Support NeoGAF

[Like the hat?]

It is not a handful. There are many letters and calls pouring in to NBC from people who are outraged. The family members of victims this morning cancelled appearances on NBC and cited the decision to air the photos as the reason.

but I don't understand WHY. Its not like NBC or anyone else is saying "hey, check it out, look how cool this kid was!" They are just showing video of a window into this kids personality. many people find that sort of thing fascinating.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

John Williams warned viewers several times last night, with the second one being rather abbreviated I guess for the sake of time.

 

[Nameless]

I certainly do understand the families outrage. After a tragedy, this would usually be the time where the media would be dedicating most of their time & resources to remembering the victims, telling their stories, having family/friends share stories etc.. etc.. Now, all of that time is going to the killer. Aside from that, there is no way I would want to hear the things he was saying when I still hadn't even come down off the initial shock of my love one's death.

But again, there isn't a news organization in the world that would've sat on this in order to allow the victims to be properly remembered and for the families to have a proper grieving period. Yeah, it ****ing sucks. But sadly, thats just the way it is in this country.

 

[plagiarize]

but I don't understand WHY. Its not like NBC or anyone else is saying "hey, check it out, look how cool this kid was!" They are just showing video of a window into this kids personality. many people find that sort of thing fascinating.

i wish they hadn't shown it either.

it's obvious from the things he said on those videos and in his letter that he had taken inspiration from columbine and wanted the stuff he sent to NBC made public so that more people would take that lead.

i'm not saying i think more people will take that lead, but i do think its pretty appalling of NBC to follow through on the wishes of the guy who killed 32 people.

i've long felt that the massive news coverage these events get, as much as any other factor, is part of what encourages someone to not just shoot themself in the head.

go out this way and everyone will remember you because it's guaranteed massive news coverage.

obviously there needs to be coverage of this kind of event, but it shouldn't be done the way the killer wanted it.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

but I don't understand WHY. Its not like NBC or anyone else is saying "hey, check it out, look how cool this kid was!" They are just showing video of a window into this kids personality. many people find that sort of thing fascinating.

Ever been involved in a shooting? See people get killed in front of you and live? How do you think the surviving college students feel seeing the image of this madman pointing guns at the camera? Terrified. Now, as a human being, if I know that something like these images is going to cause discomfort to the victims and those that love and care for them (which most of us should), then I would have chosen to not air the images and let the law enforcement agencies handle them. Look, when I heard this manifesto existed, it was enough to sicken me. Seeing it everywhere is too much. Capus knew it would cause harm. He admitted this on the air. But I guess the story and the ratings were more important. And for that, I find his decsision to hurt the healing process of ONE person let alone many others to be reprehensible and worthy of reprimand.

 

[MaX_PL]

this thread is dumb.

agreed.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

agreed.

Please, explain.

 

[starchild excalibur]

Please, explain.

You're wanting to a guy to be fired over showing something that wasn't his call to be shown, but NBC's as an entity. You're wanting him to be fired for showing pictures that are relevant to this case and that need to be shown in order to fulfill what news corporations are supposed to do: inform. Pictures like this get shown all the time over the course of a big news item like this, having to preface the picture every single time with "You may want to look away" is ridiculous.

Sure, this and 9/11 aren't the same thing, but I'm sure there are many that didn't want to watch the twin towers getting struck with an airplane either. These things need to be show, however to better illustrate, in this case, the assailents mentality.

 

[Like the hat?]

Ever been involved in a shooting? See people get killed in front of you and live? How do you think the surviving college students feel seeing the image of this madman pointing guns at the camera? Terrified. Now, as a human being, if I know that something like these images is going to cause discomfort to the victims and those that love and care for them (which most of us should), then I would have chosen to not air the images and let the law enforcement agencies handle them. Look, when I heard this manifesto existed, it was enough to sicken me. Seeing it everywhere is too much. Capus knew it would cause harm. He admitted this on the air. But I guess the story and the ratings were more important. And for that, I find his decsision to hurt the healing process of ONE person let alone many others to be reprehensible and worthy of reprimand.

Obviously I am not connected to the issue in any way so my opinion on the matter doesnt really mean anything.

That being said, I understand that people don't want it to be seen, but I still don't think the guy should lose his job over it.

 

[J2 Cool]

but I don't understand WHY. Its not like NBC or anyone else is saying "hey, check it out, look how cool this kid was!" They are just showing video of a window into this kids personality. many people find that sort of thing fascinating.

Um, they're basically saying "Hey, check this out, we got crazy coverage!" with their front page. Not to mention NO warning before viewing this. To their credit, a few guys did put it into context, but the first uses of it were exploitive. Completely inconsiderate to the victims, the victim's familes, and the survivors though. And then consider the repurcussions and influence this has. It should have been an easy decision, and certainly shouldn't have gone public without some serious warnings placed around it. They used this media at will though.

 

[SuperPac]

But again, there isn't a news organization in the world that would've sat on this in order to allow the victims to be properly remembered and for the families to have a proper grieving period. Yeah, it ****ing sucks. But sadly, thats just the way it is in this country.

It's not about news anymore, it's about filling programming time on 24-hour news channels so you can sell ad space in primetime. They must've been giddy watching this -- and they had no problem plastering their logo all over the photos and video footage that's been disseminated to other outlets.

 

[Like the hat?]

It's not about news anymore, it's about filling programming time on 24-hour news channels so you can sell ad space in primetime. They must've been giddy watching this -- and they had no problem plastering their logo all over the photos and video footage that's been disseminated to other outlets.

THIS JUST IN! COMPANIES WANT TO MAKE MONEY!

 

[GCQuinton]

Ever been involved in a shooting? See people get killed in front of you and live? How do you think the surviving college students feel seeing the image of this madman pointing guns at the camera? Terrified. Now, as a human being, if I know that something like these images is going to cause discomfort to the victims and those that love and care for them (which most of us should), then I would have chosen to not air the images and let the law enforcement agencies handle them. Look, when I heard this manifesto existed, it was enough to sicken me. Seeing it everywhere is too much. Capus knew it would cause harm. He admitted this on the air. But I guess the story and the ratings were more important. And for that, I find his decsision to hurt the healing process of ONE person let alone many others to be reprehensible and worthy of reprimand.

I definitely see where you're coming from, but don't you think you're a bit too close to the situation to be objective at this point? Being a journalism grad, one thing I learned quick is that being a human being and being a news director can be two different things and if you can't separate the two, you won't be around long when it comes to stuff like this. What happened here was terrible, and I certainly can't blame the families for not wanting to the shows (who wouldn't?), but any legit news organization would have did the same thing. From what I understood, they reported it the authorities first when they got it, and aired the stuff later on in the day. You alluded it to in your post, but yes, in this case the story and the ratings are more important.

 

[bill0527]

I don't know if anybody should lose their job, but I really worry about the networks continuing to run Cho's videos and messages in a continuous loop.

I was flipping channels last night and stopped at Anderson Cooper on CNN and they were playing the same videos over and over and over and over again.

I told my wife that this really does no good to keep playing this stuff in a continuous loop. Its very hurtful to the families involved AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, there's probably several psycho kids out there who are near Cho's mental state and they'll "get his message". Like the part where he gives a shout-out to his fellow Columbine mass murderers. Watch for the copycats in the coming years.

It seemed like there was a lot of outrage to the networks soon after 9-11 and all the footage of the planes hitting the towers seemed to just disappear into a vault. People didn't want to see it for a number of reasons - emotional, political, etc. They should do the same to Cho's media packet. Show it a few times over a few days, and then bury it. If people still want to see it, they can find it on the internet.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

Is there any evidence that the bolded is true? You said, 'no question about it' but is there any real evidence besides a theory?

Well, considering the fact that Cho did this and mentioned the Columbine kids as martyrs and likely inspiration, I think that is evidence right now that this kind of coverage glorifies the action to a certain demented segment of society...

I don’t think a lot of you are understanding properly what the OP is saying. He isn’t claiming that Imus was actually fired because he was insensitive, he is saying that NBC’s stance is that Imus was fired because he was insensitive. Therefore, if NBC fires Imus under the pretense that he is insensitive, then NBC should also fire those responsible for airing the photos of this psycho nutjob because those images are EXTREMELY insensitive to survivors of the attack as well as the families of the victims.

NBC COULD have just handed the dossier to the FBI and not released the info to the public, but they (of course) didn’t do that: They released the photos to boost ratings. That is understandable – the news is a for profit venture. However, it is a bit hypocritical to fire one guy, supposedly because he was insensitive, and then the next week go and be horribly insensitive to people who have just suffered a much more violent and real tragedy than hearing the phrase “nappy headed hoes”.

And these pictures were NOT necessary to release. Just because people have some morbid curiosity doesn’t mean there is some “right to see” those pictures. **** that, he’s a lunatic. He did what he did because he was completely crazy. Releasing glorified photos of him along with his rambling justification does NOTHING positive for the public good. Those photos and notes should be reviewed by professionals in order to examine what drives someone to do that – but the general public just wants to watch the train wreck and NBC wants to profit from that.

I think we really have mixed up priorities in this country…

 

[Cloudy]

Oh please, no one's being forced to watch. NOT showing something that's newsworthy (aka of interest to the majority) would be the true outrage...

 

[AstroLad]

And these pictures were NOT necessary to release. Just because people have some morbid curiosity doesn’t mean there is some “right to see” those pictures. **** that, he’s a lunatic.

I don't think anyone's claiming a "right to see." It's already out and the focus here is on whether or not there should have been partial or total censorship. If anything the more common argument here, and certainly something approximating the argument of the OP is an "entitlement not to be shown."

 

[madara]

Its the world we live in now. Someday they show footage of woman getting raped and no will care that much as they will have seen it simulated million times in games or movies.

 

[scorcho]

this is a major news story and the material provided to NBC, regardless of its intent, should be mentioned to the public. while i'm sure there was some understanding of the ratings boost this would provide to the station, it also jibes with the ethical role of a journalists' job to inform the public.

from what i saw from NBC's original broadcast, they handled the initial report and viewing in a detached, respectful manner. they didn't chime in with the crass graphics and music that Fox and CNN have, and nor are they responsible for how other news outlets sensationalize these documents and pictures.

 

[scorcho]

Its the world we live in now. Someday they show footage of woman getting raped and no will care that much as they will have seen it simulated million times in games or movies.

oh stop with the slippery-slope argument.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

I don't think anyone's claiming a "right to see." It's already out and the focus here is on whether or not there should have been partial or total censorship. If anything the more common argument here, and certainly something approximating the argument of the OP is an "entitlement not to be shown."

Fair enough. I still believe that this case dictates self-censorship on the part of NBC. But, as a corporation, they aren't a moral being, they are a profit driven machine, so one can't expect them to be sensitive to the families.

It urks me though that most people out there don't regard the victims in high enough esteem to say to themselves and to NBC/other news outlets: "Hey, maybe my curiosity is actually not as important as the victims' state of mind. I'm not going to watch or support this." That mindset would force NBC to not show the information (through market forces) and this particular problem would be solved.

 

[AstroLad]

Fair enough. I still believe that this case dictates self-censorship on the part of NBC. But, as a corporation, they aren't a moral being, they are a profit driven machine, so one can't expect them to be sensitive to the families.

It urks me though that most people out there don't regard the victims in high enough esteem to say to themselves and to NBC/other news outlets: "Hey, maybe my curiosity is actually not as important as the victims' state of mind. I'm not going to watch or support this." That mindset would force NBC to not show the information (through market forces) and this particular problem would be solved.

But see my earlier post on this issue:
This is probably more appropriate in the main thread, but I don't think it's that clear-cut. It may be harrowing or disturbing for some friends and family, but not all since for some it's even worse to know absolutely nothing (and you certainly hear how bad this can be after some of the shootings where people had almost literally no idea why the person did it, e.g., the Luby's shooting). Also if word gets out about these materials but they aren't released, they gain a mystique that the materials themselves otherwise never would. It's not just a black-and-white issue although certainly the profit motive is distasteful.
--

I think it's an interesting topic but I suppose it's easier and more tempting for most to just discuss who has what rights than the substantive merit of releasing the materials.

 

[Like the hat?]

Its the world we live in now. Someday they show footage of woman getting raped and no will care that much as they will have seen it simulated million times in games or movies.

one day I'm going to have to get a prostate exam, then its just a few steps away before I'm begging to be ****ed in the ass at every opportunity.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

But see my earlier post on this issue:
This is probably more appropriate in the main thread, but I don't think it's that clear-cut. It may be harrowing or disturbing for some friends and family, but not all since for some it's even worse to know absolutely nothing (and you certainly hear how bad this can be after some of the shootings where people had almost literally no idea why the person did it, e.g., the Luby's shooting). Also if word gets out about these materials but they aren't released, they gain a mystique that the materials themselves otherwise never would. It's not just a black-and-white issue although certainly the profit motive is distasteful.
--

I think it's an interesting topic but I suppose it's easier and more tempting for most to just discuss who has what rights than the substantive merit of releasing the materials.

Re: The families and their right to know - I actually was going to include something about them in the original post. I do believe they should be presented with all of the facts and the information, but it should be at their pace and at their discretion. Plastering this stuff all over the news is extremely distasteful, at least in my opinion. Families should have been presented with this info before any of it was released to the public just so they could prepare for the barrage. At least that way, NBC gets their clicks and the families can know what they're in for.

I don't think the information should be "lock and keyed" but a release of it once the smoking gun has cooled seems more "responsible" in a way. Things have a chance to simmer down and the actual psychological study merit of releasing the materials would be explored, rather than morbid curiosity exploited.

 

[Meier]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6572743.stm

Police probing the deadly shootings at Virginia Tech University have criticised the decision of US network NBC to show footage of the killer.

Speaking at Virginia Tech, Steve Flaherty, superintendent of Virginia State Police, said he appreciated NBC's co-operation, but regretted the decision to broadcast the tapes.

"A lot of folks saw images that were very disturbing," he told a news conference.

"This is a kind of image that people in my line of work have to see, and I'm worried that people who are not used to seeing them had to see them," he said.

 

[Eggo]

NBC shouldn't have aired the video and turned it into this media spectacle that it has become. If there is a copycat killing, the blame should fall squarely on NBC for glamorizing mass murder. They could have relayed the 'news' that a package was received and this was the message, without having to broadcast the sensational images which are all over every newscast now.

 

[AstroLad]

NBC shouldn't have aired the video and turned it into this media spectacle that it has become. If there is a copycat killing, the blame should fall squarely on NBC for glamorizing mass murder. They could have relayed the 'news' that a package was received and this was the message, without having to broadcast the sensational images which are all over every newscast now.

I still stand by the assertion that not releasing the materials "glamorizes" the killer more by giving him and his frankly pathetic materials a level of mystique they don't deserve. I suppose a third solution would be to not release the materials and not disclose their existence, but I don't know if that's workable or even appropriate.

 

[AntoneM]

Please mister news network, hold my hand and coddle me and tell me that the world is a beautiful place where everyone is happy.

I don't care if it has made the police's job more difficult, good investigative journalism and even opportunistic journalism has made millions of people's jobs harder. If we are going to choose to live in a relatively free and open society we (the general public) need to know why things like this happen so that we can work to prevent it from happening again.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

I still stand by the assertion that not releasing the materials "glamorizes" the killer more by giving him and his frankly pathetic materials a level of mystique they don't deserve. I suppose a third solution would be to not release the materials and not disclose their existence, but I don't know if that's workable or even appropriate.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't know if i agree entirely. In my opinion at least, the people who are going to be affected (influenced to attempt something similar) by seeing these materials are the kind of people that won't see them and think they are "frankly pathetic." But that is just my opinion.

Also, I'm not sure what the solution is, I'm just disheartened by this whole situation and feel for the families that are dealing with this, regardless of whether those images are out there. But I can't imagine viewing this ****er's pose (likely the last thing their loved ones saw) on every other channel/website is anything but incredible agony during this already unfathomably painful event.

 

[ShowDog]

Who hasn't been waiting to see what this lunatic looked like? Honestly, I'm interested in it.

The fact is, it's news that we know who he is and what he looks like. The fact that he took photos of himself with guns pointed at the camera, showing he obviously planned the attack, is news. News stations put news on the air. If it offends someone, well, be offended by Cho. NBC is the middleman. They didn't take the pics. The public has every right to see them.

...Plus it's great for ratings.

I agree it's a sensitive issue, but really, what you want is basically censorship. "Offend me and be fired!"

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

Please mister news network, hold my hand and coddle me and tell me that the world is a beautiful place where everyone is happy.

I don't care if it has made the police's job more difficult, good investigative journalism and even opportunistic journalism has made millions of people's jobs harder. If we are going to choose to live in a relatively free and open society we (the general public) need to know why things like this happen so that we can work to prevent it from happening again.

Out of curiosity, what are you personally doing having now seen those photos that is making this less likely to happen again?

Also, there is no need to be a snide asshole. Everyone knows the world sucks. I don't see how not airing this particular dossier of information changes any of that. It just might make an extremely trying time a little less difficult for the people that know first hand (because their loved ones were brutally murdered three days ago) that the world isn't a beautiful happy place.

 

[AstroLad]

I see where you're coming from, but I don't know if i agree entirely. In my opinion at least, the people who are going to be affected (influenced to attempt something similar) by seeing these materials are the kind of people that won't see them and think they are "frankly pathetic." But that is just my opinion.

Also, I'm not sure what the solution is, I'm just disheartened by this whole situation and feel for the families that are dealing with this, regardless of whether those images are out there. But I can't imagine viewing this ****er's pose (likely the last thing their loved ones saw) on every other channel/website is anything but incredible agony during this already unfathomably painful event.

It's certainly hard to evaluate it from a utilitarian perspective, but I think a few people are having trouble disassociating the media's profiting from it (undeniable) with the utility of it (certainly debatable). For some reason people on both sides love getting hung up on profit when arguing the merits as if it's the be-all-end-all of the discussion when it's largely inapposite.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

It's certainly hard to evaluate it from a utilitarian perspective, but I think a few people are having trouble disassociating the media's profiting from it (undeniable) with the utility of it (certainly debatable). For some reason people on both sides love getting hung up on profit when arguing the merits as if it's the be-all-end-all of the discussion when it's largely inapposite.

Well, honestly, from a utilitarian perspective...do the families reactions at this point even matter? I mean, the damage has been done to these people. -I'm NOT devaluing their suffering, but let's go to the other end of it... long term consequences of this information being out there.

I think you have a good point that you can't keep this stuff in the shadows because of an inevitable mythos that will grow from a cover up. This information, since it IS available, NEEDS to be available. I just disagree with the timeline and the mode that they chose to release.

If you disassociate the release of the materials from the profit, it seems pretty unnecessary (to me) for this shit to have been released NOW and in the manner it was released (plastering photos everywhere).

 

[MetatronM]

NBC has gone off the far left deep end, so to me they are irrelevant since I won't watch their crap. Don Imus wasn't fired because of what he said. It all boils down to ratings and money. If they figured Imus was still going to make them good money, they would have kept him on.

No one is fired for what they say. They are fired for ****ing up profits.

Rosie O'Donnell is still blathering on The View. She claims the US attacked itself on 9/11. She effectively said that the Brits deliberately got themselves captured. That, to me, are just as bad or worse than what Don Imus said. She is still on the air simply because they figure she isn't a liability yet.

What?

1) How does acting in the company's best financial interests, even in a Machiavellian manner, translate as being "far left?"

2) The View is on ABC. WTF does that have to do with anything?

 

[ShowDog]

What?

1) How does acting in the company's best financial interests, even in a Machiavellian manner, translate as being "far left?"

2) The View is on ABC. WTF does that have to do with anything?

Do you have any logic, or do you just like to ask stupid questions?

I don't believe he was suggesting MSNBC was far left for acting in their best financial interest. It was an opinion put into the post. That seems obvious.

Also, do you really fail to make a connection between Rosie O Donnell, a media personality, and Don Imus, another media personality? Because, clearly, from your post, you're implying you see no possible connection between the two people and what they can say. And that makes you look stupid.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Do you have any logic, or do you just like to ask stupid questions?

I don't believe he was suggesting MSNBC was far left for acting in their best financial interest. It was an opinion put into the post. That seems obvious.

Also, do you really fail to make a connection between Rosie O Donnell, a media personality, and Don Imus, another media personality? Because, clearly, from your post, you're implying you see no possible connection between the two people and what they can say. And that makes you look stupid.

Nice. I didn't have to say it myself. Good show.

 

[J2 Cool]

It's not about what people wanted to see that matters. What people want is internal. It exists without choice. I want that girl, I want this luxury, I want these drugs, desire this, desire that. What you actually do is a very different thing. I don't care if the people wanted to see it, and NBC wanted the ratings.

Choices have to be made for the greater good, a progressive society. Media has a big responsibility in that given their influence. Specifically the president of NBC in this particular case. And they showed absolutely no values beyond the ratings and the money. If they at least acted with some kind of sensitivity to the situation, warnings and context, it would have been better. The first picture posted on their front webpage, and in GAF's thread, was ridiculous though. Pure attention grabbing. Purely used as a means of advertisement in their case.

Not only was it the epitome of "offensive", hypocrisy at its best in this case, it showed no awareness of responsibility in their case. So yeah, blame the ****ing public. Way to teach being responsible for your own actions, and not blaming your own faults on others. The media simply wants to be a machine, acting on reflex. At some point they need to man up to their responsibility, even in the most minor forms.

 

[psycho_snake]

I still stand by the assertion that not releasing the materials "glamorizes" the killer more by giving him and his frankly pathetic materials a level of mystique they don't deserve. I suppose a third solution would be to not release the materials and not disclose their existence, but I don't know if that's workable or even appropriate.

I dont agree with that. People in a similar position to Cho think that they're lonely and worthless. This shooting is giving cho so much attention, he isnt going to be forgotten for a long time. People like cho will want the same sort of attention and they might go and do what he did to get that attention. The way i see it, NBC have inspired people like Cho to go and do what he did so that they can get thier moment of fame and recognition.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

It's not about what people wanted to see that matters. What people want is internal. It exists without choice. I want that girl, I want this luxury, I want these drugs, desire this, desire that. What you actually do is a very different thing. I don't care if the people wanted to see it, and NBC wanted the ratings.

Choices have to be made for the greater good, a progressive society. Media has a big responsibility in that given their influence. Specifically the president of NBC in this particular case. And they showed absolutely no values beyond the ratings and the money. If they at least acted with some kind of sensitivity to the situation, warnings and context, it would have been better. The first picture posted on their front webpage, and in GAF's thread, was ridiculous though. Pure attention grabbing. Purely used as a means of advertisement in their case.

Not only was it the epitome of "offensive", hypocrisy at its best in this case, it showed no awareness of responsibility in their case. So yeah, blame the ****ing public. Way to teach being responsible for your own actions, and not blaming your own faults on others. The media simply wants to be a machine, acting on reflex. At some point they need to man up to their responsibility, even in the most minor forms.

All the networks care about is the bottom line. If it makes money, then so be it. What is right and what is wrong is irrelevant to them. It will always be this way. Their interest isn't our society, our country's best interest or any of that. It's money and that is it.

 

[AstroLad]

I dont agree with that. People in a similar position to Cho think that they're lonely and worthless. This shooting is giving cho so much attention, he isnt going to be forgotten for a long time. People like cho will want the same sort of attention and they might go and do what he did to get that attention. The way i see it, NBC have inspired people like Cho to go and do what he did so that they can get thier moment of fame and recognition.

So then the overly simplified question becomes whether the harm done from releasing the materials in "giving attention" would outweigh the harm done from not releasing them and then having "people in a similar position to Cho" speculate and imagine what was in them and then have paranoid fantasies about why they're not being released. Also, it's not as if not releasing the materials would mean that the media would not be giving him any "attention," it would just take other forms, unless you're proposing a total blackout.

 

[jobber]

lol

lol

 

[psycho_snake]

So then the overly simplified question becomes whether the harm done from releasing the materials in "giving attention" would outweigh the harm done from not releasing them and then having "people in a similar position to Cho" speculate and imagine what was in them and then have paranoid fantasies about why they're not being released. Also, it's not as if not releasing the materials would mean that the media would not be giving him any "attention," it would just take other forms, unless you're proposing a total blackout.

Yes the media will still be giving him attenion ecven if the footage wasnt shown, but its a lot less indirect. The media should have briefly mentioned whats the killer said and who he was, but irs now become the main focus of the story. people in cho's position are going to want the same sort of exposure. I think that Im not thinking this through properly, but does it matter that those sort of people get paranoid fantasies about why they were not released? Going and killing 30+ people isnt going to make them find out what was in it.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Oh please, no one's being forced to watch. NOT showing something that's newsworthy (aka of interest to the majority) would be the true outrage...

Holy crap, I agree with Cloudy. Who starts making these decisions about what to air as news and what not to air? Hell, we recently got into a big, um, what do you call it,...war because of selective journalism. People always have the right to complain and turn off but they get that confused with a right to dictate what goes on.

9/11 was brought up and some can defend it. I don't care, after a few hours, I had to turn it off. I can't really fault the news corporations because it was not just news, it was a life altering day for a huge percentage of people. And there is nothing inherently offending about the images. It's the story behind it that got me riled up. Here, it is the same thing. It would be in bad taste for them to air it if he got all racial or sexist.

I think it might be necessary to air these things. I think plenty of people have no idea of why this guy did it or what the motive behind Columbine. But luckily, people pay more attention to bullying after Columbine. Not to shine any positive light on Columbine but bullying is a problem in American schools that people have ignored. Well, people pay more attention to it.

It's a newsworthy item and it's not offensive.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

To clarify, Steve Capus has publicly contradicted himself by declaring he is showing these images even though he knew people would be offended and hurt by those images. In the instant that NBC news publicly declared it was their decision to release these images, they took responsibility for their actions (and took a tremendous boost in ratings). Now, if Steve Capus is going to defend the Rutgers basketball team and fire Don Imus for offending them (even though we know that is not the reason), then I would love to hear his justification for essentially fast-tracking this manifesto into the public's eyes when he admitted on the air last night he knew he would be hurting people (victims and their families). If firing an employee for harming others is truly the reason that Steve Capus presented in the case of Don Imus, then his hypocritical act of being the one to release these hurtful images deserves to be met with the precedent he himself established.

 

[AstroLad]

Yes the media will still be giving him attenion ecven if the footage wasnt shown, but its a lot less indirect. The media should have briefly mentioned whats the killer said and who he was, but irs now become the main focus of the story. people in cho's position are going to want the same sort of exposure. I think that Im not thinking this through properly, but does it matter that those sort of people get paranoid fantasies about why they were not released? Going and killing 30+ people isnt going to make them find out what was in it.

I think you're far too single-minded in your guessing at the killer's motives and the causal factors of this incident, who would do these kinds of things, but it's all speculation at this point. Besides, it's not as if the media is even necessary anymore to have mass dissemination; if anything it's probably less effective.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

Holy crap, I agree with Cloudy. Who starts making these decisions about what to air as news and what not to air? Hell, we recently got into a big, um, what do you call it,...war because of selective journalism. People always have the right to complain and turn off but they get that confused with a right to dictate what goes on.

9/11 was brought up and some can defend it. I don't care, after a few hours, I had to turn it off. I can't really fault the news corporations because it was not just news, it was a life altering day for a huge percentage of people. And there is nothing inherently offending about the images. It's the story behind it that got me riled up. Here, it is the same thing. It would be in bad taste for them to air it if he got all racial or sexist.

I think it might be necessary to air these things. I think plenty of people have no idea of why this guy did it or what the motive behind Columbine. But luckily, people pay more attention to bullying after Columbine. Not to shine any positive light on Columbine but bullying is a problem in American schools that people have ignored. Well, people pay more attention to it.

It's a newsworthy item and it's not offensive.

Let me get this straight. You are contending that if Cho was shouting racial epithets and sexist remarks, then it would be wrong for NBC to show the videos, but a closeup of a murderer holding the very gun he used to kill people with just days ago is ok? Explain to the kid's family in Christiansburg, VA that is struggling while they watch their son recover how if Cho was a racist, the videos would be bad, but because he is a killer with forethought to send images of himself to the media before he goes on a murderous rampage it is newsworthy and not offensive. Words don't kill people. Neither do images. But images and words intimately associated with heinous acts like the shootings at VT in the eyes and ears of those targeted by those acts can only further and exacerbate the suffering they are feeling.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

Holy crap, I agree with Cloudy. Who starts making these decisions about what to air as news and what not to air? Hell, we recently got into a big, um, what do you call it,...war because of selective journalism. People always have the right to complain and turn off but they get that confused with a right to dictate what goes on.

9/11 was brought up and some can defend it. I don't care, after a few hours, I had to turn it off. I can't really fault the news corporations because it was not just news, it was a life altering day for a huge percentage of people. And there is nothing inherently offending about the images. It's the story behind it that got me riled up. Here, it is the same thing. It would be in bad taste for them to air it if he got all racial or sexist.

I think it might be necessary to air these things. I think plenty of people have no idea of why this guy did it or what the motive behind Columbine. But luckily, people pay more attention to bullying after Columbine. Not to shine any positive light on Columbine but bullying is a problem in American schools that people have ignored. Well, people pay more attention to it.

It's a newsworthy item and it's not offensive.

It is mind boggling why you'd say that...

Gah, no. I really can't find the words to properly question what in god's name you're getting at.

Edit: No, really - That is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read. Really. Jesus ... I'm literally dumbfounded.

Edit 2: Maybe you're joking?

 

[Steriletom]

What a stupid, stupid topic.

Let's ban all news stories except for the ones where kitties are rescued from trees and rainbows donate their lifesavings to orphanages.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

What a stupid, stupid topic.

Let's ban all news stories except for the ones where kitties are rescued from trees and rainbows donate their lifesavings to orphanages.

Failure to grasp the topic +1 ...

He isn't saying "ban the topic" - he's saying cover the issue more responsibly and bear in mind the state of mind of the victims families...

 

[J2 Cool]

Failure to grasp the topic +1 ...

He isn't saying "ban the topic" - he's saying cover the issue more responsibly and bear in mind the state of mind of the victims families...

Exactly. You may not be "forced" to watch this, but if you flip channels, it's there without warning. You have a homepage on a news site, and its displayed like a billboard, flashy text and titles. For this situation, this story - it's not right. Not when the initial target was the media to begin with. Exploiting his own cause through the media's exploitation.