The media organization will:
• Refuse to promote the identity of an alleged assailant by withholding their name and likeness from all forms of public communication.
• Acknowledge that the prospect of infamy could serve as a partial motivating factor for disturbed individuals to cause the death of innocent victims.
• Concur that individual names and likenesses are irrelevant to media coverage of such acts, where an emphasis should be placed on specific details of the act, alleged assailant’s background, and possible motivations.
• Raise public awareness of the root cause for such acts, as to increase the likelihood of their future prevention.
• Agree that in cases where an alleged assailant is still at large, their name and likeness should be published to aid in the capture and incarceration of this individual. Once incarcerated, the assailant’s name and likeness will be withheld from future communications.
• Recognize that The Alex Teves Challenge is an initial step in the process of eliminating random acts of mass violence. As such, we agree to promote data and analysis from experts in mental health, public safety, and other relevant professions, where this will support further steps in the elimination of this type of criminal behavior.
In a statement on the site, Teves’ father, Tom, makes this point: “If we all don’t stand together to save our children and our friends then we are, by doing nothing, culpable to a certain extent.” Is there room for media organizations to take such a situation seriously? And how does that play into the current situation?
Personal take: I like the heart behind this idea (especially considering the video Anthony posted is so accurate), but I will be the first to admit that there are many challenges to enacting it — one, that media organizations who run this kind of info have a natural encouragement to do so, and two, that social media makes it easier than ever for this sort of info to spread. But is there something to be said for points like this? — Ernie @ SFB