After the Virginia Tech horror, there was a debate here and elsewhere about whether the shooter should be named or discussed. In that case, the shooter's videotaped rant was aired on TV and online. It seemed he was given more press and air-time than the victims. My own opinion was that we needed to know the profile on this guy so we could, hopefully, head off the next nut out there.
Clearly that wasn't the case as the shooter in the Nebraska mall specifically said in his suicide note, that "now I'll be famous".
And then there was this (one?) shooter in those two Colorado locations yesterday. They've yet to name him but I wonder if they should. There has to be a way for the media to provide insight to people who do these kinds of things without giving them the 'fame' they often seek.
What's your opinion? Should they talk about the shooters, mention them by name, tell us about their childhood and such, or maybe skip all that and simply compare the events leading up to the incident so we can perhaps be more vigilant in our own lives? Or...?
"The others don't like my interviews. And frankly, I don't care much for theirs." ~ Freddie Mercury