I'm going to take you back in time several days and give you a nifty new job. You're in charge of the news at NBC, and you receive the package with the video footage mailed by Cho Seung-Hui, the guy who recently killed a large number of people at Virginia Tech. So do you put any of this on the air?
Well, there's no question that it's newsworthy. It's one of the biggest stories in the country right now, people are very interested in knowing why, and some of the answers to that question are in your hands at this very moment. Ratings will be good if you show it, and they say the public has a right to know.
On the other hand, by showing it, you're enabling him to achieve one of the main things he set out to do, which was to get his ideas out into the public eye on a national scale.
Apparently, just about everybody who runs television news would show it, because that's exactly what they did.
Now I'm going to give you a not-so-nifty job. You're a troubled individual with an agenda, and you don't much care whether you live or die anymore, but you've got something to say that you want the whole country to hear. You make a video of yourself stating your case, mail it to a major TV news outlet, and gather your guns and ammo. You can get on national television. All you need to do is kill enough people before they take you down or you have to kill yourself. After all, it worked for somebody else before.
The quality of the ideas is irrelevant as long as the troubled individual believes in them. I know that the people at NBC turned the footage over to the authorities first, as was appropriate, but they could've just broadcast a story about the contents without actually showing it. But hey, it wouldn't have been nearly as dramatic and visually interesting, which is true. Sleep well, those of you who made a decision to show the footage, because I'm sure you're going to have an incident to answer for down the line.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
My two cents ...
I totally understand what you are getting at, however, from a journalistic point of view, as soon as you begin censoring the news because of what "might" happen if the story is released, you begin skating on a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line with regards to a story that "could" harm the public, but also might protect them by keeping them informed? Suppression of news is a dangerous path to walk down...and only really acceptable in dire emergencies of State.*
Is it more important to have an informed society that can tackle the issues of mental illness or gun control or whatever other issues this story brings out (I think it was bullying in the case of the Columbine shootings) or is it better to suppress the details so the public isn't harmed?
The harsh reality is: It is not the media's job to protect the public. It's their job to inform the public. I don't need to be coddled by Dan Rather. I need the truth. Unfortunately, without showing the horrific details, I only get an editor's interpretation of the truth. That's not good enough for me.
If the actual video were never shown, you would end up with numerous interpretations of the events from numerous media outlets (all with different agendas). Could you imagine how different the speculation would be from the following media outlets: 700 Club, Fox News, PBS, Al Jezeera, BBC, CNN, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Obermann, etc.
My questions for you are: Should Van Halen never have released the song "Jump" because kids may have taken that as an endorsement of suicide? Or is it the responsibility of the public to monitor their own children and determine whether or not that song could harm someone?
This being said, I have purposely not seen any of the Seung-Hui video myself. I have no desire to. I know, that's ironic because of my current job, but I get enough exposure to the news each day I don't need more when I come home. The whole reality TV craze escapes me. I get way too much reality every week....what I really need is Fantasy TV.....not Reality TV.
* I am speaking of matters of national security here (ie. location of a secret base, identities of undercover CIA agents, military attack plans, etc). But anything short of that needs to see the light of day, in my opinion.
who cares if he's watching. who's watching him? this guy had some severe issues to say the least, but we are violent fuckers. excuse the language, but really he lacked the verbal skills to assert himself, i'm sure people were not always kind to him or empathetic. surprise surprise. i'm just saying this guy didn't have the equipment to vent his aggressive nature less violently. is he the problem, are we the problem. i say yes. what makes a victim into a villian? what makes a victim into a hero? i don't know. i think what this guy did is crazy bad, but i'm somewhat keyed into the undercurrent of social aggression. i've felt my share of painful jabs, but somehow i was able to vent, or do whatever is it healthy people do with damaging feelings. which i guess is hopefully change, which i'm thinking he was unable to do, except in one brief snap. a real shame for everyone involved, living and deceased.
Of course I could be completely wrong, but I didn't have any bourbon while writing this. I had some after I wrote it.
Thanks for the well conceived response. I still disagree with you, though. :-)
The media skates that slippery slope every day, and I agree that it's a very slippery one indeed. Cho's problem was with wealthy people, they could've told us that without showing the actual footage. If he'd raped and eviscerated a woman, taped it, and sent that video to NBC, you know they wouldn't have shown that. I'm not advocating suppressing informational details; I'm just saying that by putting him personally on TV, you've given him what he wanted and encouraged others to behave similarly. The same effect doesn't happen if you don't show the original footage.
I wouldn't advocate suppression of a song because of the way in which it *might* be interpreted. There's no ambiguity in this message, though, so it's not the same thing.
In this particular case, I think it's obvious that there's more danger in potentially encouraging lunatics than there is news value in what this particular person had to say, and that the video should've been handled accordingly. Obviously, most of the people running the media disagree with me, too.
what are you worried about?
you think by showing something you encourage it? that seems very simple and not really at all looking at the issues, or the cause and effect that was his life. if i see a woman being raped that doesn't encourage me to rape. you're cutting off the hand of a thief, not changing the brain or the cause and effect that led up to him wanting to steal. it's a bandage on the wrong problem, given after the fact. let's just close our eyes and it'll all go away. social violence encouraged his violence, and his lack of coping skills.
what's the message, by the way. cause i don't see it. you think the message you get is the same message someone else get's?
when did he become a "lunatic"?
i really don't think fame is as huge a motivator as your making it out to be. something snapped, and his "communication" was very violent and bloody. you're looking in the wrong place, for the wrong thing.
you're saying that the "love of strangers" that the media can give to some people, is one major factor that could make violet acts more acceptable? gee, what about fiction? let's just get rid of all traces of violence, real or imagined. then we won't be violent anymore. um...yep. how 'bout we maybe seriously look at violence in all it's many splendid forms.
thank you.
art and media just mirror our feelings.
i still love ya Scott!
and yeah, Dave too i guess, but i'm still upset about my Big Bird blanket. you were a cruel son of a bitch!
Post a Comment