Letters to the Editor Editorial Media responsibility in covering mass violence

Whether or not school districts should hire armed guards is complex, requiring thoughtful consideration from parents, students, community members, educators, school administrators and elected officials.

But as we work through the intricacies of this sensitive and often contentious issue, a related matter is worthy of our attention: How can we appropriately cover mass shootings when these tragic events arise?

The Gun Violence Archive defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people are injured or killed. Unfortunately, mass shootings are commonplace in this country. Already in 2023, there have been more mass shootings than days in the year. As a nation, we have failed to address this critical policy concern.

When one of these all-too-familiar violent events occurs, the press often too hastily reports on it. Helicopters circle above the crime scene as field reporters rush to the periphery, searching for immediate information.

A tragedy soon becomes a spectacle. Within days — sometimes just hours — the suspect’s name is revealed to the public. Then the shooter’s image is flashed incessantly on every newsreel and in every major newspaper in America. As the media goes to work uncovering the personal details of the shooter’s life, a depraved human being is made into a national celebrity.

And this phenomenon is not unique to the press. Hollywood capitalizes on violence; the more graphic a film’s depictions, the more revenue it will generate. Violence sells in this country, whether in motion pictures, music, video games, digital media or newsprint. And the ubiquity of these images within American popular culture has the natural effect of normalizing violent behavior nationwide.

Here at TBR News Media, we reject this dynamic entirely. Mass violence in America should not be accepted as mainstream nor should it be sensationalized or embellished. With a medium that enables us to disperse information widely both in print and on the web, we are responsible for using our platform appropriately.

Research on mass shooters indicates they are often motivated by perceived isolation or social rejection. Some commit an atrocity to achieve a mark on the world, since even playing the villain can be preferable to obscurity.

As journalists, we must deny violent offenders precisely the attention and fame they so crave. We legitimize acts of violence when we publish names or run headshots of mass shooters. By lending our platform to the least deserving, we encourage copycat offenders.

It is time that we, the members of the press and the distributors of information, end the dramatization and glorification of mass violence in America. It is time to substitute sensationalism with rigid, objective reporting when violence inevitably ensues.

This same standard applies to digital media. In this century, so much of the information available to us is circulated online. For this reason, Big Tech has a similar obligation to monitor its content and halt the spread of personal details regarding mass shooters.

While restraining our coverage is necessary, mass violence deserves our close attention. Still, we must focus on the issues: Should we hire armed guards in and around schools? How do we keep guns out of the hands of potentially violent offenders? How can we expand access to mental health services, so fewer people resort to mass violence? And more.

The focus should be policy driven and victim centric. We should create awareness of the problem while working to identify solutions. But we must not say their names or run their headshots.

By covering shootings appropriately, we can do our part to curb the spread of mass violence. By applying these methods consistently, journalists can work to change the culture, save lives and make a positive difference for the nation and humanity.

Equality under the law should be bipartisan

Every person deserves equality under the law. The laws of our nation must ensure that basic human rights are protected and enshrined. These views should not be partisan, as they impact all of us, regardless of political affiliation.

Given what should be a nonpartisan recognition of human dignity and equality, it is striking that every Republican legislator in the New York State Legislature from Suffolk County, including Assembly freshman Ed Flood [R-Port Jefferson] and Sen. Anthony Palumbo [R-New Suffolk] voted against the Equal Rights Amendment that will appear on our ballots in November 2024. Our current New York State constitution does not protect historically targeted groups, and this amendment would change that by prohibiting government discrimination based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability and sex.

Thankfully, the Republican Party is irrelevant in Albany, given the Democratic supermajority in both chambers. But it is disgraceful that our state representatives would deny so many of their constituents’ basic protections. Voters across New York state will have the opportunity to vote on the Equal Rights Amendment and should vote out every legislator who voted against it. We deserve leaders who represent all of us, and we deserve the chance to vote on measures such as the ERA.

At the federal level, our freshman representative Nick LaLota [R-NY1] has also been disenfranchising his constituents. His votes have largely flown under the radar as the media feasts on the spectacle that is U.S. Rep. George Santos [R-NY3]. One of the votes ignored by the media is H.R. 26, the socalled “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” that all of Long Island’s Republican representatives voted in favor of. This piece of legislation that sought to criminalize late-term abortion ignores the basic facts that 93% of abortions occur in the first trimester of pregnancy, and 99% occur before 20 weeks of gestation.

A better use of taxpayer dollars would be to focus on issues like maternal mortality rates, given that Long Island’s maternal mortality rate is higher than the national average, with Black women disproportionately impacted. If our Republican legislators were truly “prolife,” they would be investing in prenatal, neonatal and maternal health. Thankfully, this bill will not go to a vote on the Senate floor, but we deserve better representation for ourselves and our families.

As our members of Congress and the state Legislature spend this week at home on recess, this is the perfect opportunity to ask them why they have chosen to deny so many of us our basic rights. It is an opportunity to remind them who they serve, and for each of us to remember that if our representatives refuse to listen to us, it’s time for new representation.

Shoshana Hershkowitz South Setauket

How to tackle carbon dioxide emissions

Virtually every rational person agrees that it would be a good idea to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide, thereby reducing the contribution of civilization to the phenomenon of global warming.

Perhaps the most obvious way to achieve this goal would be to convert some, or most, or all of our motor vehicles using internal combustion engines to electric vehicles. To accomplish this monumental task, the vast amount of energy currently provided by hydrocarbon fuels must be replaced by an approximately equal amount of electrical energy.

But what is the best way to produce this energy, using technology that is available today? On the one hand, we have our renewable energy, consisting primarily of solar arrays, windmills and hydroelectric generators. But these have serious limitations, primarily due to the intermittent availability of sun and wind, and also the mind-boggling cost and technical problems associated with batteries or other technologies to fill in the gaps.

The obvious solution to this problem would appear to be nuclear power, which provides clean energy all day and all night, in good weather and bad, with zero emission of carbon dioxide.

Nuclear power has been used to generate electrical power in France for 60 years, and now provides approximately 72% of their requirements. The worldwide leader is the United States, which generates more than 30% of the world’s nuclear power, but only about 19% of our own domestic usage. We have some 70,000 wind turbines, which provide about 7% of our power, when the wind is blowing. We also have a lot of solar panels, which supply some 2% of our power, when the sun is shining.

We now have a government that claims to believe in “science,” as only they can define it. At the same time, they tell us the following:

1. We must get rid of our ICE vehicles.

2. We must replace them with EVs.

3. To ensure conformance, gasoline will become increasingly less plentiful and more expensive.

4. We will build as many windmills and solar arrays as we can.

5. We will deal with the battery problem at some time in the future.

6. We will shut down nuclear plants, e.g., Diablo Canyon in California and Indian Point, as soon as we can.

7. We will make it as difficult as possible to obtain a license to build a new nuclear plant.

8. We will redefine or reinterpret inflation to prove that we had no part in causing it to increase.

Thank goodness that we have a government to understand science and regulate technology. What would we do without them?

George Altemose Setauket

Sun safety Is not just for summertime

The winter season brings cold winds and snowy weather, but it also can bring damage to your skin. Ultraviolet radiation from the sun damages your skin year-round, not just during the summer months.

Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the U.S., yet most cases can be prevented. UV radiation from the sun and indoor tanning lamps are the primary cause of skin cancer and reducing your exposure can significantly reduce your cancer risk. Even on cold, winter days, UV radiation from the sun can cause damage to your skin, especially at high altitudes and on reflective surfaces such as snow or ice. Snow reflects up to 80% of the sun’s UV radiation, increasing the damage caused to your skin.

Sun protection is necessary every day, regardless of the weather or time of year. Sun safe practices such as applying sunscreen with SPF 15 or higher, wearing a wide-brimmed hat, UV protective sunglasses and long-sleeved clothing, and seeking shade whenever possible, can help prevent skin cancer.

The Cancer Prevention in Action at Stony Brook Cancer Center works to build awareness about the dangers of UV radiation and promote the benefits of sun safety through education, awareness and policy support to reduce skin cancer rates on Long Island.

To learn more about Cancer Prevention in Action, visit takeactionagainstcancer.com or contact us at 631-4444263/COE@stonybrookmedicine.edu.

CPiA is supported with funds from Health Research Inc. and New York State.

Annalea Trask Program Coordinator Cancer Prevention In Action Stony Brook Cancer Center

Opinion

Riding in cars with our kids after their games

ong ago, back when my son was shorter than I, and when he listened to more of what I said, I was driving him and his teammate back from a baseball game that was more than an hour away from our house.blurs into a collection of highs, lows and everything in between.

Halfway home, we were the first car to stop at a red light. When another car pulled up next to us, we recognized the father of one of my son’s teammates.

in a close game.

After our next game, my son and I got in the car, and I had a chance to look at us more closely in the metaphorical mirror.

Looking straight ahead, the father was screaming at the top of his lungs. My son and his teammate, who usually filled the car with nonstop commentary about the game, school, weekend plans and anything else that came to mind, were stunned into silence.

D. None of the above

Those were the days when such long rides were part of our weekend routine, as we packed athletic gear, food, paper towels and flip-flops into the car to enable our children to compete against other children from distant towns or neighboring states, while also taking off their cleats and running into a deli to use the bathroom.

I don’t recall the details of the game because, even then, my son played in so many of them that the entire montage of memories

The three of us shifted our heads and saw his son sitting in the front seat with his head down, absorbing the ongoing verbal blows from his father, who had started gesticulating and was so frustrated that he spit on the windshield as he shouted.

During the entire red light, the father excoriated his son. As we drove away, my son’s teammate shared his memories of the game, pointing out that the boy in the other car had made a key error and struck out late

No, I wasn’t screaming at him. No, I didn’t spit on the window. The pattern I noticed, however, was one in which my son — when he was alone with me — focused only on the things that went wrong. He lamented everything he did wrong or didn’t do right. Sometimes, I recalled, I piled on, telling him how he could or should have done something differently.

As I tried to get a few words in after that game, he cut me off. He continued to criticize his performance until he was too exhausted to speak, at which point he urged me to talk.

I didn’t want to review the game. I wanted to discuss our interactions.

After considerable back and forth, I set new ground rules not for coach/player interactions, but for father/son discussions, particularly as they pertained to sports.