How should the (US) media report mass shootings?

A similar debate has also been raised here: "Which Newspaper do you Read?"

Following the shooting of eight people atan Omaha shopping mall last week, two American journalists argued thatthe media should not identify the gunmen in such cases.

Four people and the gunman died in two Colorado shootings
Sunday's church shootings in Colorado will raise further questions over whether media reports of such events can encourage copycats.
Writing on the South Florida Sun-Sentinel,Michael Mayo said: "By all means, letâ€™s find out as much as we canabout these troubled killers and tell their stories. Letâ€™s talk totheir families and friend, examine how legal or medical systems brokedown, failed them and us all. But letâ€™s not name them. Letâ€™s just callthem 'the shooter.'"
At Market Watch, Jon Friedman wrote:"What if the media covered all the nuances of the story but ceasednaming the vicious and disturbed murderers who kill for the kicks ofgetting their names on the evening news and on the front pages ofnewspapers, magazines and Web sites?"
Both writers were responding to the fact that the Omaha gunman left a note proclaiming "Now I'll be famous".
LorenColeman, author of The Copycat Effect, which is both a book and a blog,argues that sensationalist reporting of these events can encourageothers to mimic them.
After the church shootings Coleman wrote:"The copycat behaviour crosses locations and the ripple effect jumpsfrom schools to malls, from malls to churches, from schools toworkplaces, from churches to fast food sites, and back and forth,during a cycle. What is certain is the copycat effect does havewildfire moments, and we are in the midst of a mini-one right now."
It's fairto be asking questions about what details we report. We accept the needto self censor some details of certain stories. In Britain, forexample, the PCC's Editors' Code of Practice warns "when reportingsuicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about themethod used".
It's a subjective decision though. How much detailis "excessive"? Which facts do readers legitimately need to know tounderstand the significance of the story and which ones are gratuitous?
Whetherto name a killer or not is at least a clear question but instinctivelyI can't imagine it discouraging would-be mass killers. But is it worththe risk?
I can't pretend to have the answers but perhaps it's time for a debate.