So I know no one really needs another take on the Port Arthur movie, but I do think there's been a little gap in the for/against positions, which so far has, very fairly, focused on the trauma it might inflict on survivors. But I think there's another risk 1/? (CW, obviously)

So I've written a few stories about mass shootings and why they happen; obviously complicated, but one huge and consistent driver is fame. The recurring theme of mass shooters is they are nobodies who want to die and want their lives to have meant something. 2/

They have learned from years of a certain style of media coverage* - raking over mass shooters every diary entry/facebook post/interviewing everyone you ever met - that this is a way to get both. 3/

*Australia has mostly been pretty good with this stuff to be fair, at least when reporting our own mass shootings (all bets are off when it happens in the US) 4/

To pick the most germane example I actually spoke to Paul Mullen, the forensic psychiatrist who interviewed the perpetrator of the Port Arthur (among others); he said he was one of the dumbest people he'd ever met, but he had an encyclopedic knowledge of other mass shooters 5/

As @GlynnGreensmith who's done wonderful work in this area put it, we provide "a playbook for potential mass shooters" and tell any loner with an arsenal and a grudge, this is how you get everyone’s attention, this is how you get your every grievance and thought brought to light

So the fact that the film apparently isn't going to show the event itself doesn't matter (in terms of the risk of inspiring more mass shooters) by focusing on the unremarkable life of an unremarkable person SOLEY because of what they later did you fulfill that script