NBC aired the video sent by the Virginia murderer,Cho Seung-Hui.

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?

I feel it is okay that they aired the video. I believe that by airing the video they further informed the public as to what was behind the crisis. Many people had questions about this guy and the video may have helped to answer some of their questions.

Should NBC have aired the video?

Yes, they should have. They first gave the materials to the proper legal authorities for their review. Only after that did they broadcast some, not all of the material Cho Seung-Hui sent to the network.


Does it further harm or help society, at large to air such a video?

The images are disturbing and very scary. But the job of NBC and other news outlets is not to merely provide warm and fuzzy pictures of little girls with bows in their hair playing with kittens. Every so often you are forced to watch the unwatchable and a look into the mind of a twisted freak like Cho is incredibly revealing in how these loners think and how sick they really are. There were warnings that this man was dangerous and could go off like this. They were either ignored or not followed up. Instead of just another round of calls for stiffer restrictions on guns, what really might be needed is stiffer restrictions and control of mentally ill individuals like Cho Seung-Hui.

There was a system failure here, but it was in the mental health system which failed to adequately report and warn how deranged Cho really was.

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?

In words of one syllable: NO. I categorically reject that accusation. Cho was an admirer of the Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Those two idiots didn't take a camcorder with them when they laid siege to the school. But Cho wanted to go out in a blaze of glory and now by being the most notorious spree killer in U.S. history he has secured a place as one of the worst murderers ever ( and hopefully a seat on the hottest rock in hell).

But Cho was going to kill no matter what. He was crazy as a rat in a pipe and nothing was going to stop this rampage. The worst thing about the video is it puts all the attention on HIM and not the victims. That is unfortunate, but society needs to know about these time bombs on two legs so steps can be taken to protect innocent people from them before they go off.

NBC News did the right thing and they did their job well. I believe they deserve praise, not condemnation.

No, because Cho Seung-Hui wanted them to air it. That's why he sent it to them. In showing it they complied with the last request of a mass murder and sociopath. The video should have been turned over to the authorities and forensic psychologists and if the families of the victims wanted to watch it, copies could have been made.

Neither. It doesn't help society because the video portrayed Hui as the pathetic, self-important sociopath he was. It didn't hurt society because it portrayed Hui as the pathetic, self-important sociopath he was.

They aren't responsible for creating these events, but they surely don't help prevent them by airing the stories of the perpetrators ad nauseum.

CP

NBC aired the video sent by the Virginia murderer,Cho Seung-Hui.

Should NBC have aired the video?

Yes
Does it further harm or help society, at large to air such a video?
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 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?

No. The reason these events happen is our security systems are so bad it is easy to commit “mass murder”. Hopefully this is a wake up call – one we need before we (possibly) run from Iraq and AQ focuses its attention on the homeland.

That's entirely their call. Clearly they thought they should. Let's face it against American Idol they really needed the ratings.

It does nothing.

No. Frankly it's silly to ask.

Should NBC have aired the video?

I don't think they should have, at least not as quickly as they did. They pushed aside the victims to make room for the perpetrator. Shame on them.

On the flip side, it was newsworthy. It did add an additional piece to the story.

Does it further harm or help society, at large to air such a video?

I don't think it does either. However, timing is everything. Of course, with the 24 hour news cycle, the fact that NBC news got this video was of course rejoiced in the halls down at Rockerfeller Center.

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?

The media does not create these monsters, but neither does it help to stop them.

If I were a psychopath sitting at home with a grudge against society, thinking that everyone hated me, at least I can rest assured that if I send a tape to a major news outlet before pulling off some heinous act that they will air it. Oh darn, they edited the profanity...

The one thing that Chris Matthews and Brian Williams did emphasize (on Hardball at least) was how naccisitic these psychos are. How everything is about them. How did they miss the point that what they are doing was exactly what a deranged killer wanted them to do? Kudos to them for feeding into the egos of future Cho Seung-Huis, I guess.

The one scary thing about airing this lunatic's "manifesto" is the idea that the inevitable copycat killers will think they too can get their one true moment of glory when they do their own version of Columbine/Virginia Tech. The last thing we need to do at this point is for these killers to be "glamorized". Its just one more compelling reason for them to carry out these horrific acts.

For this reason, I think NBC made a mistake.

Should NBC have aired the video?

It seems they went about it the right way, first turning it over to police, then showing selected portions. I would have waited longer, and I don't like the demon's ugly mug on every news channel 24x7, but that's how it goes.

Does it further harm or help society, at large to air such a video?

It both helps and harms. Exposing evil helps normal adults recognize it earlier and perhaps help prevent or deter it in the future. Exposing evil also feeds homicidal mania. Assuming impressionable kids aren't watching, the bottom line is that sociopaths are going to be sociopathic anyway, so you serve sane society by airing the videos as a warning. Those of us who aren't ready to turn attention away from the victims can vote with our remote controls. For now, that's what I'm doing.

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?

Probably not in this case, but such things are possible. Many maniacs do crave public attention, but news media don't create maniacs, and they should not let maniacs dictate their editorial policies. However, there are related situations where the news media must tread more softly...

In my town, the local paper began eulogizing teen suicide "victims" on the front page, above the fold. News stand sales went up. After a few weeks, the teen suicide rate went from a handful a year to several a week. The editor denied creating the phenomenon and stuck with the new policy until he couldn't afford losing any more subscribers. Within a month or two of moving teen suicide reports back to the obits, the teen suicide rate returned to its previous levels. To this day, the editor insists he was only reporting the phenomenon, not creating it-- but nobody believes him.

Normal angst brings a lot of normal teens to the brink of suicide, so the certainty of going out with a guarantee of glowing press seems to have pushed many kids over the edge. However, I don't believe that phenomenon extrapolates to mass murder cases, because there are a lot more teens on the brink of suicide than mass murderers on the brink of massacre. Assuming they don't get locked away or killed beforehand, mass murderers and other terrorists are going to attempt their evil plans regardless of what's in the media-- the same is not necessarily true of teens contemplating suicide.

Sorry, ConservPat, I've got to disagree with you. And where did you get the information that Cho Seung-Hui was a sociopath? He was definitely severely disturbed, but I have seen or heard nothing to indicate that he was sociopathic.

I think NBC did the right thing. Yes, it was disturbing to see the images over the air, but the public has the right to know, and I do not believe the victims were exploited in any way by the airing of this "manifesto".

We need to know what motivates people like Klebold, Harris and Cho Seung-Hui to snap and do these terrible things. I don't see how censorship helps. While airing disturbing stuff might prompt people to try to copy the actions of such disturbed people, there is a larger need to address the root causes of such violence. I think our news is edited and cherry-picked enough to emphasize some stories while others are played down or completely eliminated. The fact is, viewers see more gore and violence on any given episode of CSI than on the nightly news, unless you count the nearly daily bombings that take place in Baghdad with the innocent lives lost. And we're talking FAR GREATER numbers of casualties there among those who did not deserve to die.

Let me start by saying I'm not really sure how I feel about this issue and that I have really enjoyed the variety of perspectives posted on this so far.

Should NBC have aired the video?
By what standards? We have so few of them left. Legally? Sure NBC did this right. Ethically? um, maybe but I have a thing about trying not to pay attention people who kill to get attention. (I know, why am I posting on the thread?) I routinely leave the names of assassins out of my course for that reason. I haven't seen much of the video. I have seen five or ten seconds. I think ethically NBC has opened itself up to ctiticism but that publib opinion probably sides with the publication of the video in terms of consuming it. Morally? Well I don't think capitalism and this question mesh very well, but morally NBC should have stuffed this guy and chucked the tape in the trash. Its voyeurism not evidence.

Does it further harm or help society, at large to air such a video?

I don't think it helps society. I wonder if the immediate victimized community feels better having a video. I mean that in the way a viewing at a funeral is important to some or that some are driven nearly to lunacy by suicides without notes.

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?

I'll semi-punt and say wrong question. We as a society are responsible for the media that we produce and support with our consumption. We have the pathetic infotainment industry that we deserve. And some crave to be the sensational story that everyone remembers. And I kind of get it. I'd like to be remembered and I don;t think it will be very likely. The easiest way to get the world to say my name is to commit some horrible act. Odds are, no one will pay enough attention to remember my name any way. But the repetition of these monsters' names and life stories as they make it into our cultural core is not something that interests me or that I like about my society.

These events transcend the details. They become about the presenters of the information. Media figureheads do odd things like fly to the location without having anything new to bring to the story and they interview other media figures. It turns into a kind of convention that everyone must attend and overstress the importance of. And the wheels spin without substantial information to try to suck every second of ratings out of it and people with microphones speculate, gesticulate, pontificate, insinuate, and calculate.

Watching breaking news frenzies is the easiest way to never be able to understand what happened. Days, weeks, months later, when we really should be paying attention to the detailed evaluation of what happened and what it means, the substantial stuff will be buried on page eight and presented in pieces on different days. Maybe a Sunday section on an anniversary of the event will provide an effective journalistic presentation of the event. But for now it is the despicable infotainment circus we have created and members are scurrying about digging up distant relatives, elementary school teachers, mothers of victims, etc. to keep the story alive.

Sure, the media bears responsibility. Some people are seduced by the chance to do something that will get them remembered and they don;t care what it is. Too bad we don't have media frenzies over scientific discoveries, prize pieces of art, etc.

Several psychologists and psychiatrists that have been on TV today and yesterday have suggested as much. It makes sense as well. He was a narcassist, didn't care who he killed, compared himself to Jesus Christ and made himself out as the victim in his "manifesto" [manifesto? It was a video in which he complained about his life, sounds like an emo music video].
I made no comment one way or the other about the images being disturbing, so whether they are or not is irrelevant. The public has the right to know? Know what? What a person who destroyed 33 families was so angry about? And from where is this right derived in this case? The oh so compelling "right" for the public to know, if it exists in this case [which it doesn't], should be outweighed by the respect the media apparently lacks for the victims' and their families.
We? So if enough of these killers gets publicity, we'll know how to do what? Prevent these things from happening? The only people who need to know these things are the authorities, and if they choose, the victims and their families. If those people want to publicize the killer they have that right, not some detached third party.

CP

What "helps society" isn't censorship.

I am sorry if it hurt the community. But what would you have them do, Eeyore? Play schmaltzy music and have the whole thing soft-pedaled? Yeah, it hurts. I'll bet it hurts the Virginia community as much as it hurts the Iraqi community when they lose brothers, sisters and children during the occupation and the insurgency/civil war. But it is not the job of the news to mollify certain segments of the population if it means withholding news.

Think about Hurricane Katrina and the help that didn't come. Should the news media have glossed over the failures of local, state and federal government agencies on whom the victims were supposed to depend to rescue them and provide them with somewhere safe to live? Of course not. Those images of survivors on rooftops waving and calling out to the people in helicopters will stick with us for years to come, and hopefully the next disaster will be less catastrophic (if it cannot be averted) because of the lessons learned and the reformulation of disaster plans at every government level.

I would like to see addressed the way that kids continue to mistreat kids in schools every day of the year. This stuff clearly is not occurring in a vacuum. My own daughter, a bright middle school student, was ridiculed and hounded by her classmates at her former school because she wasn't wearing cool clothing and she was a little overweight. She became very depressed and started failing classes. She became very angry about how she was being treated, and she started feeling hopeless. Now, with medication and therapy PLUS a move to another school, she is making A's and B's and, while her outlook on life still could use some improvement, she has lots of friends and she no longer thinks of her life as hopeless.

I am sick and tired of a narcissistic society where members concern themselves, first and foremost, with how they feel and what they have and have little to no compassion for people in their own lives who could benefit from kinder treatment. It's too bad that this young man descended into such hate and hopelessness that he saw no future other than one of violence against others and ultimately against himself. He himself was a victim as well, and I think that should be remembered.

This behavior didn't suddenly happen one day; there was lots of evidence to indicate that he had suffered for years before committing these murders.

You are making comparisons with Iraq as if the deaths of soldiers somehow justifies the murder of college students. At least soldiers going in are aware of the dangers. As a college student myself at a very large university, the last thing I think will happen is that I'll be blown away by a disgruntled student who was "victimized" in some way by percieved injustices.

I'll tell you something, regardless of what awful, treacherous circumstances we encounter in life, we ultimately make the decision to join the dark side or not. He chose to let his unhappiness and bitterness with life get the better of him. He has no one to blame but himself, because as an adult he was responsible for dealing with his emotional issues. The world can be cruel, and life isn't always fair. It is the decent human beings who rise above the urge to blame and harm others because of their own dissatifactions. And NOTHING justifies what he did. He was NOT a victim! I cannot count the number of people in this world who have been royally done wrong by life, yet they go on to find a way to get through the day without blaming or harming others.

I happen to think that NBC showed themselves to be the media whores that they are by overriding sound, compassionate judgment for RATINGS. Doubtless, other troubled individuals who are blinded by their own anger and hatred, will find such notoriety enticing enough to cross the line and enter the ranks of the most horrendous individuals, most of which took absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY for the condition of their lives.

Yes, he was a victim. If he was your brother or your son, would you not see the tragedy?

It is possible to say he was a victim without justifying what he did. There is no justification for what he did, but he was a victim nonetheless. Comparing himself to Christ in what he experienced and the "martyr's" death he was planning for himself marked him as clearly delusional. In addition, if he felt that what he was doing was right, he met the criterion for what is called "legal insanity."

I wonder if he was often dismissed for his thoughts and state of mind and told to "stop whining" because someone just didn't want to deal with him.

Personal responsibility is the standard by which we judge others and ourselves (hopefully). But with a severely mentally ill individual, it might not be possible to possess sufficient insight in order to take responsibility for oneself and one's circumstances. That is the nature of severe mental illness. (And, as a sidenote: It's about damn time the insurance companies started recognizing mental illness to be as legitimate a medical diagnosis as cancer or broken bones and started covering it accordingly! )

And I am aware of the differences between Iraq and Blacksburg, Virginia, differences that come into play until we realize that innocent people are being killed there every day. And FYI, I wasn't talking about the deaths of soldiers, but of people who did not take an oath to take up arms and fight for their country. I was talking about the Iraqi casualties: children, mothers, fathers. A family tragedy is the same in another country as it is here. Make no mistake: I am not suggesting that it is the fault of the soldiers.

I would point out, however, that while exclusive coverage was being granted to the massacre at Blacksburg, Virginia, there was news of Iraqis dying because of bombs, more Iraqis, in fact, than college students and professors killed at Virginia Tech.

(Note: Most recently edited because "legally insanity" needed to be corrected)

Then would you not be more inclined to agree with me that spending so much time airing the rants of a murderer take away from potential coverage of the daily travesties occurring on all sides in Iraq?

The deed was done. To spend time replaying a video of a guy spewing hatred serves no beneficial purpose. It's unnecessary and gratuitous. On top of that, it takes away from global issues that TODAY will continue to affect us. I guarantee you, Cho Seung Hui is done murdering. Now, the only way he can continue to terrorize is through the use of the media. And look at the networks, so happy to oblige him.

I think it is possible to publicize it without dwelling on it the way the major networks and cable news channels are wont to do. At the same time, I am critical of the coverage they were providing when all of the facts weren't in--lots of speculation and wasted time.

The networks are sloppy in their news coverage, and they think that sheer volume of coverage makes up for shoddy quality.

But I do think that the video should have been aired.

I would like to see parents, educators, and law enforcement look at the tragedy that took place and honestly ask themselves (ourselves): What are we doing wrong?

Please note: I edited my previous post before I knew you were responding to it and that you were quoting me.

Should NBC have aired the video?

Within particular guidelines, I would say yes. I certainly did not see any of this coverage, so I can only assume that it came with appropriate warnings as to the nature of the footage. If not, this would certainly be likely to violate the sensibilities of the viewer.

How the material is presented is at least as important as the material itself.

Does it further harm or help society, at large to air such a video?

Neither, really. Perhaps someone who is mentally ill or sociopathic will look at this footage and think it's "cool." The vast majority of people will see it for what it is.

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?

No. And it wasn't because of guns or violent video games, either.

Should NBC have aired the video?

Yes. That's their job.

Does it further harm or help society, at large to air such a video?

I don't know hnow to answer this question. Certainly a free press helps a free society.

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?

The media is not responsible for creating this event. My only concern is all the talk about this being a "record" for single shooting deaths by a mass murderer. As a professor said yesterday, records are made to be broken. This is one we hope is safe. I also agree with PE about running coverage into the ground. This, however, has been done with any number of things - Ronald Reagan's death, the flooding in New Orleans, Gerald Ford's death, the Imus affair, even crap like Anna Nicole Smith's postmortem affairs, etc. Even when something as devestating as this happens, the media, epecially the 24 hour station, needs to balance it against other news - Iraq and Alberto Gonzales, for example.

Should NBC have aired the video?

Yes.

Our local newspaper was carrying the story of a separate investigation into the first two murders of the day. Both girls who died in the morning had been to a firing range with a young man who was “a person of interest.” He had returned his guns to his parents’ house, and had a reasonable alibi for the time of the murders. Cho Seung-Hui it was believed, at the time the story was written, had not left a suicide note.

Does it further harm or help society, at large to air such a video?

Society at large can become calloused quickly, and turn away from major news stories. (How many of us breathlessly wait for George Bush to update us on Iraq?)

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?


Even without 24/7 coverage of events such as Anna Nicole Smith’s death, the news can bring unexpected changes to one’s life. What comes to my mind is the last major slaughter of college students, when trained soldiers opened fire at Kent State. Of course, my personal recollection of that event is that my older brother and his wife were on their way to a job interview and decided to stop in and ask the questions that weren’t being answered, because the news was on only for an hour or so a day. They both ended up finding jobs there, and while they divorced several years ago, my brother is still working at the job that he found.


And yet, as I listened to the interviews of the people who knew Cho Seung-Hui, the overwhelming feeling that I had was one of recollection; that they were describing the way that I acted toward other people a couple of decades ago. Paladin Elspeth came into my life one morning and asked questions that I could answer. (“Who makes the best pizza in town?” “Is there anywhere in town that is safe to walk?”) It had been months since I had spoken to anyone, and I had 800 pages of written answers to my therapist to document my fear of talking. I had a co-worker at the time who claimed, “There’s nowhere in my house that I can’t reach out and pick up a loaded gun.” I’ve never fired a gun, but I have had a lot of people tell me that I should learn how…

Just maybe someone will look at the news, recognize himself, and get some much needed help…

I don't know what people want from the press. Either they're bitching when they are force-fed pablum about dead blondes like Anna Nicole Smith or they're bitching because something on the news upset them.

There's a real simple way to avoid being offended by the evening news. Watch something else. Turn the channel to The Cartoon Network or MTV or the Food Channel. There you can be sure you are safe from the ugly realities of life.

What I don't think you're considering doomed_planet is the pains NBC took to not show everything Cho mailed to them. Even what they did show contains edits of the profanity and obscene remarks. Jack Shafer of SLATE points out why if NBC had chosen NOT to air the editied portions of Cho's "manifesto" of insanity, the network would be guilty of a gross act of journalistic malpractice:

NBC News needn't apologize to anybody for originally airing the Cho videos and pictures. The Virginia Tech slaughter is an ugly story, but the five W's of journalism—who, what, where, when, and why—demand that journalists ask the question "why?" even if they can't adequately answer it. If you're interested in knowing why Cho did what he did, you want to see the videos and photos and read from the transcripts. If you're not interested, you should feel free to avert your eyes.

The real story here is the odd restraint NBC News showed. Cho mailed NBC News about two dozen QuickTime videos, of which the network has aired only a handful. NBC anchor Brian Williams said last night that the network is also holding back Cho photos, as well as Cho writings it deems incoherent and obscene.

The Cho affair reveals once again how dependent cable news is on video wallpaper. Whenever a major story arrives, the cable news networks are forced to loop the most arresting images, even if they're days or a week old, to give correspondents and sources an animated backdrop against which to talk. If the story is 9/11, the wallpaper is looped tape of the crash. If the story is the New Orleans catastrophe, it's folks wading in chest-high water or looting stores. If the story is the space shuttle Columbia, it's the death ship streaking its path across the sky like fireworks again and again. http://www.slate.com/id/2164717/

One of the favorite criticisms of the press is that they try to tell the reader or viewer what to think. The complaint that NBC violated good taste and sense by airing the Cho videos and pictures illustrates how little the public understands about journalism.

It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Since you're screwed either way you might as well do your job and let people decide for themselves if they can handle the truth.

It was not wrong to air the video. What is wrong is to show it repeatedly. CNN in particular will show film footage again and again and again ad nauseum when it could be covering other news of interest to its viewers. I think it's lazy television journalism, and I don't know whether it has more to do with anchors like Wolf Blitzer or their bosses. So in that sense I agree with you, doomed planet. The continuous airing serves only to sate prurient interest.

But it still needed to be aired. How many times have we seen or heard of terrible things happening and asked, "What was s/he thinking?" Now we know.

It is a huge tragedy for all concerned. The Korean-American community has expressed shame along with its condolences to those who lost loved ones. It is as if one of their family members committed the murders.

My comments about the losses being sustained in Iraq on a daily basis were concerned with the fact that it is now routine to hear about suicide bombers targeting shopping centers and killing innocent people. Whenever it happens that often to someone else's family members it is easy to become desensitized to the suffering. But it remains that the deaths in Baghdad are newsworthy, and they contradict what politicians like Senator John McCain say about it being safe to walk the Baghdad streets. We need accurate pictures of what is happening over there, especially as we commit so many human beings and money to the "war" effort. (It is an occupation of a country with a strong insurgency and warring factions.)

I just hope that something good will come from this tragedy. It would be good to examine how we treat each other, starting as kids in elementary and middle school and continuing through the high school and college experiences. This is at least as important as the state of video surveillance and public address warnings, for while it was clear that Cho Seung-Hui was a very disturbed individual, there were many warning signs leading up to last Monday's attacks and ultimately his suicide. We as members of society at large need to examine what should have been done to possibly avert these tragic events, and this is where insight into what Cho Seung-Hui was thinking might be useful.

NBC thought they hit a gold mine when the package arrived at their offices. They've been whoring it ever since. "Tune in tomorrow to Today and we'll show you more from this shocking multimedia manifesto!". Disgraceful.

If they really felt they were doing a service that was required, they'd do the story right and not show snippets here and outtakes there with teasers like: tune in tomorrow for more details!

Now, every two seconds there is a promo about this, except it is no longer just NBC, it is the entire "news" business. They turned this guy into a post-mortim celebrity, just like he wanted. They are inspiring copycats, just as Cho himself was a copycat of the Columbine killers.

Copycat threat shuts Hastings law school
Two Teens Charged After Bomb Threats
School Violence: Assessing the Threat

Should NBC have aired the video?

I don’t see how they couldn’t; it’s news. Personally, I have no desire to see it and give the cretin any more attention. I would be far more interested to see stories of the victims, some of whom were truly extraordinary people, like the professor who managed to survive the Holocaust, only to be gunned down by a pathetic little boy while the professor barricaded the door with his body and died to save his students. These aren’t sports statistics, to be “broken” by the next one to come along.

Keeping score like this (“worst spree killer ever!”, i.e. biggest body count) demeans the victims and trivializes the act.

Does it further harm or help society, at large to air such a video?

It is a sign of our sleazy society that stuff like this even has an audience. I don’t think it will cause any more damage than has already been created by gore at 4, 5, 6 and 11.

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?
There may be a grain of truth in this. The fact that this jerk created a “media package” to save his actions for posterity says a lot. If stations refused to air any of it, maybe the next attention-seeker would realize he isn’t going to get the audience he’d hoped for.


Funny you mention this. I read one article that said the assassin's sister is a graduate of Princeton and works in the State Department in some capacity, and is involved in the Iraq rebuilding effort. Imagine what a living HELL her life must be right now.

No PE he's not a victim he's a perpetrator. He killed innocent, unarmed people. He planned this crime out to some extent. He purchased guns, removed the serial numbers, made a scrapbook video and brought chains to lock the doors.

Victim?

No. Sorry. I don't care what empathy you might feel for that waste of flesh. He's no victim. He's a murderer.

Curmudgeon, with all due respect, that is wishful thinking at best. The news isn't there to help people. If it were it would not bombard us with images aimed at scaring us into staying "tuned in" for the next segment. Maybe you take something positive from it, but then again, you are not a psychotic youth without the foresight or fortitude to look beyond the feelings of the moment. There are inidivuals who will be enticed by the massive media attention and perhaps it will be the final factor in a decision to do the unthinkable. Keep in mind, these are not rational individuals like you. If there is no media payoff, no notoriety, no infamy from such actions, many will be deterred.



Trust me, Nighttimer, I do turn away. As a matter of fact, I do not watch any form of news (except the Daily Show) on a regular basis whatsoever. The reason I don't is because I came to realize soon after we invaded Iraq, that I had been totally duped into standing behind a "war" that was largely pushed through fear-based propaganda. Fool me once....



I beg your pardon? What "pains" are you referring to? The pain of softening the blow to the victims and their families and the public at large? It was painful that they couldn't let the guy insanely go off, adnauseam. Poor NBC.




Watching him act out his petrifying schtick doesn't really solve anything. NBC could have found a more legitimate and tactful way to share this with the public. But they did what they did, not because of their committment to the five W's. It was their committment to the bottom line.




Sorry I'm not as hip to the journalism nuances as you may be. But at the end of the day, I view people's actions based on how they have positively/negatively affected me. When I turn on the news, without fail, there is always a story that is portrayed in such a way as to make me feel like the world is unsafe and I better stay tuned because who knows what will happen next. I'm not going to live that way. NBC (and every other news network) is responsible for PERPETUATING fear and violence. You may call that journalism.

Should NBC have aired the video?

No. Fulfilling a killer's last wish is despicable. Lower than low. Someone very senior at NBC News should be fired, but I'm not holding my breath. I would start with whomever thought they had the right to copy this thing while the FBI was on their way, and I would go next to whomever decided to put a giant NBC logo in the video so that we'd know who "got the story" when we see it in other news outlets. What arrogant, transparent profiteering off misery. Amlord is right; when they received this tape, they were no doubt like kids on Christmas morning, looking at the beautiful gift.

When you have Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz saying the following, you have made ever-so-slight an error in judgement.


Here is NBC News President Steve Capus' defense. It's hard out there for a pimp.



Does it further harm or help society, at large to air such a video?
Harm. We should be remembering the victims, not glorifying their killer. Kudos to the NY Times and others were are doing that. Unfortunately, they are also running still photos of this killer with his guns from the 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?
No, the media is not responsible for this psychotic going over the edge, but when the next one films himself actually pulling the trigger, and mails it to NBC, I would hope they'd realize that, yeah, they did contribute. This would be assuming that anyone in their news division has a soul or maybe a conscience and are not complete ethics-free whores. Which is of course a stretch.

I voted undecided. I'm not sure if outrage directed at NBC is:

1) a sign of people being uncomfortable with media outlets acting out of character by dropping the infotainment corporate standard;
2) if it is really inappropriate to "grant his last wish", or;
3) NBC is still acting as a corporate profit-seeker with real-life events that have no entertainment value.

People generally don't seem to have a problem with media muckraking incidents that have no social value, like ditching Pope John Paul II's historic visit to Cuba to converge on Clinton's penis, and I doubt we would fault NBC at all if Cho killed 30 some odd South Koreans and a few of the victims happened to be American.

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?
The easiest question. Absolutely not. Cho's five minutes will not mysteriously cause temporary spontaneous schizophrenic fits to manifest in healthy individuals in the future, neither can I blame NBC for "creating" mass murders when I already refuse to blame guns for "creating" the same.

Edited to add: You know, compared to some things I've been reading from bloggers and paid journalists, NBC airing his rants seems pretty mild. Some news outlets originally blamed "Cho's girlfriend", others are blaming the victims who "wouldn't defend themselves," even though some did. Teh treasonous liberals have emasculated our menz!

I have to confess that I've wondered how the guy could reload without getting jumped, but you are right, questioning their lack of self-defense is tasteless.


It's worse than you think. They are doing it in their treasonous liberal coffee bars. Teh soy gives you teh gay.

I refuse to acquiesce to the idea of this being a black/white or either/or situation. Most of life isn't that way.

If you want to dehumanize a human being in order to feel more comfortable in rooting for the home team, and you think that this is going to make a mourning community feel better when you diss the person who committed these horrible acts, fine. Just don't ask me to.

Last time I checked, we all started out the same way, as individual human beings. Try as we might to deny it, taking the path of anger, hopelessness and violence does not make us any less human.

A perpetrator is someone who for some reason chose to do the wrong thing, in this case a horrendously wrong thing. But to try to state that somehow Cho Seung-Hui was not a victim in his own life is a case of denial. Things do not occur in a vacuum; somebody or something caused this young man to discount his own life and the lives of others. It is wrong to take someone's life; it is worse when that someone did nothing to deserve it. I cannot imagine what would cause Klebold, Harris, and now Cho Seung-Hui to abandon the moral principles of our society and destroy lives before taking their own, but it is the same sickness that causes a fanatic to strap bombs to himself and detonate them in the marketplace. And we need to find ways to circumvent whatever is causing people to embrace violence and hopelessness, because these acts are becoming more commonplace.

NBC was right in airing the video of Cho Seung-Hui. But it did not need to be done repeatedly even if it was newsworthy.

I still think there are things that can be learned from studying what causes people to feel so marginalized. And I think it was indeed a tragedy that whatever measures anyone took in this young man's life to help him didn't work.

Sorry if I replied to this late in the thread but I'm having a hard time keeping up to speed on these days.

I have two points in response.
1) My hasty wording leaves a couple of readings. Let me emphasize what I wanted to convey.
-I don't think it helps society.

-(However) Perhaps it does offer a service to the family of the victims that have a need to see this footage. If that is the case than the airing of the video has helped society.

2) Actually PE there is a time and place for censorship in our society. It happens all of the time. But this is not censorship I am asking for I am asking for a news medium to be held accountable by those who think this was inappropriate and sensationalist and used as a marketing gimmick to raise ratings. I do not want a government agency stepping in and ordering that these tapes not be released.

I am not advocating that we ignore the VT incident or that we refrain from carefully evaluating what caused this and what we can do as a society to try to prevent this from happening again. I am not arguing that this young man was one of the victims of this incident. Although it is difficult to feel too sorry for him as he dealt with his mental health issues in a horrible way.

We have an element of voyeurism in us that I do not like to support. I don't think credible news agencies should either. I am not trying to pass myself off as above reproach in these instances. But I just don't think morally NBC did the right thing. I will not wait for the modern infortainment industry to start to act morally. I also think journalistic ethics have declined to much, along with ethics in so many other areas of our lives, that this is now a non-issue in the editors room. The real evaluative tool is "what will be the effect on our ratings/circulation. In that way, Don Imus almost hit a grand slam. Had he not been fired I bet his ratings would have sky-rocketed.

1) Ethically? Absolutely not. This dude did what he did for an audience. He had a message to send to the world and he needed a platform to put that message out there. NBC gave him exactly what he wanted. There is absolutely no way that they would have aired anything this dude had to say if he had not killed those people. So from his point of view, NBC justifies what he did, since what he did was necessary for his message to be heard.

But as a business decision, they absolutely should have aired his message. Not only that, but they should milk it for every bit of ratings they can get out of it (which is exactly what they are doing). Let's face it, most news is like any other tv show, it's driven by the desire for ratings. And most people are interested in the sensational and controversial.

2) It's hurtful to society in that it only serves to fuel the public's voyeuristic interest in human tragedy. Now I'm not saying that that is true for everyone who viewed the tape, but for most viewers i'm sure that it was a voyeurism thing.

I think it's also hurtful for society in that it establishes a precedent of giving public attention to people who commit terrible acts to get attention. It's like the whole not negotiating with hostage takers thing.

3) Responsible is a difficult word to pin down. Ultimately, people are responsible for their own actions, so in that sense, no, the media isn't responsible for people who do these atrocious acts. But I do feel that people's actions don't happen in a vacuum and can be externally influenced and encouraged. In that regard, those influencing factors can be considered to have a level of responsibility for the actions.

In these types of cases, I feel that the media tends to be one of those influences. It encourages people to act out by giving them so much attention when they commit these heinous acts. Now I'm not saying that it's going to create a mass murderer out of little angel, but I think that for someone that's already on the edge, who might already have inclinations towards acting out violently, the added prospect of media attention can be enough to throw them over the edge.

The dude had a freaking media packet all set and ready to go. You can't tell me that he wasn't at all influenced and encouraged by the media attention he knew that his actions would garner.

And to be clear, I'm not saying that I feel the news should only show happy-feel good stories or that the gov't should step in censor what is being shown. I'm just saying that NBC should have been ethically obligated not to show the tape and that the only reason they showed the tape was for the ratings, plain and simple.

**edited to add**
this link I saw about the CBC deciding not to air the footage.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...nal/Television/
relevant quote:
"This kind of coverage does trigger copycat killings and it's my personal fear that there will be another event [like the Virginia Tech massacre] -- whether in two weeks, two months or two years -- that we can trace directly back to the way many networks and newspapers broadcast these images," Mr. Burman said.
"And that would be very sad, and avoidable."

Mr. Burman is the editor-in-chief of CBC News

I agree that they did fulfill his last wish, so ethically thats wrong. But also ethically, people have a right to see what was in this guy's head (besides the insanity part), so I disagree that NBC did the wrong thing, because its news. News isn't always good or happy, its something unusual and a new event; the whole nation is wrapped up in what happened in Virginia (R.I.P.), and if people can have even a little help in seeing what was going on in his head and what drove him to do such horrible things, they should be allowed to see it.


Sure you can take it as them milking it to get ratings, which I'm sure is a by-product of airing it, but they are simply doing their job: reporting the news. And as far as I can see, when the multimedia manifesto was announced to be sent in, it was HUGE news. But hey, discredit a channel for doing their job and blame it on business, whatever floats your boat.


I'm sorry but this guy killed 33 people. In my book at least that deserves some attention. And if we're talking about the packet he sent, he was getting loads of attention anyways. All the manifesto did was serve tto show even more than before how mentally ill he was and how sick of a mind he had. That makes the large majority of the population sickened by him, and yes, a small portion will look up to him, but they would anyways because of his actions.

They are doing their job. But their job is to make money, not to deliver the news in a logical and helpful way. If the video that Cho made wouldn't garner them ratings, they wouldn't show it, so please don't pretend they are accurately and responsibly doing their jobs.

What about all of the stories they shelf because they don't grab people's attention and get the ratings they want and need? If they were doing their jobs they would not spend days and days replaying a video of a guy ranting and raving, as IF it somehow opens up the psyche and then we can all understand WHY? Did you see the video? If so, what did you learn? And would you consider it necessary to see it OVER AND OVER AND OVER.....

My answer is: Absolutely Yes.

I'm a news junkie and I would have been sorely disappointed to not have seen the video. It would have left me very curious about what Cho wanted us to know. And on the other side of that, without having seen the tape speculation could have driven public debate to unhealthy levels. Wonder of terrorism was on my mind, because it's natural to ask questions like that in a time of crisis. Especially of this magnitude. With the tape having been played, I now know that it was simply a deranged, paranoid lunatic with a messianic complex who wanted to blame all of his troubles on the people around him.

Furthermore, I'm not afraid to air free media because as some have suggested..."he wanted us to". He is dead. One bullet in his head. He will receive no gratification.




You can only judge each incident by the actual facts of that specific case. In this case, all the damage was done. 33 people were dead, the death toll didn't increase, nor did the public panic and create a disturbance because the video was played. As I said previously, I was helped by the airing of the video.



No. We can't shoot the messenger just because we don't like what he has to say. Reporting the facts is critical to a free nation. What people really need to do is take responsibility for their own actions and hold others accountable for their's. When 32 innocent lives are taken, we should as a society focus our anger on the perpetrator of the crimes, not the rights that put a gun in his hand, and not the broadcaster reporting it.

If people are looking for a way to vent, they might ask themselves why the police stood by, and in some cases ran away, when they should have been pumping round after round into the head of a sociopath.

Or if comfort and heroism is what you need, why not recant the bravest story about this whole day:

Liviu Librescu, the professor who also happened to be a holocaust survivor, blockaded a door in the path of the maniac to allow his students to escape unharmed. He gave his life in the spirit of true heroism. When students were lined up like cows to the slaughter and allowed themselves to be shot to death, this man fought back, giving his own life in sacrifice for others.

Perhaps Cho could have learned a lesson from this man. The true spirit of a messiah is to give your own life, for others. Rather than to whine about crucifixion and kill.

Here is a link to Librescu's story. It's awfully hard to find amongst American news agencies.

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/liviulibre...st48042107.html

So, just to clarify your position, you support NBC playing this tape after a grand total of maybe 2 hours of thought, consulting no experts on schizophrenia, giving no forethought or consideration to the grieving victim's families and what such a trauma would do to their healing process. You essentially support a television network, solely on the basis of ratings, taunting the families of those killed with an action-hero-like depiction of their killer, when their loved ones were not even buried.

I hate to say this so directly, but you are wrong. Your disappointment does not outweigh the personal and societal concerns. Your "right to know" could have been sated by a brief summary of the tape, maybe a still photo and summary of the manifesto. The glorifying video was just death porn and granting this psycho his dying wish.



Others were harmed as a result of you being "helped." Just so you know.

Unless you are now a forensic psychologist assuring us that the thousands of simmering, unstable-but-haven't-snapped-yet schizophrenics out there are not going to think of this tape and maybe snap at those various demonic individuals who are doing them harm? Or that you have personally counseled the grieving families and made sure that they didn't see any of the TV imagery so soon after their loved ones were killed, lest they be forever scarred by the experience? You are qualified to say this unequivocally? I doubt it.

By the way, thanks for posting the links to Librescu's story. He is a true hero.

Should NBC have aired the video?

For the most part I agree with NBC’s coverage. Yet I think Franklin Graham’s words on Scarborough Country we less than appropriate.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18154398/

The late Flip Wilson aside, Joe Scarborough invited David Seville’s “Witch Doctor” into the house. Cho Seung-Hui, not some imaginary devil did this. Let's deal with reality.

BoF,
Respectfully, what in the hell does Franklin Graham's comment on some cable news show have to do with NBC's decision whether or not to air this footage? Did you maybe post in the wrong topic?

No, Carlito.

MSNBC, Scarborough Country's station, is part of the NBC family. I posted this where I wanted to. While I think NBC was correct in airing its material, I think the their cable outlet erred in quoting Franklin Graham.

Too bad you didn't like it.

So, one holy man, when asked, observing that there may be a devil is more dangerous than glorifying a schizophrenic psychopath in real-time before his victims even have time to grieve.

Your mentally incompetent analysis stands on its own. Congrats on inverting the moral compass for us all.

You seem hell bent on picking a fight on this.



I don't consider Franklin Graham a holy man. If his father's were not named Billy, he'd be a nobody.



Thanks for the insult. Maybe the board could hire you to teach civility classes.



I'm sure you are capable of inventing your own moral compass and that others, "us all" are capable of developing their own without your suggestions.

BTW: carlito, a majority of the people voting in the poll take the position that NBC acted correctly in airing the material. I guess they have charted out their own moral compass and it doesn't seem square with yours.

Yes.

Simply put, the media can't rely upon the feelings of people when making a decision about what is appropriate to report. And to reiterate a point: You cannnot blame NBC for the pain afflicted upon a family by a psychopath.



No. Not even close. Nothing I said even comes close to that level of rhetoric.



I believe that you are wrong. I don't think that personal concerns for the greiving outweigh the public's need to know the truth of a matter, and have all the facts laid out in front of them. Any one who didn't want to see the video, had simply to tune out.

It's a very tight rope to walk on, when we start to talk about what is okay, and what is not okay to air in the press. Between Don Imus and this NBC video, we are really starting down a dark path.




No, others were harmed as a result of a mad man with a murderous death wish. Again, your blame is completely misplaced.



I'm sorry but as a rational intelligent human being I don't rely on "professionals" and "specialists" , with their psychoanalysis. Not that you are wrong, many people could have snapped, in fact where I live one man did snap: http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_109184330.html
And again I'll tell you that to blame the news for reporting it is very irresponsible. By the logic you're presenting me with I shouldn't post a link to that story out of Yuba City...because someone who is less stable might read it and think to themselves what a good idea it would be. Or, a relative that knows him may read this and become ashamed... And aren't they already going through enough???
This makes no sense to me.

Maybe that is why some people are against the airing of the video, but there are more pragmatic reasons, like glamorizing the event for would-be killers. Cho wasn't the only unstable person walking around. He snapped and someone else will, too, especially if there is a perceived payoff. He gets his name across every TV and newspaper and all sorts of other media. Of all of the victims, who knows even one of the names? Most people don't. I liked the story you shared about Librescu, the man who acted in a time of great fear, with true bravery. Why can't we spend the time promoting what he did to the viewing public? Then perhaps we will help inspire heroism as opposed to more destruction?



Why do you "need" to know? Or is it that you "want" to know?



That remains to be seen. I'm sure there are viewers out there who will think more seriously about turning to violence if it means they will get some recognition.

Should NBC have aired the video?
Images yes, videos no


Does it further harm or help society, at large to air such a video?

I would have been better to integrate this media into a documentary, instead of making it a news story.

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?

No they are not, but the movie and gaming industry might be. Furthermore, children have obtain greater rights than there parents in the home, due to lilly-livered liberals and their multicultural curriculum.

TFI, It actually sounds like a good approach changing the context of the video of Cho Seung-Hui via a documentary. The contextualizing could serve to provide clues to this man's motives while addressing the charge that the networks were somehow providing gratification to a dead man.

I was right with you in this post when you were commenting about the gaming industry, then you had to go and ruin it by making a fatuous and provocative statement about liberals and the non sequitur about a "multicultural curriculum." For shame. Obviously we should beat those who disagree with our way of thinking to get them to become responsible adults, right?

Without getting into the liberal vs. conservative issues here I see little correlation between “video games” and violence for normal kids. My boys and all their friends and friends friends play World of Warcraft and numerous other games. None of them is violent in any way and the gun crime in the suburbs where these games are played as much as any city or more – is nearly 0.

That said you can certainly imaging that a very psychotic youth seeing this video could see it differently. But gone are the days when a “community” was aware of all its kids. We hardly know our neighbors anymore.

TFI,

Would you care to enlighten us on this statement. Surely you have some reason for posting it other than TFI said it. Why images, but not video?



It takes time and money to make documentaries. Documentries often turn into "docudramas." This is too much of a strain on freedom of the press.



Wow! Your invective sound a lot like Tom DeLay. So, you would have us believe that parents are not responsible for things that go on in their own homes.

Don't worry TFI. If you are true to form, you won't be back to defend your statements. So, I guess we must assume them true because you said so.

I'm certainly not interested in fighting, nor in Franklin Graham. You agree with NBC playing this video.
Which harmed:
- The families of the victims
- 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.

"Yet" you thought it was inappropriate for MSNBC to air a religious viewpoint that is shared by around 80% of Americans.

That logic just seems inverted to me. God forbid, a man tells you something obvious like there is a God and a devil, and that you will have to answer to a higher power at some point. On the other hand, let's see the cool killer video with his guns and all and a big "NBC" logo on it. Because we have a 'right to know' and all. Which of those is harmful and which is OK again? It's like bizarro world.


Every one who disagrees with me on this is wrong. It's not the first time.


To be clear, others were harmed a second time, in a different way, as their healing process was interrupted, complicated, and in some cases, prevented entirely, by a network's craven ratings-grab. But hey, you got to see it, so it's apparently ok. Can't you even acknowledge that the tape didn't need to be played right that second, before the victims were even buried?

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 beieve in a "devil"? If so, we are in worse shape than I thought.

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.



That is one way of looking at it. Another way is that you are wrong now, have been wrong before and with absolute certainty will be wrong in the fuiture.

Therein lies THE reason why NBC should not have broadcast the video like they did. Cho was inspired by the Columbine killers, someone else will be inspired by him. The public's human tragedy voyeurism aka "right to know" is not worth the future lives lost.

Again, I point to the quote from the editor-in-chief of CBC News to express why NBC should have used more discretion in showing the video. CBC News decided not to air the footage.

"This kind of coverage does trigger copycat killings and it's my personal fear that there will be another event [like the Virginia Tech massacre] -- whether in two weeks, two months or two years -- that we can trace directly back to the way many networks and newspapers broadcast these images," Mr. Burman said.
"And that would be very sad, and avoidable."


For arguments sake, say that it was a given that media attention payed to these types of crimes lead to more of these types of crimes. In that case, would yall who voted "yes" still think that it was appropriate for NBC to broadcast the tape?