Of course, that's partly because amid war (at least, amid a popular war, such as World War II) many of their readers and viewers want them to behave that way. But that's kind of my point: If the frequency of mass killings reaches a point where it is perceived as a true national crisis, there will be growing pressure to do something about it, and lots of people may agree that punishing killers with obscurity (in the literal sense of not showing their faces, at least) is one thing that should be done about it. It could even get to a point where the self-censorship actually makes sense in business terms--where the New York Times is considered, in a sense, patriotic for eschewing images of mass killers, and is rewarded for this by readers.

Which leads to my second point: Gould suggests that media be shamed into self-censorship, both by credentialed critics who appear on mass media and, via social media, by lay critics as well. I absolutely agree. I would just say that I don't see this shaming as an alternative to my proposal but rather as a complement to it. In general, the shaming of norm violators is one of the mechanisms by which a norm is strengthened and upheld. But that doesn't mean the norm can't first be planted by a few elite media institutions that take the initiative.

It's kind of a chicken and egg question: Which will happen first--the eschewing by some media outlets of images of accused mass killers, or the shaming of media outlets that fail to exercise that self-censorship? I'm indifferent, so long as both wind up gaining momentum. The problem of mass killings may not yet be seen as serious enough for that to happen, but that doesn't mean it can't happen or won't happen.