Full Version: Was NBC Wrong?
I don't believe that any of it should've been released, at least at this time. I do not accept the notion that in releasing them, we are somehow gaining some significant, impactful insight as to why Cho did what he did. The man was mentally ill and listening to the ramblings of a mentally ill mind hardly qualifies as significant or telling. For all of the platitudes about going "deeper" into the story, this was just a piece worthy of the likes of the National Enquirer. I also don't buy the notion that in rejecting this piece, those who are against it's airing only want "good" things in print or on t.v. Once again, it's about quality and significance, the video lacked both of those items.
Ted:
The video tells us NOTHING about the response or controversy over the response time of Virginia Tech officials. How would it?
The right to know would come from pscyologist's reports and the like, not from the video where an obviously mental ill man is just going off. The former is a credible source of information based on science. The latter is pure salacious material that tells us nothing.
Well, the media should provide quality information, not salacious gossip and the ramblings of a madman which once again, tells us nothing that we don't already know. It was not significant in any way. It did not provide us with any new information or insight. While we've been told that it has been "beneficial" it hasn't been explained specifically as to what has been learned.
Amlord was dead on about how NBC shamelessly aired this for higher ratings and money. It is disagraceful and I don't see how some people who work there can sleep at night.
Ted:
QUOTE
Helps - esp. since we know it was made in the two hours that the University and police did nothing to identify and locate this man on campus. The total incompatance eveident here is scary.
The video tells us NOTHING about the response or controversy over the response time of Virginia Tech officials. How would it?
QUOTE
people have a right to see what was in this guy's head (besides the insanity part),
The right to know would come from pscyologist's reports and the like, not from the video where an obviously mental ill man is just going off. The former is a credible source of information based on science. The latter is pure salacious material that tells us nothing.
QUOTE
I'm sorry but this guy killed 33 people. In my book at least that deserves some attention.
Well, the media should provide quality information, not salacious gossip and the ramblings of a madman which once again, tells us nothing that we don't already know. It was not significant in any way. It did not provide us with any new information or insight. While we've been told that it has been "beneficial" it hasn't been explained specifically as to what has been learned.
Amlord was dead on about how NBC shamelessly aired this for higher ratings and money. It is disagraceful and I don't see how some people who work there can sleep at night.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Apr 28 2007, 04:42 PM) 
Well, the media should provide quality information, not salacious gossip and the ramblings of a madman which once again, tells us nothing that we don't already know. It was not significant in any way. It did not provide us with any new information or insight. While we've been told that it has been "beneficial" it hasn't been explained specifically as to what has been learned.I don't see how some people who work there can sleep at night.
Indeed. I have also inquired to others on this thread, "What did you learn from viewing it?"
Nobody seems to have learned anything, or else they would have responded.
Perhaps the people who needed to learn something from this rant were not the ones posting in this forum. Perhaps they are social workers and "mental health professionals" who are supposed to be either treating disturbed people for their mental illness or taking measures to make sure these severely mentally ill people do not hurt themselves or, barring that, at least not hurting others. Maybe the one thing that we should all learn is not to discount what someone else has to say, their ramblings or our prejudices notwithstanding.
But I do think it a tad grandiose to assume that since no posters here have stated what they learned from watching the video that there is nothing to be learned from the airing of it.
I did hear one or two of the Democratic candidates state that it might be time to see that individuals who are disturbed such as Cho Seung-Hui was should not be admitted to college.
But I do think it a tad grandiose to assume that since no posters here have stated what they learned from watching the video that there is nothing to be learned from the airing of it.
I did hear one or two of the Democratic candidates state that it might be time to see that individuals who are disturbed such as Cho Seung-Hui was should not be admitted to college.
Voted Yes when this post was first started. After a week of review i can finally answer the questions put forth.
Should NBC have aired the video?
Yes. Not in the light that they and the other news media outlets did though. Seemed as though it became over exposure after an hour of constant play.
Does it further harm or help society, at large to air such a video?
Helps society. Gives them the means to somewhat understand the mindset of the person to become better aware themselves.
The bigger question: Is the media responsible for actually CREATING these horrible events
by virtue of the fact that they exploit, expose and profit off of broadcasting such incidents?
Wouldnt go as far as creating these events. They do though exploit and profit from such horrible events. Expose is a far reach, for a majority of the twenty four hour news channels do little to no in depth journalism.
Side Note:
What irritated me the most when it happened is the complete saturation of this event on the television channels. It was as if nothing else was happening in the world. Tragic event it was, ramming it down viewers eyes was distasteful.
Should NBC have aired the video?
Yes. Not in the light that they and the other news media outlets did though. Seemed as though it became over exposure after an hour of constant play.
Does it further harm or help society, at large to air such a video?
Helps society. Gives them the means to somewhat understand the mindset of the person to become better aware themselves.
The bigger question: Is the media responsible for actually CREATING these horrible events
by virtue of the fact that they exploit, expose and profit off of broadcasting such incidents?
Wouldnt go as far as creating these events. They do though exploit and profit from such horrible events. Expose is a far reach, for a majority of the twenty four hour news channels do little to no in depth journalism.
Side Note:
What irritated me the most when it happened is the complete saturation of this event on the television channels. It was as if nothing else was happening in the world. Tragic event it was, ramming it down viewers eyes was distasteful.
QUOTE
Perhaps the people who needed to learn something from this rant were not the ones posting in this forum. Perhaps they are social workers and "mental health professionals" who are supposed to be either treating disturbed people for their mental illness or taking measures to make sure these severely mentally ill people do not hurt themselves or, barring that, at least not hurting others. Maybe the one thing that we should all learn is not to discount what someone else has to say, their ramblings or our prejudices notwithstanding.
When a person is in crisis, you don't take what they say too seriously. If they are being restrained, they will say that you are hurting them, that no one cares about them, etc. They will say things that are preposterous and that people around them know isn't true. I have first hand experience at this as I have worked at a mental health residential treatment center. Yes, this guy had some intense issues, issues that required an examination. It is there and then that his problems are listened to intently and given the full attention and understanding that they do. If we are to listen to Cho, it is through the reports and other papers that come out through professionals, not the heat of a crisis where little if anything, makes sense.
QUOTE
But I do think it a tad grandiose to assume that since no posters here have stated what they learned from watching the video that there is nothing to be learned from the airing of it.
There have been a statement or two that run along the lines of the video being somehow insightful. I was responding to that in my first post in this thread. I also find it telling as to how this video is Cho explaining himself or somehow telling. I agree with doomed_planet on that point.
QUOTE
I did hear one or two of the Democratic candidates state that it might be time to see that individuals who are disturbed such as Cho Seung-Hui was should not be admitted to college.
Wow, I didn't know that. I would be interested to hear how they plan on enforcing that. If you have an anxiety disorder?, what if you're bi-polar and successfully completed residential care? This would be quite sticky.
On top of that, if you had some mental malady, could you sue the feds or university system for discrimination then? Could the ACLU get involved over privacy? 
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Apr 29 2007, 11:35 AM)
QUOTE
Perhaps the people who needed to learn something from this rant were not the ones posting in this forum. Perhaps they are social workers and "mental health professionals" who are supposed to be either treating disturbed people for their mental illness or taking measures to make sure these severely mentally ill people do not hurt themselves or, barring that, at least not hurting others. Maybe the one thing that we should all learn is not to discount what someone else has to say, their ramblings or our prejudices notwithstanding.
When a person is in crisis, you don't take what they say too seriously. If they are being restrained, they will say that you are hurting them, that no one cares about them, etc. They will say things that are preposterous and that people around them know isn't true. I have first hand experience at this as I have worked at a mental health residential treatment center. Yes, this guy had some intense issues, issues that required an examination. It is there and then that his problems are listened to intently and given the full attention and understanding that they do. If we are to listen to Cho, it is through the reports and other papers that come out through professionals, not the heat of a crisis where little if anything, makes sense.
QUOTE
But I do think it a tad grandiose to assume that since no posters here have stated what they learned from watching the video that there is nothing to be learned from the airing of it.
There have been a statement or two that run along the lines of the video being somehow insightful. I was responding to that in my first post in this thread. I also find it telling as to how this video is Cho explaining himself or somehow telling. I agree with doomed_planet on that point.
QUOTE
I did hear one or two of the Democratic candidates state that it might be time to see that individuals who are disturbed such as Cho Seung-Hui was should not be admitted to college.
Wow, I didn't know that. I would be interested to hear how they plan on enforcing that. If you have an anxiety disorder?, what if you're bi-polar and successfully completed residential care? This would be quite sticky.
On top of that, if you had some mental malady, could you sue the feds or university system for discrimination then? Could the ACLU get involved over privacy? I don't know, nebraska, it was just a BTW that it was mentioned at the first Democratic candidates' debate aired on MSNBC the other night. I will agree that it's potentially a real can of worms and the scope of this particular thread would not cover it.
QUOTE(BoF @ Apr 27 2007, 05:11 PM)
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Apr 27 2007, 05:57 PM)
You agree with NBC playing this video.
Which harmed:
- The families of the victims
"Yet" you thought it was inappropriate for MSNBC to air a religious viewpoint that is shared by around 80% of Americans.
Which harmed:
- The families of the victims
"Yet" you thought it was inappropriate for MSNBC to air a religious viewpoint that is shared by around 80% of Americans.
If my family were impacted by something like this, I'd be much more put-off by a simpleton like Franklin Graham explaining it as the product to some mythical "devil," than NBC performing a legitimate journalistic function. Can you show me a reliable poll carlito that says 80% of the American people believe in a "devil"?
If so, we are in worse shape than I thought.Here is the gallup polling data that shows around 80% of Americans claim to be Christian (of some sort) and Jews. I'm pretty sure that all of the Abrahamic religions have a devil personifying evil (not sure about LDS). It's in the book of Job, and Jesus mentions him from time to time. Their is an islamic word for devil. I know we're not debating religion here, but what Graham said is pretty milquetoast religion - there is a devil, he tempts you to evil, life is short and you have to answer to God at some point. Standard stuff.
QUOTE
Well, I don‘t blame God for it, Joe. This is what we have to understand. There is—there is evil in this world. There is a devil who‘s called the god of this age, who wants to seek and destroy your life and my life and every life. And when a tragedy like this comes, I think it‘s time for us to remember how short life is, and we need to be prepared to stand before a holy God. There is a God in heaven who cares for us, and we are going to have to stand before him.
QUOTE
Concerning your other negatives:
I'm not sure any of this is valid and even if it is, it's something we might have to live with in a free a society with a free press.
QUOTE
- Potentially unhinged schizophrenics
- Cho's family
- Victims of the next Cho-inspired crime
- All of us in some way or another who didn't "need" to see the glorification of a killer.
- Cho's family
- Victims of the next Cho-inspired crime
- All of us in some way or another who didn't "need" to see the glorification of a killer.
I'm not sure any of this is valid and even if it is, it's something we might have to live with in a free a society with a free press.
I heard more than one forensic psychologist / psychiatrist state unequivocally that this video definitely traumatized those trying to heal after losing family members, and that this type of video definitely inspires borderline cases to take the next step. Notably the 'super-hero' stuff with Cho posing all big and bad with his guns. Dr. Helen Smith was one (don't remember where I heard her) and another you can read here. Dr. Michael Welner is an expert in the field of the pathology of rampage killers. Here is what he said about NBC's decision, regarding the familes of victims and potential copycats. My emphasis added.
QUOTE(interview transcript)
HH (asks about NBC decision to broadcast the tapes, whether the Dr. would have said to do so)
HH: Would you advise him not to broadcast them?
MW: Oh, absolutely. But not just the tapes, the pictures.
HH: Right.
MW: And for reasons, for other reasons. The notion of parents and loved ones who contemplate what the last thing somebody that they cared about might have been going through, or the last image that that person might have seen, opening up their computer to see Cho Seung Hui pointing a gun at them is unfathomable, and I’m saying this as someone who has board certification in disaster medicine. I’m saying this as a clinician. You cannot do that to people who have been exposed to an emotional trauma, to essentially stick it in their face in the fashion of flooding without any kind of emotional resources to provide them with sanctuary, that it, emotionally, nobody can stomach that.
HH: But what kind of an impact can that have on parents or siblings or spouses or…we saw today buried a professor with three children, 11, 12, and 13, who will forever have these images around. What does that do to them?
MW: I think it traumatizes them. I mean, I don’t want to, I want to be very careful about this, because I don’t want to encourage litigation.
<snip>
... That said, and financial compensation doesn’t solve the world’s problems necessarily. But that said, it’s traumatic, and I can understand how something like that would be traumatizing.
HH: Can you talk about the effect of NBC’s decision on other borderline cases of people who have not yet gone over to violence, but are, well, where Cho was two years ago?
MW: Well, why don’t we take a look at the number of copycat incidents that have just happened this week, but they happened after this was released. They didn’t happen after this crime hit the news. They happened after he turned into a (bad) action hero. It’s so disappointing.
<snip>
...But what I’m particularly concerned about are those people who just with repeated exposure, their sense of perhaps compassion and understanding for him, because he’s humanized, degenerates into something that is more of an identification with him. And then, when you combine that with a person who is failing and gets to a place where he feels that he’s had enough, and has all of these other ingredients that I’ve noted, then look out next April 20th, because it is a sort of, it is a perverted anniversary that not only attaches itself to the Columbine case, but Hitler’s birthday as well.
I was being flippant about others being wrong before, but when you look at the reasons for not showing it, I'm sorry - 'right to know' and 'I wanted to see it' just isn't good enough. NBC was wrong. I wonder how NBC would have felt if another network aired a videotape sent to them made by William Tager, who went to shoot up the Today Show set, killing one heroic employee who saved the others? Outraged, no doubt, and rightfully so.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ May 2 2007, 04:44 PM)
QUOTE(BoF @ Apr 27 2007, 05:11 PM)
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Apr 27 2007, 05:57 PM)
You agree with NBC playing this video.
Which harmed:
- The families of the victims
"Yet" you thought it was inappropriate for MSNBC to air a religious viewpoint that is shared by around 80% of Americans.
Which harmed:
- The families of the victims
"Yet" you thought it was inappropriate for MSNBC to air a religious viewpoint that is shared by around 80% of Americans.
If my family were impacted by something like this, I'd be much more put-off by a simpleton like Franklin Graham explaining it as the product to some mythical "devil," than NBC performing a legitimate journalistic function. Can you show me a reliable poll carlito that says 80% of the American people believe in a "devil"?
If so, we are in worse shape than I thought.Here is the gallup polling data that shows around 80% of Americans claim to be Christian (of some sort) and Jews. I'm pretty sure that all of the Abrahamic religions have a devil personifying evil (not sure about LDS). It's in the book of Job, and Jesus mentions him from time to time. Their is an islamic word for devil. I know we're not debating religion here, but what Graham said is pretty milquetoast religion - there is a devil, he tempts you to evil, life is short and you have to answer to God at some point. Standard stuff.
I knew that kind of poll is what you would come up with carlito. Christianity is a broad umbrella which includes beliefs strung out over a continuum from left to right. That includes Quakers, for whom you once expressed such disdain.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ 25 October, 2005)
Cindy Sheehan, the Quakers MoveOn.org and anti-war Stalinists at Code Pink and ANSWER (who organize most of the anti-war protests) claim to honor the troops, but they truly despise the military. That's why 2000 is "artificial" - it's actually being exploited by people who hate the military, and believe that no war is ever just. Cindy Sheehan is gleefully going to get herself arrested at the White House - how again does this honor her son? Click here for some photos of the anti-war protests held this September. Not a lot of troop support on display there.
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=171304
I'm Unitarian carlito. We are loosely under the Christian umbrella, but most of us don't believe in a devil.
Two questions carlito
1. If the poll you linked asked "do you believe in a devil," do you think they would get an 80% "yes" response?
2. Why do you get so bent-out-of-shape when I criticize Franklin Graham, but take the liberty to lambast Quakers?
QUOTE(BoF @ May 2 2007, 05:12 PM)
Two questions carlito
1. If the poll you linked asked "do you believe in a devil," do you think they would get an 80% "yes" response?
2. Why do you get so bent-out-of-shape when I criticize Franklin Graham, but take the liberty to lambast Quakers?
No, the questions are right at the top of the page, in the topic. Your tangential comment on Rev. Graham did not advance your argument regarding NBC showing this video, and that is all that matters to this debate. If you really believe that such a statement harms the families more than the Cho video, feel free to provide evidence. You might want to start with church attendance in West Virginia for the past month, and work your way back.
I have answered the questions and provided evidence as to the harm this NBC decision did to various parties, most notably the families of the victims. If you wish to start a topic discussing the Quakers partnership with anti-American radicals, or evangelical hypocrisy, or MSNBC's many faults, feel free.
Let's focus here.
Topic for debate:
Should NBC have aired the video?
Does it further harm or help society, at large to air such a video?
The bigger question: Is the media responsible for actually CREATING these horrible events
by virtue of the fact that they exploit, expose and profit off of broadcasting such incidents?
Topic for debate:
Should NBC have aired the video?
Does it further harm or help society, at large to air such a video?
The bigger question: Is the media responsible for actually CREATING these horrible events
by virtue of the fact that they exploit, expose and profit off of broadcasting such incidents?
Since my previous postings in this thread, I have had the opportunity to read a Time magazine article on Cho Seung-Hui and the killings at Virginia Tech. I stand corrected as far as contradicting what was said about Cho being a narcissist. My understanding of narcissism was erroneous because I felt that narcissists, while concerned first/foremost/always with themselves and how everything affects them, would not do something so self-destructive. I was wrong. My apologies.
It is almost instinctual to try to stand up for those who are bullied and marginalized. I thought that the publicizing of the video might be instructive as to what would motivate someone to commit mass murder, and that the consequences of mistreating someone who is different during their formative years might be better understood.
From the look of things, it was the ranting of a person who had obviously lost it some time ago, who had evidently stopped caring about right and wrong except from his own twisted and truncated viewpoint.
I can certainly understand why the victims of the shootings who lived and the relatives of those who were targeted by this man would feel traumatized by seeing the video footage on television.
While it was newsworthy to show the video, it should not have been shown repeatedly. And indeed, there were would-be copycats who came out of the woodwork after the airing of Cho's video rant.
There should be some kind of balance of sensitivity toward the victims of such a horrendous crime while avoiding censorship when it comes to the news. I am at a loss, though, as to how to achieve it.
It is almost instinctual to try to stand up for those who are bullied and marginalized. I thought that the publicizing of the video might be instructive as to what would motivate someone to commit mass murder, and that the consequences of mistreating someone who is different during their formative years might be better understood.
From the look of things, it was the ranting of a person who had obviously lost it some time ago, who had evidently stopped caring about right and wrong except from his own twisted and truncated viewpoint.
I can certainly understand why the victims of the shootings who lived and the relatives of those who were targeted by this man would feel traumatized by seeing the video footage on television.
While it was newsworthy to show the video, it should not have been shown repeatedly. And indeed, there were would-be copycats who came out of the woodwork after the airing of Cho's video rant.
There should be some kind of balance of sensitivity toward the victims of such a horrendous crime while avoiding censorship when it comes to the news. I am at a loss, though, as to how to achieve it.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ May 8 2007, 08:24 PM)
There should be some kind of balance of sensitivity toward the victims of such a horrendous crime while avoiding censorship when it comes to the news. I am at a loss, though, as to how to achieve it.
This was not an item that was productive to the population in any way and it was aired for its sensational aspect and because it would garner huge ratings. That fact caused most networks to overlook the extremely counter-productive effect that it would ultimately have.
As an aside, some years back, here in the Los Angeles area, a man was involved in a high-speed chase that culminated in him blowing his brains out on live television.
It's almost as if the public has been desensitized by the bombardment of violence in tv, movies and the general media. The viewing public are like drug addicts who need a fix, and as time passes the bar of what will grasp the attention and interest of the viewers goes further into the gutter.
Sensationalism existed long before there was television or cable news. One has only to look at the would-be gawkers who have to be kept away from spectacular motor vehicle or other transportation accidents or houses/buildings on fire. It is part of human nature. The networks know this.
As someone who was angered more than a little about the unnecessary secrecy surrounding the investigation and findings of the events of 9/11/2001, I welcome transparency, even if it is the ranting of a homicidal/suicidal maniac, if it is germaine to what is happening in my country.
If you want to look at exploitation of a peoples' tendency toward voyeurism/morbid fascination, you need only look at the repeated airing of the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers. While the government was anything but forthcoming about the specifics pertaining to the attacks, our leaders wasted no time in using bogus evidence to bolster their case for invading a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. While Bush was fighting the idea of the formation of a commission to investigate 9/11, he was using misinformation to scare the country into something that has contributed more toward the U.S. losing the "war on terror" than winning it.
Sorry, I would rather err on the side of more information than less, especially when a lack of accurate information has been often used to advance the agendas of less than trustworthy leaders (see Iraq war). And I would rather have more freedom of speech than censorship, regardless of whether Cho Seung-Hui could in his current state of existence (or non-existence) be aware of it or not. It was news, and I do not appreciate the idea of some Rupert Murdoch type judging what the public has a right to know.
As someone who was angered more than a little about the unnecessary secrecy surrounding the investigation and findings of the events of 9/11/2001, I welcome transparency, even if it is the ranting of a homicidal/suicidal maniac, if it is germaine to what is happening in my country.
If you want to look at exploitation of a peoples' tendency toward voyeurism/morbid fascination, you need only look at the repeated airing of the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers. While the government was anything but forthcoming about the specifics pertaining to the attacks, our leaders wasted no time in using bogus evidence to bolster their case for invading a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. While Bush was fighting the idea of the formation of a commission to investigate 9/11, he was using misinformation to scare the country into something that has contributed more toward the U.S. losing the "war on terror" than winning it.
Sorry, I would rather err on the side of more information than less, especially when a lack of accurate information has been often used to advance the agendas of less than trustworthy leaders (see Iraq war). And I would rather have more freedom of speech than censorship, regardless of whether Cho Seung-Hui could in his current state of existence (or non-existence) be aware of it or not. It was news, and I do not appreciate the idea of some Rupert Murdoch type judging what the public has a right to know.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ May 9 2007, 04:28 PM)
Sorry, I would rather err on the side of more information than less, especially when a lack of accurate information has been often used to advance the agendas of less than trustworthy leaders (see Iraq war). And I would rather have more freedom of speech than censorship, regardless of whether Cho Seung-Hui could in his current state of existence (or non-existence) be aware of it or not. It was news, and I do not appreciate the idea of some Rupert Murdoch type judging what the public has a right to know.
I see what you are saying, PE, but I do not think Cho and 9/11 is a fair comparison. National security is one thing. The rants of an insane college student are quite another, and having seen the video would you not agree that it did nothing to help the viewing public? Anyway, you are right that the public thrives on this type of stuff and that's why it is aired.
QUOTE
would you not agree that it did nothing to help the viewing public?
Excellent point, whatever "benefit" there was to the airing of it has strangely not been stated throughout this entire thread. To understand his mind?, a mentally ill man in crisis is not "in" his mind, so nothing of merit there.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.