Media - our responsibility as viewers.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

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.

I agree they do show him to be pathetic, but we all know some kids or young adults will look at and and say 'ohhhh cool!'

I'd almost be for the face thing like you said, at least it shows him as a mortal like everyone else. At least show both sides, if you show one, show the other.

See that's the thing. Im not against raw or even gruesome, just for truthfulness and against glorifying it.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's kinda what I was getting at (minus the victims and such, and I agree with you there, just didn't want to water my points). I even questioned if I was part of the problem, and what I could do. What was the responsibility of the viewers if they felt that way. If you read my original post, and touched on it with all the others, I was talking about viewer responsibilty as well as station.

Maybe that wasn't directed at me, if so, sorry about that. But yeah, I was talking about everyones responsibility and the demand as well as the supply .

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by Daradon

That's kinda what I was getting at (minus the victims and such, and I agree with you there, just didn't want to water my points). I even questioned if I was part of the problem, and what I could do. What was the responsibility of the viewers if they felt that way. If you read my original post, and touched on it with all the others, I was talking about viewer responsibilty as well as station.

Maybe that wasn't directed at me, if so, sorry about that. But yeah, I was talking about everyones responsibility and the demand as well as the supply .

No, it was a general point not really directed at everyone. I've read the thread and see your point. Im under the belief that if I want to see something, then I should be able to. If CNN wants to show it to me, then i'll watch them. If they have a moral or ethical probelm with it, then i'll get that information elsewhere, and its their loss.

At the same time, if I have a moral or ethical problem with something, I can choose not to view it, but that doesn't mean that someone else shouldn't have access to it.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I agree they do show him to be pathetic, but we all know some kids or young adults will look at and and say 'ohhhh cool!'

So some loser sees it.

Other losers will read a passage from the Bible, or the Koran, or Mein Kampf and decide to act something out. Or they'll listen to Ozzy Osbourne backwards. Or their neighbour's Chihuahua will speak to them through a ghostly apparition of Fred Flintstone.

Practically anything could set off a whackjob.

You can't softsoap a tragedy just because you don't want to set off some weirdo. Many many more people where appalled and should know the full impact of the tragedy. Who. What. Where. When. How. All those questions are a natural consequence.

I got into a heated argument with a colleague the other day who said that the media shouldn't have reported the death toll. He said that the number would only encourage someone else to top the number.

I asked him if the names of the victims should be published so they could be remembered. He said of course they should. So then I pointed out that people can count.

You can't keep people in the dark about these things. That makes for a worse society.

[transplant99]

I have to believe that even the victims families, friends, co-workers and everyone associated with them wanted to see this footage. (not all of course, but most)

Everyone wants some answers, and this may be part of the way that is done. It's not only news, it's the guys story of what he was all about in those last dark hours.

Free society demands that information such as this be made available for those who wish to see it and/or read it.

Keeping people in the dark about this stuff is not better than having them know. At the very least this kind of thing shows what sort of mindset others should be looking for when concerned with those around them. It could PREVENT another incident like this at some point down the line. That makes it all worth it, wouldn't everyone agree?

[Cowperson]

Did NBC do the right thing . . . .?

Was there any other journalistic decision beyond broadcasting at least some of Cho's video and written diatribe, or could the horrifying images, if not the words, been held back out of concern for the loved ones of those who died?

This was no easy decision. Not since the Unabomber demanded that the New York Times and Washington Post publish his endless manifesto has a news organization faced this kind of judgment. In this case, of course, the killer is dead by his own hand, so the only reason to publish his invective is to aid public understanding of the worst gun massacre in American history--or allow him, posthumously, to gloat.

It is interesting, of course, to note that NBC turned over the package only after effectively tampering with evidence by opening it and copying everything inside.

Only after the original contents were copied and given to the cops was the decision made to air it.

The discussion:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

For the record, I'm in favour of showing it . . . . . let's immortalize a loser.

Interesting to note that some who complain about slanting news, corporate ownership, etc are also apparently, in favour of censorship.

Or, are you just in favour of good taste?

Cowperson

[Burninator]

So for the people who are in favour of showing such videos on the news, and feel that it is the responsibility of the news to show it.

What are your thoughts on Steve Irwin's wife not allowing to show the video of her husbands death. It's not the same situation clearly but a lot of parallels could be drawn from it. And before you make the argument that it was her video to begin with, I'll defend that. It was a show for the Discovery channel, so it was their property and I am sure they could had done with it what they pleased. (ie. done the news equivalent and do a show about it) But they exercised a level of consideration and respect and gave all the tapes to his wife, which she destroyed.

So in some respects this is similar. Would you have a better understanding of the events surrounding Steve Irwin's death? Yes. Would the Discovery channel gained ratings from showing it? Yes. Would people have watched it? You bet. I don't recall an uproar over the wife showing the video.

Or does it all come down to who has these video's in the first place. If the killer had mailed it (doesn't matter how) to the victims families. I don't think the same kind of debate would be happening.

Again I know these examples are not the same, but some parallels came be drawn. Thoughts?

[FireFly]

I wouldn't say it's the responsibility of the news to show such videos, but I don't necessarily believe they should have withheld them.

I think that NBC should've asked the victims families how they would feel about it first. However, his rantings have given everyone a lot of insight into the mind of a killer... things to look for in others so we have a better understanding of who to help.

Word would eventually get out that the killer taped a monologue and mailed it to NBC, and people would demand to know what he said in it. I think it was inevitable.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Burninator

So for the people who are in favour of showing such videos on the news, and feel that it is the responsibility of the news to show it.

What are your thoughts on Steve Irwin's wife not allowing to show the video of her husbands death. It's not the same situation clearly but a lot of parallels could be drawn from it. And before you make the argument that it was her video to begin with, I'll defend that. It was a show for the Discovery channel, so it was their property and I am sure they could had done with it what they pleased. (ie. done the news equivalent and do a show about it) But they exercised a level of consideration and respect and gave all the tapes to his wife, which she destroyed.

So in some respects this is similar. Would you have a better understanding of the events surrounding Steve Irwin's death? Yes. Would the Discovery channel gained ratings from showing it? Yes. Would people have watched it? You bet. I don't recall an uproar over the wife showing the video.

Or does it all come down to who has these video's in the first place. If the killer had mailed it (doesn't matter how) to the victims families. I don't think the same kind of debate would be happening.

Again I know these examples are not the same, but some parallels came be drawn. Thoughts?

The package sent to NBC didn't show a murder . . . . . or an accidental death.

It's not even equivalent to Neil Berg being beheaded on video much less the Steve Irwin situation.

In any normal circumstance, the package received by NBC appears to look like a villiage idiot making a fool of himself.

In fact, the package sent to NBC isn't horrifying, stomach-churning or otherwise visually or verbally distressing.

It only becomes that with the background knowledge of 30+ deaths.

Kurst in the Washington Post makes a rough comparison to the Unibomber manifesto . . . . . and even that lacks some validity in that publication of the manifesto was done at the request of police to save lives in the future.

I think Kurst makes a valid point that we must see the face of the killer and we must hear some of what he is saying to try and understand the why or at least the depth of insanity.

We should see these images and hear these words.

But it is also a valid point that seeing all of the images and all of the commentary (and we haven't actually) is probably giving the killer more publicity than he deserves.

But where do you draw the line? Are we talking about "good taste" here which we might have done with Neil Berg and Steve Irwin?

I don't think so.

Cowperson

[Burninator]

I am just bringing up the Steve Irwin video more as a devils advocate type of thing. I don't really think that anyone would actually advocate a right to show said video.

Do I think the video of Cho should be seen? Yes. Do I think NBC is the right medium for that video to be shown? No. These news channels seem to blur the line between "we are going to shock you" and "we want you to better understand these events".

I know some people would rather get all the information in ticker format at the bottom of the screen as soon as it comes in and wade through all this later to distinguish what the facts are from the all the false information and rumours.

Personally I would rather see the personal story of the killer in a more a expose format well after the incident and when most of the information is known. And it can be brought to surface in that light. I know the first to break the lead is exciting, but it seems more of a "who can throw the most information out there" kind of fest. And whether or not people understand the events is not really taken into consideration. Some people are more than capable of understanding the events and the killers mind frame (to the extent a sane person can understand a crazy one). But a lot are promoted to knee jerk reactions, false conclusions and wrongful accusations.

[Cowperson]

You, the common viewer, have spoken . . . .

With a backlash developing against the media for airing sickening pictures from Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-Hui, Fox News Channel said Thursday that it would stop airing it and other networks said they would severely limit their use.

Interesting story with each network stating its policy going forward:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...rnational/home

Cowperson

[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.

Reggie, I guess the viewers have spoken how they truly feel about broadcasting the videos and images, given the like Cowperson provided. I'm just curious what you have to say about it, considering you seem to be advocating broadcasting this multimedia because people should know?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Reggie, I guess the viewers have spoken how they truly feel about broadcasting the videos and images, given the like Cowperson provided. I'm just curious what you have to say about it, considering you seem to be advocating broadcasting this multimedia because people should know?

Networks aren't apologizing or pulling back because they regret the decision to show it.

They're saying, "Okay, everyone has seen it . . . . now we'll temper it."

And it gets boring after a while seeing the same thing repeatedly . . . . one would presume.

Meanwhile, police say NBC shouldn't have shown it.

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

Frankly, I don't find anything whatsoever disturbing about what the networks have shown. In any other context it would be laughable, like George Michael's light saber video in the garage on Arrested Development.

What I find disturbing is evidence this young man was identified early by concerned people and allowed to wander through the cracks, buy guns in spite of reported mental health issues and that police appear to have botched their handling of the two hour span in which he was allowed to re-group, send out publicity and attack again without warning.

Those things are offensive.

The video isn't.

But I've been in the minority on this topic before.

My thoughts.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by newspaper

You, the common viewer, have spoken . . . .

With a backlash developing against the media for airing sickening pictures from Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-Hui, Fox News Channel said Thursday that it would stop airing it and other networks said they would severely limit their use.

What exactly was sickening about it?

Watching this crazy guy ramble on could act as a deterrent to anyone out there who might think what he did was cool and want to emulate him. Who would want to act like this guy after they see his videos? He's not exactly a cool customer and he doesn't even make sense.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Personally, we get the news that we demand. The networks go with what sells and generates numbers. The only way you will change that is to demand better programming, either by tuning out, or flooding the network with requests for stories that matter.

What I find most interesting is that on the same day that this crazed gunman murders 33 people, over in Iraq 184 people are murdered in a coordinated series of bombings. Which is news, and which is sensationalized garbage? Which story has more relevance to our society, and which is a blip on the radar screen? One is a result of governmental action, costing tax payers a billion dollars a day, a story that no one in government or corporate America wants you to know about, and the other is a result of a looney that was crying out for attention, going as so far as to send a package to information to a media outlet in the middle of his tirade. Which one is news? Which one is more socially important?

The fact that we do not recognize this conudrum and act upon it is amazing to me. We all ourselves to be bombarded with the inane rather than the addressing the issues that matter. Not since Vietnam and Watergate has the media bothered to focus the glare of their camera lights on important issues like they should. The reason they don't do that falls on the heads of the viewership IMO. You get what you ask for.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Interesting to note that some who complain about slanting news, corporate ownership, etc are also apparently, in favour of censorship.

Or, are you just in favour of good taste?

Cowperson

Maybe people are expecting media to practice soem common sense and some social responsibility. Smelling smoke does not give the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre. A little more research is required on a lot of these stories before they go to air IMO. Unfortunately, the bottom line thinkers disagree, and the all might buck trumps comon sense.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Reggie, I guess the viewers have spoken how they truly feel about broadcasting the videos and images, given the like Cowperson provided. I'm just curious what you have to say about it, considering you seem to be advocating broadcasting this multimedia because people should know?

Public backlash is, by its very nature, reactionary and negative. There's always going to be a segment that are going to react negatively to disturbing material. The material is controversial -- media organizations knew that going in. Doesn't change the fact that it was newsworthy. In fact, the backlash flies in the face of the ratings argument if you believe the calls for boycotts and such.

A small portion of the material has been released (Five out of 21 pages, and a handful of the Quicktime videos). We don't know what else was in that package. It could be that the rest was rambling gibberish, material even more disturbing (and not fit for public consumption), or information vital to an ongoing criminal investigation. Very little has disclosed to this point.

Pulling back on the number of repeat airings would have happened anyway, given the purpose of "Headline News" type networks.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

What I find most interesting is that on the same day that this crazed gunman murders 33 people, over in Iraq 184 people are murdered in a coordinated series of bombings. Which is news, and which is sensationalized garbage? Which story has more relevance to our society, and which is a blip on the radar screen? One is a result of governmental action, costing tax payers a billion dollars a day, a story that no one in government or corporate America wants you to know about, and the other is a result of a looney that was crying out for attention, going as so far as to send a package to information to a media outlet in the middle of his tirade. Which one is news? Which one is more socially important?

The fact that many Americans have gone to a school, know someone who has gone to a school, or has a school in the town in which they live makes it relevant. That is was civilian violence and not related to war makes it relevant.