I like your solution to go with established crimes. I didn't suggest to censor the parties but I think it's high time mainstream xenophobia gets called out. I don't see what airy fairy about this.
What is the incitement of violence crime? How would it apply to the media and how could it apply to condoning politicians?
See? You can ask excellent questions and see the heart of the issue when you want to.
Incitement of violence would be, for example, someone calling for everyone to harm any Seventh Day Adventist they see. I understand the test in the US is a call for imminent violence.
For the rest, there isn't an easy answer.
As I said, it should apply to the media only in respect of crimes such as terrorism and mass shootings (if there's any difference). It would require an expansion of sorts in terms of the law since the news articles wouldn't ordinarily fall into the above definition of incitement based on the fact that the articles do not call for violence explicitly and therefore intent cannot be inferred therefrom. However, depending on the outcome of robust studies, the articles may well fulfil the "action" aspect of the crime (i.e. they have the significant effect of encouraging further crimes). This is a huge starting point. My point is that, if the media was put on notice and informed of these studies, then they would have the knowledge that their sensationalism has the effect of encouraging further terrorist acts. The broad mental component can then be regarded as being satisfied. Put another way, while intent is required for incitement, the requirement for the media would be modified to knowledge (with the studies providing the strong justification for this; hence the need for the studies to be robust).
I would not change the law with respect to politicians or any other person because speech is extremely wide. They would be subject to existing laws for incitement. It would work for the media (subject to the studies I mentioned) because of the effect the standard sensationalist reporting would have been shown to produce. Further, it would be confined to specific crimes such as terrorism. We have to be careful and not overhanded. For other crimes, the existing laws relating to incitement would continue to apply.
Regarding the censorship argument, it's valid but I don't think it's very impactful. Why? Well, the core speech that freedom of speech seeks to protect is political speech, criticism of the government or power structures and the like. In this case, the reporters can still report basic facts regarding the crime. I also don't think that turning the perp into a celebrity is something that is anywhere remotely near that core. Second, the trade-off for sacrificing that aspect (which, let's face it, doesn't benefit the public in any meaningful way) is huge because of the number of lives that will actually be saved.
It appears that there are some existing viewpoints and studies which support the cause-effect view of the media sensationalism:
Criminologists who study mass shootings say the vast majority of shooters are seeking infamy and soak up the coverage as a guide.
Just four days after the 2017 Las Vegas concert shooting, which stands as the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, Lankford published a paper urging journalists to refrain from using shooters' names or going into exhaustive detail about their crimes.
Skaggs said he is "somewhat sympathetic to journalists' impulse to cover clearly important and newsworthy events and to get at the truth. ... But there's a balance that can be struck between ensuring the public has enough information ... and not giving undue attention to perpetrators of heinous acts."
Studies show a contagion effect from coverage of both homicides and suicides.
James Alan Fox, a professor at Northeastern University who has studied mass shootings, said naming shooters is not the problem. Instead, he blamed over-the-top coverage that includes irrelevant details about the killers, such as their writings and their backgrounds, that "unnecessarily humanizes them."