I just saw a press conference with Rick Scott concerning ways to make schools safe from being shot up. So-called newspeople beating the same old drums. I suppose it's safe for them to base the debate on the tip of the iceberg, the guns – very nebulous subject, so many aspects, constitution and all. As usual nothing will happen and nobody will be clearly to blame for this. The whole discussion is getting creepier by the day – more and more of this weird pantomime dancing around the very obvious fact that the fault for these shootings and their escalating rate of occurrence lies squarely in the lap of the “news” media. If you're someone steadfastly clinging to the “lack of gun control” argument, I suggest you look to a simpler solution.  The pathway to celebrity must be blocked.

Let's just start small – no reward for the deed. No naming of the killer in the press. No images of him. No profiles. Just low-key reporting of the event. Nobody making money off it – no extra newspapers sold, no added revenue for the tv news sponsors. It's easy – maybe even an executive order is all it would take.

I would like to know why this argument is not being made. Is it really because the entertainment value of mass shootings offers an economic boost that cannot be turned away from? Or am I just missing something?