do news outlets in the US cover every single mass shooting that happens?

24 comments

1. A local newspaper is a “news outlet”. I’d be fairly shocked if any mass shooting somehow missed all media coverage.

2. [deleted]

3. National news outlets usually don’t cover local stories unless they’re considered huge enough that people in other areas would care about it

4. Mass shootings include shootings where three people are shot even if no one dies. I suspect there are some of those that are not covered or at least not covered nationally, just in local papers.

5. They literally can’t. There are too many. Most of them are gang related though so the news only covers the ones that were completely 100 percent random which are thankfully rare though getting less and less rare every year.

6. Not nationwide.

   If there’s lots of victims or kids it will get plenty of national news coverage, but there are too many to give time to each of the smaller ones.

7. No, just the ones that are the most inflammatory and create the most buzz.

8. Depends on how you define a mass shooting and how you define covering it. When people say things like “There have already been 263 mass shootings in America this year!” They’re generally using a pretty broad definition of mass shootings that includes a lot of smaller shootings that don’t get a whole lot of attention.

   Most of these shootings where only two people get injured or so don’t get a whole lot of attention, but they probably will at least get a brief mention In the local news most of the time (but not always).

9. No, the majority are gang related and gang violence is very local to certain areas, outside of those areas its not really reported on. Even within those areas its not reported on extensively because its more or less expected.

10. No. Most mass shootings aren’t what most people think of when they think of masa shooting

11. If it bleeds, it leads…

12. No. They happen so frequently some go under the radar.

13. technically, no. I think the definition of “mass shooting” has been changed so that if only two people get shot, it counts as a “mass shooting” in the statistics, which even includes a murder/suicide. So the statistics reflect a lot of mass shootings, but most of the ones that get counted people don’t even consider to be “mass shootings” because of manipulation of numbers conflicting with peoples general understanding/perception.

14. The majority of the “mass shootings” are just gang related shootings that only affect gang members. Those will be covered by local news usually.

15. Depends what kind, mass shooting at a mall yes, gang land mass shooting no.

16. No, this may sound harsh, but in my opinion the definition of “mass shooting” is really stupid. It just means 3 or more people get killed.

    A gang fight gone wrong, or a family member killing the rest of the family etc. aren’t the same thing as guy goes to public place and just kills as many people as they can.

    Mass shootings like the first two things I mentioned happen all the time, but the only ones that are really covered beyond local news are the ones where the shooters main objective is just to go in public and start shooting. IMO I think they should be called different things.

17. No. If it doesn’t fit their political narrative then it quickly leaves the news cycle.

18. Only if it’ll get them ratings

19. I don’t believe there’s a generally agreed upon definition of “mass shooting”.

    Many news media refer to the [Gun Violence Archive](https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodology), which defines a mass shooting as any incident in which four or more people, not counting the shooter(s), are shot. That’s a very broad definition. On their web site, they say the FBI only defines mass murders, not mass shootings.

    Since most people only learn about the *random* mass shootings, where the perpetrators deliberately sought and killed people they didn’t know, that creates a disconnect between what people think “mass shootings” means and what GVA actually reports. Also, my quick definition (“sought and killed people they didn’t know”) might. It include one of the most famous incidents, Columbine, which means my quick definition needs more refinement.

    If you go by the GVA definition, clearly they don’t all get covered nationwide. Many, perhaps most, are between gangs or during other crimes.

    If you use a stricter definition, it’s difficult to say. It feels like every one of those, or at least every one with several deaths, ought to be covered nationally, but I have no way of knowing.

20. Not all of them, no.. Drive bys and stuff like that typically only get massive coverage when someone who wasn’t gunfighting gets kilt

    (Talking on a local level even.. a drive by in which a little girl gets killed that happens here might not make it out of the city or region)

    The mass shootings that get national coverage are when some dumbfuck just starts blasting random people

21. No. Local news outlets might, if happen locally, but at the national level that isn’t happening. Only the most tragic of mass shootings make it to national news.

22. As long as it fits their narrative.

23. Only the big ones. A little 3-5 person mass shooting is like normal day around here

24. All but the ones we keep secret.