Media - our responsibility as viewers.

[Daradon]

Was originally going to post this in the 'another school shooting thread', but felt it was a statement worthy of it own thread, and it is a bit of a call to action, so it's something that can be discussed seperately and hopefully acted on if we so choose to as a society. Give it a read, agree or disagree, and discuss, but if we are going to point fingers or hopefully look for constructive answers, we can start very easily with ourselves.


Regarding the media's place (and ours) in tragedies like the Virginia Tech school shooting:


The media is one of the biggest problems in all of this. Cho sent a package to NBC news. Why? Because he knew they'd play it and WE'D all watch it and he'd be immortal. He'd get his message out no matter how stupid, insecure, immature, violent it was. To him it made a lot of sense. Even though we all disagree with it, he probably thought he was a genius and could see things we couldn't.

So the networks all wring their hands and dap their eyes and play it over and over again for ratings and fatter commercial spots. And the next would be mass-murderer with a statement sees it and knows he can go out with a bang too.

Course we're all watching it, so we have some responsibility in it too.

Now I've never been one for the restriction of information. In fact, quite the opposite. But really, except for a couple safety tips we all know anyway, how is this important to us in any other way than morbid entertainment? This is not news about government plans or problems, political climate and world issues. This is a disturbed (maybe just emotionally and mentally, maybe morally or maybe a bit of both) person who wants to get their warped sense of reality out. It's not art that may bring up the issues, but doesn't hurt anyone. It is a call to other would be shooters and copy-cats. Many have said for a long time that the media should not give these people a podium.

But that starts with us, because we all watch it.

Perhaps we should be calling our stations and telling them that if they are going to play this stuff we won't watch, we will boycott their network and sponsors products. WE CAN BE A FORCE FOR POSITIVE CHANGE.

But only if you want to. Only if you can admit, you'd rather have positive change, then the fishbowl of tragedy that makes us feel better about ourselves in the worst sort of way.

[Devils'Advocate]

If it's not a massacre then it's Britney.

[Bobblehead]

I agree with that. But the public has an appetite for this sort of thing so it will get ratings. I'm with you, but until there is a MAJOR shift in what the general public watches there will be hours of this, as well as the Anna Nicole/Brittney stories.

I disagree with a lot of posters on this board, but the majority are definitely up on current events and even if I don't agree with them I respect them because they have usually done a fair bit of investigation.

But I don't know if the public at large has an appetite for what happened today in Iraq/Afghanistan/Parliament Hill/Capitol Hill/generic seat of parliament/war zone. It is complicated and often dry. But until the public decides it is going to pay attention the news nets will continue to spew forth whatever appeals to the masses.

[Reggie Dunlop]

I would have to disagree. If the information is out there, it should be reported. It's horrifying no doubt, but the particular news outlet did nothing wrong in releasing the information they recieved, especially since it was withheld until police viewed it.

The information isn't being reported in any way that endorses or glorifies violence of the sort.

This is little more than blaming the messenger.

[JimmytheT]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

If it's not a massacre then it's Britney.

Sadly, I'm quoting this for truth. I loathe the news these days. I find myself watching BBC News World when I actually feel like turning on the news, because they actually report on all kinds of international news that is often much more relevant. Even then BBC News World can try my patience at times.

[Juventus3]

It's not so much what the media outlets report, it's the way they go about it. Watching CNN during some off time today, I felt like it was a movie as much as a news channel. They make this hollywood theme song and title the it the "VT Campus Massacre" as if it's nothing more than entertainment. So in that sense, I do agree that the networks have been somewhat morally irresponsible, but what else is to be expected in a free market society? Where ever there's money, there are people who are willing to cross any line to get at it.

I for one DO want to see these types of things in the news when they happen, and something like this does have consequences that will be felt worldwide. The other South Korean students at VT (my thoughts are with them right now) are scared out of their mind of a backlash towards them. Ethnic and racial stereotyping is horrible, but it always has and always will happen. The news agencies, for the most part, have done a good job covering this aspect of the tradegy...interviewing many foriegn students and giving their point of view.


Another similar debate that takes place in the US these days is what type of coverage is acceptable for the US public on the 'war' (used loosely) in Iraq. Should the Government be controlling what footage can be released? Or should the raw footage be shown and be left to the people of the country to decide?

[Ozy_Flame]

We are a culture of voyeurism, always have been, always will be. It's in human nature to be curious about things we don't understand.

Ignorance is not bliss. We must know these things in life, but its the way in which they're presented that is to blame. The 'medium' is just as guilty for perpetrating this as Cho was.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The 'medium' is just as guilty for perpetrating this as Cho was.

Again, I would have to disagree. Millions of other people are exposed to all the same cultural stimuli as Cho Seung-Hui. He was hardly unique in this respect, other than the fact he was mentally ill.

You cannot tailor any medium in the off-chance a mentally ill person will react violently.

Seng-Hui was apparently offered help in overcoming his demons. Obviously it was not enough, but that's hardly the fault of either the "system" nor its messengers.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

I would have to disagree. If the information is out there, it should be reported. It's horrifying no doubt, but the particular news outlet did nothing wrong in releasing the information they recieved, especially since it was withheld until police viewed it.

The information isn't being reported in any way that endorses or glorifies violence of the sort.

This is little more than blaming the messenger.

I knew there would be comments like this and that's what I was looking for because to tell you the truth, I don't know completely where I stand either. I would hate to say no to any information now matter how horrifying.

The big problem with the media though is, they play it to death to make money. That's all. Not to inform or enlighten, not to help us. To make money. If it bleeds it leads, etc.

That's where the problem starts for me. It's explotation of our culture for the almightly dollar.

That's what begs the above question or statement of responsibility to be asked.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Juventus3

It's not so much what the media outlets report, it's the way they go about it. Watching CNN during some off time today, I felt like it was a movie as much as a news channel. They make this hollywood theme song and title the it the "VT Campus Massacre" as if it's nothing more than entertainment. So in that sense, I do agree that the networks have been somewhat morally irresponsible, but what else is to be expected in a free market society? Where ever there's money, there are people who are willing to cross any line to get at it.

Exactly. Where does it stop becoming news and where does it become sensationalism and profiteering? And how are we driving that? Is that a necesaary evil, or something that can be fined tuned?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The 'medium' is just as guilty for perpetrating this as Cho was.

How so?

I know it's fun to blame the media, but at the end of the day they are just giving us what we want.

If people want non-sensationalized responsible hard news all the time, someone is going to give it to them and make a pile of money in the process. If people want "news" about dead golddigging strippers or a videotape of some crazy before he goes on a rampage, which we obviously do, then that's what we'll get.

I do agree with the original poster though. We can force a change in how the media covers this kind of tragedy. I don't think it's going to happen though.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Daradon

The media is one of the biggest problems in all of this. Cho sent a package to NBC news. Why? Because he knew they'd play it and WE'D all watch it and he'd be immortal. He'd get his message out no matter how stupid, insecure, immature, violent it was.

With all due respect, a prominent, nationally-based organization such as NBC News (or the New York Times, or whomever) literally get dozens of unsolicited diatribes, manifestos or material from whackos on a daily basis -- none of which ever hits the air or sees print. By the very nature of their existence, they're a magnet for nutjobs.

No outlet is perfect, of course, but Seng-Hui's material became newsworthy.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I knew there would be comments like this and that's what I was looking for because to tell you the truth, I don't know completely where I stand either. I would hate to say no to any information now matter how horrifying.

The big problem with the media though is, they play it to death to make money. That's all. Not to inform or enlighten, not to help us. To make money. If it bleeds it leads, etc.

That's where the problem starts for me. It's explotation of our culture for the almightly dollar.

That's what begs the above question or statement of responsibility to be asked.

Well, naturally there's going to be repetition by news outlets who's programming is based on rotating cycles of reports. Not everyone watches the news at the same time.

The anti-money angle doesn't really wash either. Networks are businesses. It's an unescapable fact.

[FireFly]

Well, all I ever watch is hockey, so it can't be my fault. However, I agree with the original poster... the problem is that the media will cover what the lowest common denominator wants. So we get dead whores and serial killers.

Again though, there is a HUGE difference in the sensationalism that occurs in Canada vs the US. The Pickton trials in Canada are an excellent example of this. How much do we hear about this kind of stuff up here? If this happened in Texas, it would be all over everywhere. But you know what? It's news, was reported as such and dealt with as such here in Canada. One could argue that there was maybe more coverage than there needed to be, but it certainly wasn't 24/7, blasted in our faces.

Which channels are you watching that you see this 'news' on all the time? CBC? CTV? Global? Even Canada's all news channels like Newsworld are not reporting it the same as they do in the US.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Well, naturally there's going to be repetition by news outlets who's programming is based on rotating cycles of reports. Not everyone watches the news at the same time.

The anti-money angle doesn't really wash either. Networks are businesses. It's an unescapable fact.

Which is why I was asking if it was a necessary evil.

I dunno, I still think there is room to move to downplay it a little and make it more tasteful. We don't need to be bombarded by hollywood type graphics and music, unending coverage, expert after expert coming in to weigh in, etc.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Which is why I was asking if it was a necessary evil.

I dunno, I still think there is room to move to downplay it a little and make it more tasteful. We don't need to be bombarded by hollywood type graphics and music, unending coverage, expert after expert coming in to weigh in, etc.

I think you're concentrating a little too much on peripheral issues. I don't think folks tune in to a newscast for the music and graphics. All that is window dressing.

Is not having experts in pertinent fields commenting a good thing?

[Daradon]

Sometimes their expertise is very questionable... and every station will have their own expert, often with a completely different take.

I know, it's tough to say what could be done if anything. But I can't believe the system we have right now can't stand a little improvement.

I'm a news junkie myself, mostly getting it through the internet though. And I believe we need unfettered access to information, that that is one of the most important things about a free society and the best way to keep it free.

But infomation, and entertainment are different. Reporting and profiteering are different.

Just asking for responsibility I guess, and saying the viewer can offer up some as well.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Sometimes their expertise is very questionable... and every station will have their own expert, often with a completely different take.

That's even better. Diversity of opinion.

Originally Posted by Daradon

I'm a news junkie myself, mostly getting it through the internet though. And I believe we need unfettered access to information, that that is one of the most important things about a free society and the best way to keep it free.

So if Seng-Hui had uploaded his rantings on the unadorned spartan trappings of YouTube instead, what would have been your take? Probably just as many people would have viewed it, in this, the internet age.

Originally Posted by Daradon

Just asking for responsibility I guess, and saying the viewer can offer up some as well.

I happen to think coverage by major outlets has been quite responsible, given as distasteful the subject matter is.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

So if Seng-Hui had uploaded his rantings on the unadorned spartan trappings of YouTube instead, what would have been your take? Probably just as many people would have viewed it, in this, the internet age.

Oh I'm not saying the internet is better, in many ways it can be worse, I was just admitting that I do look for news and do my research. That news and freedom of information is important. That I might be part of the problem as well, if there was one. Providing background for deeper analysis.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

How so?

I know it's fun to blame the media, but at the end of the day they are just giving us what we want.

That's exactly my point. That's Cho's point. He knew damn well this would be broadcast across the world, and now his actions are being stylized to his very liking. This video didn't HAVE to be broadcast, nor did have to even be mentioned, especially right now in the heat of all the flowing emotions around it.

Argue our right to information, or argue our right to know the truths, but at the end of the day, and using this case as an example, Cho wins this battle more than the viewers. He got exactly what he wanted from this, and we, the viewers, are left with more questions to be answered, more anxiety to answer to, and more voyeuristic tendencies that unfortuantely creates a vicious cycle between people, the media, and the events that happen in our lives. We are all guilty of it.