So Sophie,

Why is it that serial killers and other criminals don't fully utilize mass communication methods? Don't you think that they would really make a better impression on society with just a little effort on their parts?

-Pleading the Fifth

Hey Pleading,

ou know, this is a really interesting question. Just think of the possible results rendered by a successful mass communication PR campaign, or the effect of several strategically timed press releases. This country and the world at large might well find themselves no longer viewing the serial killer as a depraved monster but instead as a slightly eccentric man with strange hobbies. It's all a matter of public perception.

All you serial killers out there, listen up: it's not that hard to better your image. Start small. Hand out some fliers to local townspeople. Perhaps an ad in the newspaper would start things off nicely. Really, people, it's not that tricky.

Let's look for a moment at the hottest serial killer in the civilized world, or at least the US and Britian, right now, the Washington, D.C. sniper. He's been getting more media coverage than anyone ever dreamed possible, including daily reports by prestigious foreign agencies like the BBC. But what's the nature of the programming? If I've read one article about how to protect myself from this menace to society, I've read a hundred. Every owner of a white truck or minivan along the East Coast has had to rethink their mode of transportation. Michael's stores are losing business like crazy. Why? Poor usage of mass media.

If this sniper knew what he was doing, he would have written some strategic letters to the press (an idea used by murderers as far back as Jack the Ripper). He would have made a case for himself and transformed the people he killed from hapless victim to someone who needed killing. Take the 13-year old boy who got shot. Without input by our killer, this boy is being portrayed as a sweet, helpless child, loved by family and friends. But, with the proper spin, we see a schoolyard bully who beat up little kids and stole their lunch money. Perhaps we'll find out about the psychopathic tendencies the boy was already starting to show and realize that he was the next Jeffrey Dahmer (another poor guy who couldn't get a sympathetic news story). Maybe he would have grown up to be a child-molesting priest, causing unspeakable damage on generations of children. Taking that kid out now may well have saved a hundred lives twenty years from now. Isn't that worth it? The general public is constantly worried about the children. Isn't it right that this so-called "sniper" had the foresight to save hundreds?

Did anyone ever stop to think about what that federal agent who got shot was really up to? Maybe she was a secret assassin who was eliminated in a large cover-up. Did anyone check to see whether real people got shot in any of the other locations? What if they were all decoys? C'mon... most of us have seen that Arnold Schwarzenegger movie in which he saved some hot movie star/model-type by faking her death. That same plot's also been used by tons of FBI witness protection relocation movies. Hey, what if that's what this whole thing is -- relocating tons of FBI witnesses? One little article in the paper or a short blurb on TV transforms this sniper into a hero for justice, protecting witnesses to horrible crimes. (This leads one to wonder if the FBI is really stupid enough to hide their witnesses in one small area like that but I wouldn't discount it. There's something to be said for hiding in plain sight.)

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make here is that the reason mass murders and serial killers don't strategically use mass media to their advantage is simply because they haven't learned how. Perhaps it's time we started teaching some of these theories in high school humanities classes so that burgeoning criminals learn to use the media infrastructure to their full advantage. Then again, maybe the world's not ready for that many heroes just yet.