How gun control disappeared from news coverage since Sandy Hook,

[ErikJ]

:large
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/12/13/the-media-dont-care-about-gun-control-anymore/


In the days after the Newtown, Conn., shootings, President Obama and other political leaders vowed to aggressively pursue new gun control legislation. But in the year since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the fight has migrated away from Capitol Hill to the states, where advocates hope their chances for success are better.
Perhaps one reason for the shift is that reformers have struggled to keep the national media’s attention on the gun debate. Despite unprecedented coverage in the days after the shooting, one year later media interest in gun control is right back to where it was before anyone had heard of Adam Lanza.
The chart above shows the number of published news stories that mentioned “gun control” for each week since the Newtown killings. The data come from a search of more than 500 outlets in the U.S. News & Wires database of Lexis-Nexis.
Gun control coverage was profuse in the days and weeks after the shooting. With Democratic political leaders declaring that “we can’t tolerate this anymore” and that “we are not doing enough to protect our citizens,” the debate over guns took center stage. This is a frequent pattern after mass shootings, as the media’s intense interest in such a dramatic event leads to a spike in coverage.

[NYC_SKP]

1. I don't think anyone is surprised by this. The country is numb.

I think there's a saturation point past which the typical media consumer zones it out, and the media know that.

The have to sell content, and if people don't want it, it won't sell.

Other factors are at work, I'm sure.

[K.O. Stradivarius]

6. I was sick and tired about hearing the Sandy Hook, gun control blitz

after week into it.

Same goes for the Boston Marathon bombings and God knows how many other "Oh my God!" news events.

I don't need to hear the same repetitive shit 24/7/365.

Unless you have something new, informative, ground breaking, explosive, etc to report, just shut the fuck up about it, and when you do... keep it short, simple and sweet.

[neverforget]

10. Yeah because it's not important.

[rrneck]

2. After the Senate bill political will collapsed.

That collapse is the result of a host of reasons related to the effectiveness of the legislation proposed and it's perceived political impact on both sides of the aisle. The flurry of gun legislation at the state level appears to have favored the expansion of gun ownership.

Barring a significant rise in the crime rate or other similar event that personally impacts the lives of a plurality of the national population, it's over for now.

[seveneyes]

3. Maybe it's all been said?

And further discussion would be redundant, repetitive, unnecessary, or duplication?

[X_Digger]

4. I wonder how much of that drop can be attributed to attempted reframing..

Even here at DU, we've seen gun control proponents try to reframe it as 'gun safety'- dropping the 'control' term in a transparent attempt to fool folks.

[badtoworse]

5. At some point, it became obvious that more gun control wasn't going to sell..

Sure, a few states passes some asinine laws (New York comes to mind), but at the federal level, it died in the Senate. Once that was clear, interest quickly faded.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. And meanwhile here on DU gun news was banned from GD.

Its just too contentious. On a political message board. Too contentious.

[firsttimer]

8. It's about ratings

[Hoyt]

9. Gun fanciers would be devastated if they couldn't easily buy a shotgun just like Zimmerman's.

You gotta feel for the poor addicted souls.

[Captain Stern]

11. Gun stuff gets the news coverage that it deserves.

No more, no less. It's just one issue among many.

[pipoman]

12. with over 10k gun laws

It is increasingly difficult to think of laws that would pass a SCOTUS challenge. ..at the state level however...not so much a SCOTUS issue..