Tulsa, OK — Just 8 days after one of the worst mass shootings in recent history, another deranged psychopath walked into a Tulsa hospital and started shooting people. Before turning the gun on himself, the shooter was able to kill four innocent people inside the Natalie Medical Building at the Saint Francis hospital.

The shooting took place at 4:51 p.m. and unlike the officers in Uvalde, officers in Tulsa responded within minutes, confronted the shooter immediately, and the threat ended at 4:56 p.m.

Whether or not the date was specifically chosen remains unclear, however it was the 101st anniversary of the Tulsa Race Massacre, during which a mob of white supremacists — aided by police — killed over 300 of the most successful Black people in America.

Since the shooting unfolded, very little information has been published in the media. So far, the only thing the media has reported is that the shooter was a a “Black male estimated to be 35 to 40 years old” who killed himself after the shooting. Media also reported that the shooter was armed “with a rifle and a pistol” and both of the weapons were reportedly fired during the shooting.

No motive have been released. No image of the shooter. No images of the guns. Nothing.

And this is a good thing.

Mass murderers in America are all too often immortalized by the media. They have their photos plastered on televisions across the country and names burned into the pages of American history forever with the blood of the innocent.

If the shooter fits one of the many divisive narratives, they get even more notoriety in the corporate press as the controversy drives traffic to websites, thereby increasing revenue and creating profit from murder.

After the shooting last week in Texas, Dr. Jordan Peterson tweeted that naming the shooters and plastering their faces across millions of televisions creates an incentive for future killers — and he’s right.

We have to agree to never publicize the names of school shooters and other publicity-seeking mass murderers. This is not a gun or even a "mental health" issue. It's an issue of malevolent narcissists weaponizing mass media. Stop publishing their names and the problem will end.

— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) May 26, 2022

While refusing to name the shooter would likely not “end” the problem of mass shootings, it would certainly have an effect. In fact, a 2017 study found that the “contagion” effect of copycat mass shooters is a real thing and usually occurs roughly 7 to 13 days after the original shooting. According to the study:

In instances of mass shootings, the media appear largely responsible for providing the model to imitate. Although there are a variety of strategies that could function in tandem to alter the likelihood of a mass shooting, changing the way the media report mass shootings is one important step in preventing and reducing imitation of these acts. Furthermore, it is likely that media-prompted imitation extends beyond mass shootings. A media effect has been shown with suicide, is implied in mass shootings, and may play a role in other extreme events such as home-grown terrorism and racially motivated crimes.

This study was published five years ago and the World Health Organization and others have since recommended the media follow certain guidelines to prevent further contagious mass death. TFTP adopted the policy of not naming mass shooters nor publishing their images after Parkland. However, as we’ve seen with the recent killings, the legacy media are choosing to abstain from these recommendations — except with Tulsa — and this is telling.

Less than an hour after the Buffalo, New York shooting unfolded, all we heard about was that the shooter was a white supremacist and literally every single mainstream liberal outlet reported or had an employee report that it was the fault of Tucker Carlson.

The type of guns he used, his manifesto, his photo, his high school, nearly every detail of the shooter’s private life was plastered across the internet and televisions. Media are still reporting on the shooter today and his name and face continue to be evoked to incite fear and divide — to drive clicks, push gun control, and push a narrative that those who disagree with the establishment’s agenda are violent white supremacists who must be censored.

Within hours of the tragedy in Uvalde, Texas we saw a similar process unfold. This time, however, because the shooter was obviously not a white supremacist, the media focused on the tools he used to kill. By focusing on the guns, the media was able incite similar fear and divide to facilitate the same return — profit and narrative reinforcement.

But we aren’t seeing this now. Why is that?

We won’t attempt to speculate why the Tulsa hospital psychopath’s face is not plastered on televisions across the country or photos of his guns not trending on Twitter. However, given the history of the coverage of mass murderers by the mainstream, we can deduce that they had very little to gain from it.

They have either deemed it unprofitable or useless in pushing the established agenda. Either way, it is a telling sign of their motives and a perfect example of the tactics they use to manipulate the public for profit and political gain.

Their relevance is fading quickly and this is also a good thing.

Article posted with permission from Matt Agorist