A prohibition on law enforcement and District Attorneys on discussing criminal trials prior to start makes a lot of sense. This will protect the privacy of both victims and accused, and avoid prejudicing juries. While private citizens have a first amendment right, police officers and District Attorneys are government employees and be prohibited form discussing sensitive matters. This would stop the media frenzy, because the media would be kept in dark. But then again, it would make it hard for police and District Attorneys to go the politicians and demand more resources to fill more patronage jobs and get more toys.
"In our research, Eric Madfis and I have identified three major consequences of the media coverage. One, it creates a kind of competition for mass shooters to maximize the number of victims they kill. The second is that it’s rewarding these offenders with fame and attention, which is often what they want – it serves to give them a legacy. Even if they die, they may be remembered, according to their distorted views, as someone who mattered, as a somebody rather than a nobody."
"Apart from that, the media advertises the behavior. So regardless what kind of behavior it is, if you want to increase it, the best way is to advertise it. When it comes to mass shooters, that advertising produces what’s known as both contagion and copycat effects. Contagion essentially means that the ideas about committing this type of attack spread through society and permeate the minds of at-risk individuals. And copycat effects have been documented among many offenders who have specifically identified previous mass shooters as role models."
