How Journalists Cover Mass Shootings: Research to Consider

Abstract

After covering a major tragedy such as a mass shooting, it’s helpful for editors and reporters to review their work. What did they do well? What were their shortcomings and oversights? How did their coverage impact audiences, communities and victims’ families? And just as important: How can the newsroom do a better job next time? Unfortunately, in the case of mass shootings, some news outlets might have to deal with a next time. To help guide newsrooms in their conversations about how they cover mass shootings, we’ve gathered a sampling of research that examines news coverage from several angles, including how journalists portray shooters of different races and religious backgrounds. We’ve included two studies that look specifically at how The New York Times covers mass shootings and which factors — for example, the location of a shooting or the perpetrator’s motivation for killing — affect how much time and resources the newspaper dedicates to each event. This collection of research has been updated since it was originally posted in December 2018. [CVRL Note: One reviewed article "Covering Mass Murder: An Experimental Examination of the Effect of News Focus — Killer, Victim, or Hero — on Reader Interest" discusses how news coverage profiling victims of mass violence is less engaging for readers in comparison to articles focusing on heroic actions by bystanders. Another, "Mass Shootings and the Media: Why All Events Are Not Created Equal" discusses how "race/ethnicity and victim counts are the most salient predictor of whether or not a shooting was covered" by media outlets.] (Author Abstract)