. Joseph was formerly president of California Computer Corporation and an executive for the Covey Leadership Center. Joseph holds a B.A. in international relations from Brigham Young University.
Originally posted by JBA2848
This week, I watched in horror with most of America, as yet another person unleashed a furry of bullets in a busy Portland, Oregon, mall killing two and injuring others. But my horror was twofold. The first misery came as I heard the names and numbers of victims and thought about the pain they and their families will endure for the rest of their lives. The second dose came as I held my breath, hoping and praying the media wouldn’t amplify the violence. But they did. They did exactly what they needed to do to influence the next perpetrator to lock and load. They named the shooter. They described his characteristics. They detailed the crime. They numbered the victims. They ranked him against other “successful” attackers