Media - our responsibility as viewers.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Daradon

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.

I'm still not quite sure what your beef is in this particular instance. You'd be more likely to find grisly photos of the victims on the internet than the nightly news, for instance. Conversantly, your also likely to find all manner of intelligent discussion on the internet too.

So television news programming is tarted up with music and computer graphics. I think that's just a general trend with all sorts of programming. Hell, there's even more color newspapers now than there were 20 years ago. Just means there's just more set consultants, graphic designers, and composers employed today. It's not your father's jowly newscaster in owly spectacles anymore.

It's more unfortunate that this event took place than it is unfortunate this event has been covered. Some will say each feeds each other, but I don't agree. You can accuse the media of a lot of things, but creating or encouraging human tragedy isn't one of them.

[Dion]

I disagree. I watch the news on a daily basis and want to know what's going on in the world. Some of it's not going to be very nice and in some cases a bit over the top. Still i have the choice of weather i want to watch the news or flip to another channel.

The problem with censoring certain types of news is that it doesn't stop there. Once the ball is rolling other groups will step up and ask that other types of news be censored. Ultimately where will it stop?

[jam26]

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 have to agree with Reggie. The media's role is to report the news. This footage was news. If the media witholds information or footage of major events such as the tragedy at VT then we are all more ignorant as a result.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

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.

I disagree completely. Evil isn't some grotesque ogre lurking in the shadow. In this particular case, it appears as the quiet, squirrelly kid next door. It hits harder to home and nobody should be spared the mundane face of evil. People SHOULD know of the perpetrator.

[jam26]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

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.

Cho hasn't won any battles. Cho is dead.

[Daradon]

^^^ But ultimately he got what he wanted, or what he thought he wanted.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

I'm still not quite sure what your beef is in this particular instance. You'd be more likely to find grisly photos of the victims on the internet than the nightly news, for instance. Conversantly, your also likely to find all manner of intelligent discussion on the internet too.

So television news programming is tarted up with music and computer graphics. I think that's just a general trend with all sorts of programming. Hell, there's even more color newspapers now than there were 20 years ago. Just means there's just more set consultants, graphic designers, and composers employed today. It's not your father's jowly newscaster in owly spectacles anymore.

It's more unfortunate that this event took place than it is unfortunate this event has been covered. Some will say each feeds each other, but I don't agree. You can accuse the media of a lot of things, but creating or encouraging human tragedy isn't one of them.

See maybe that's where we disagree. I would say they tend to immortalize people like this with the attention that they give them, thereby encouraging copycats and the like. They encourage stories of suffering over other news pieces of interest and there are some interviewers and stations that will resort to even dirtier tricks to make the news more interesting, more dramatic. Pestering people who don't want to be talked to, bothering the greiving, putting on people who just try to inflame the situation and rile up people at home rather than look for meaningful questions or conclusions.

I get what your saying, I really do. Like I said, I opened the dialouge to see what others thought because even though I had this idea, I wasn't sure of it myself. I guess I just don't believe the media is completely faultless, or we are either.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

I disagree completely. Evil isn't some grotesque ogre lurking in the shadow. In this particular case, it appears as the quiet, squirrelly kid next door. It hits harder to home and nobody should be spared the mundane face of evil. People SHOULD know of the perpetrator.

Wrong. He was the quiet, squirrely kid next door, but now the media is making him out to be the grotesque ogre who lurked in the shadows, which given his actions, isn't far from the truth. The media is spinning a story, the viewers are buying into it through curiousity and voyeurism (not because it NEEDS to be broadcast, but because it gets ratings) and someone is turning a profit on it in the end.

I doubt newscasts like CNN are in it for the rights of people to know as much as you think. I've been primarily watching CNN for the better part of the evening, and they are showing more clips of Cho's videos than any other broadcaster I've seen tonight, and I've been flipping thorugh about 5 different stations covering it. CNN is broadcasting the religious gibberish he was spewing, while CBC isn't even touching that with a ten-foot pole. It's a ratings war, pure and simple.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by jam26

Cho hasn't won any battles. Cho is dead.

Cho didn't win battles in our minds, but he certianly did in his - his message was broadcast to the world, which is why he sent out his package in the first place to an interntional broadcaster. In that respect, Cho won his own battle.

[Burninator]

What's the benefit of the news showing Cho's video?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Burninator

What's the benefit of the news showing Cho's video?

Exactly my point! There is none, it's for ratings more than anything in my opinion. It wasn't neccessary.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Daradon

See maybe that's where we disagree. I would say they tend to immortalize people like this with the attention that they give them, thereby encouraging copycats and the like.

History has always produced copycats. Good and bad. Monkey see, monkey do.

Originally Posted by Daradon

They encourage stories of suffering over other news pieces of interest and there are some interviewers and stations that will resort to even dirtier tricks to make the news more interesting, more dramatic.

This is absolutely laughable. The news media is responsible for abetting human slaughtering? It's not like NBC miked the guy up and had a camera crew follow him on his rampage. They got a package from him and alerted authorities before airing it.

Originally Posted by Daradon

Pestering people who don't want to be talked to, bothering the greiving, putting on people who just try to inflame the situation and rile up people at home rather than look for meaningful questions or conclusions.

And a lot more people have come forward to express sympathy for the victims, including friends and family than at the media's behest.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Daradon

^^^ But ultimately he got what he wanted, or what he thought he wanted.

That's very true. But, at the same time we learned something from his actions that may never have been told had he not sent that package before he killed himself. Hopefully that bit of information can be used in trying to better profile future psycho's.

[Winsor_Pilates]

I think it's good that they report this story. It's not a problem that will go away by ignoring it and the news has a responsibilty to report something this serious.
If anything, it gets people talking and thinking of solutions for these sorts of incidents and that's the most important thing that can come out of this. We have to figure out what the problem is (guns, bullies, video games etc.) before we can find solutions. Sweeping the story under the rug is the worst choice our society can make IMO. This guy's not getting publicity...he's dead.
However, as noted by other posters already, the way they show this story should be better. The movie like news casts only go to blur the line between fiction and what is a very real situation. It should be reported as news and without the hollywood bells and whistles.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Wrong. He was the quiet, squirrely kid next door, but now the media is making him out to be the grotesque ogre who lurked in the shadows, which given his actions, isn't far from the truth...

So what's the problem then? Is that not a fair portrayal?

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The media is spinning a storythe viewers are buying into it through curiousity and voyeurism (not because it NEEDS to be broadcast, but because it gets ratings) and someone is turning a profit on it in the end.

Spinning what? Pretty hard to put spin on 32 people dead. Where some of them not good people? Where some of them good people? I'm not sure what you mean by spin. If you mean spin on issues like gun control or school bullying, then those are already part of ongoing public debate.

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I doubt newscasts like CNN are in it for the rights of people to know as much as you think.

No one is claiming altruistic motives. It's a commercial enterprise fufilling a public demand for information.

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I've been primarily watching CNN for the better part of the evening, and they are showing more clips of Cho's videos than any other broadcaster I've seen tonight, and I've been flipping thorugh about 5 different stations covering it. CNN is broadcasting the religious gibberish he was spewing, while CBC isn't even touching that with a ten-foot pole. It's a ratings war, pure and simple.

It's news. They're in the business of news.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

This is absolutely laughable. The news media is responsible for abetting human slaughtering?

Laughable? I dunno. When you exploting for ratings/money it can't help. And like I said, some interviewers, reporters, news outlets are not above dirty tricks to make things even a little bit jucier.

Did I hit a sore spot? For the most part we agree and even I admitted I'm more exploring the situation. I don't believe it's an idea that is completely absurd. Many people here do agree.

It's like an oil company doing environmental damage to get oil. We are providing the demand, and ultimately everyone shares responsibility. But oil companies are definitely profitting and profiterring from the circumstances, and doing their best to make sure their product is in demand.

I'm just looking for more responsibility and common sense. Less voyerism and less profiterring. These are people's lives, these are our communities and our culture. If we can do small things to help, shouldn't we?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Laughable? I dunno. When you exploting for ratings/money it can't help. And like I said, some interviewers, reporters, news outlets are not above dirty tricks to make things even a little bit jucier.

I think you see that kind of stuff done with juicier stories -- stories that lend themselves to that kind of treatment.

The inexcapable tragic fact of 32 dead I don't think is one of them. The sensational aspect of the story was the act itself. That's pretty major news. If there's any complaints over over-saturation, it's because of the aggregate number of outlets covering it. Which they should.

Originally Posted by Daradon

Did I hit a sore spot?

No, not really. Like I stated initially, there's a tendency to blame the messenger for delivering bad news.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

I think you see that kind of stuff done with juicier stories -- stories that lend themselves to that kind of treatment.

The inexcapable tragic fact of 32 dead I don't think is one of them. The sensational aspect of the story was the act itself. That's pretty major news. If there's any complaints over over-saturation, it's because of the aggregate number of outlets covering it. Which they should.

I can understand that. I'm not sure it's necessary for them to release the photos he took of himself with the guns and such. Sure the yearbook photos but, we know what he did, we don't need the photos of him standing there doing his best to look like a angel of death or messenger for change or whatever he saw himself as. That probably encourages the wrong type of people. I think that is at least a tiny bit of sensationalism.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I can understand that. I'm not sure it's necessary for them to release the photos he took of himself with the guns and such. Sure the yearbook photos but, we know what he did, we don't need the photos of him standing there doing his best to look like a angel of death or messenger for change or whatever he saw himself as. That probably encourages the wrong type of people. I think that is at least a tiny bit of sensationalism.

That doesn't bother me so much. I think those photos show him to be even more pathetic.

An autopsy photo of his blown-apart face would hit home harder though. Because that would show what really happened to him. But I don't suspect we'll see that.

[Jayems]

Am I the only one that finds the irony in the fact that people are complaining about these stations and how they cover this issue, yet areflipping between several different ones? Isn't that what you want? Don't you want to see the newest info and video? This is a major even in US history, and i've seen a lot of coverage about the victims, who they were, what they were doing. Having family on talking about their dead son.. its not all this cho dude.