By giving killers the publicity they crave, the media is part of the gun violence problem

certain underlying conditions in the United States, which supersize the incentives for desperate and suicidal individuals to do their worst. Americans are living in a time and place where fame is increasingly desired; where the distinction between becoming famous and infamous has blurred; where mass killings are the only way to guarantee instant fame for ordinary people; and where these attackers receive more media attention than ever before.

There is also evidence of what psychologists Jean Twenge and Keith Campbell have deemed a “narcissism epidemic” in America, with a host of perniciously self-centered traits becoming far more common. Not surprisingly, the Las Vegas shooter was a status-obsessed narcissist, according to the sheriff in charge of that investigation, which suggests he may have been a fame-seeker as well.

If our top priority is saving lives, what can we do to reduce mass shootings? There are several important steps we could take, beyond the necessary but endlessly repeating debate about firearms.

For instance, 149 scholars, professors, and law enforcement professionals have signed a letter requesting that in the future, the media no longer publish the names and photos of mass killers (except during ongoing searches for escaped suspects), but continue reporting all other relevant details about these crimes. Along with criminologist Eric Madfis, I have published a journal article that presents the scientific evidence and rationale for these recommendations.

Similar efforts have been supported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the International Police Association. As a 2017 report from the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit explained, “media coverage featuring the offenders’ names, photos, and life stories only cements the legacies they seek to achieve. . . . News media should refrain from naming the assailants, from posting their photographs.”

No one expects offenders’ names and faces to be kept completely confidential. Many people will end up knowing who committed each attack, including the police, reporters, witnesses, families, community members and others involved in the aftermath of these crimes. And sometimes offenders will post information about their identity online, which cannot be fully stopped. But if media organizations refuse to give them free publicity on a national and international stage, that would make a big difference.

There are precedents for similar self-governance: The media does not publish the names of sexual assault victims without their consent, even in high-profile cases where public curiosity is intense. The media frequently shields the identities of minors who have been accused of crimes as well.

These are important and admirable positions adopted by media organizations that understand there are tradeoffs to publicity. Taking a similar approach to mass shootings would save innocent lives.

It can be very difficult to look in the mirror and admit that you have done something wrong. It can be doubly hard when you know that your intentions were good, and that the harmful consequences of your actions are not really your fault.

But this is not about assigning blame for past mistakes; if it were, no one would be more complicit than researchers such as myself, who have spoken mass shooters’ names in countless interviews and published them in our articles and books.

This is about shaping the future. Many experts and law enforcement professionals will continue to investigate mass shootings and the people who commit them in great detail. But we will no longer give them the free publicity that makes them into dangerous role models, and I hope we will not be alone. Lankford is an associate professor of criminology at the University of Alabama.