Media psychology expert: Speculating on shooter’s motive can shape public perception in major ways

BUFFALO, N.Y. — Lindsay Hahn is a University at Buffalo faculty expert on the effects of mass media on people’s conscience and actions, especially with regard to the cognitive and behavioral responses of audiences ranging in age from adolescence to adulthood.

She recently published a study in the journal Communication Monographs analyzing 55 years of statements made by the perpetrators of mass shootings. The findings could provide a foundation for developing preemptive counter-messaging designed to undermine those arguments for violence and reduce the potential for copycats.

Below, Hahn, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Communication, weighs in on news consumption and the media landscape following the attempted assassination of former president Donald Trump on Saturday.

What should news consumers keep in mind as the coverage unfolds and the story continues to develop?

Most importantly, unless the shooter told us why he did it, we do not know his motive. In emergent situations like this, it is understandable that everyone – reporters and news consumers included – wants to know why the attacker did what they did. But reasons for attacking are sometimes complex, and motives ascribed to a shooter by law enforcement, news media or speculation on social media do not accurately capture the shooter’s reasons for attacking. The only thing that accurately captures an attacker’s reason for attacking is words from the shooter – and so far, we have no evidence that the shooter communicated his reasons for attacking. Given that Trump’s attempted assassin was killed, we have to be open to the possibility that we may never know his motive. Unless the shooter made overt writings about their plans and motives ahead of time, it is unlikely that a clear answer will ever emerge about why the shooter did what they did. 

Typically, mass shooters and terrorists like their motives to be known to the public so that they are perceived as a rational actor with goals rather than an irrational criminal. However, there are plenty of exceptions to this rule in recent history, for instance the shooter’s motive at the Las Vegas country music festival – the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history – remains unknown despite a long, detailed investigation. In times where information on motive is scant, it’s often the case that people look into shooters’ political affiliations and other personal history to get a sense of what their motive might have been. However, we have to remember that a shooter’s political affiliation or any other personal characteristic is not by itself indicative of a motive. Put simply, that a shooter was politically affiliated does not mean their attack was politically motivated even if it appears to be so. For instance, [President Ronald] Reagan’s shooter was motivated by a misguided attempt to get close to Jodie Foster, and Reagan, he believed, was just a conduit to her. 

This is the first assassination attempt involving the presidency since Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981. Obviously, the media landscape has been completely transformed between those two events, but does that have any significance beyond the nature of the coverage?

For events like this, the most important difference between past news coverage and modern news coverage is that modern news and its consumers are “always on.” For news creators, this means they have to find ways to fill on-air time during special news reports and produce novel news bits even when there is not yet new information to report. This leads to more news analysis than the reporting of actual facts, and that can have a big impact on how consumers interpret the news in emergent situations. For instance, to fill time, a reporter may interview experts who mention that law enforcement is likely looking into whether an event is connected to other events or interview witnesses who thought they may have heard a second shooter. The mere mention of these points, even if not stated by either interviewee as fact, can drastically shape the way consumers think about the event. 

There’s a famous saying in communication research that “media do not tell audiences what to think but they do tell them what to think about.” Speculation about motive, an off-the-cuff remark about law enforcement’s protocol to determine whether an attempted assassination is an isolated incident, or an eyewitness report about sounds of a second shooter will, at the very least, get audiences thinking about these topics. And without facts to guide them, these seemingly innocent remarks can shape public perception of an event in major ways. 

Because, for news consumers, who want as many details as they can about an event as it unfolds, they often rely on social media to help them make sense of the event. This means they may rely on official sources who follow journalistic best practices. But, when details do not emerge as fast as they would like, they might look to places like TikTok or X [formerly Twitter] for crowdsourced information that corroborates or disputes what they’ve learned from official sources. Now that they are primed to think about a second shooter or the possibility that this is not an isolated incident, they may be more likely to accept information on social media that offers evidence in support of either possibility. To be sure, social media can be a great way to get information quickly in an emergent situation. But we have to be critical of information on social media, as crowdsourced images and videos are not vetted, and information can easily be influenced with accessible AI technology by actors who want to attain 15 minutes of fame for appearing to be privy to information that others are not.