Investigate NBC

I strongly disagree (4.00 / 2)

First, a correction.

NBC's decision to air images and video from the Virgina Tech killer, instead of immediately handing all materials over to the FBI...

The network aired the material in addition to turning it and more over to the FBI, not "instead of."

And I strongly disagree with your view, which I recognize is held by a lot of well-intentioned people. Here's why:

• There are important questions of public policy involved here. Was the murderer so obviously disturbed that the school, the police, and/or the gun sales system should have intercepted him? I have a more informed opinion on that for having watched NBC.
  
• Many of your arguments are very similar to those objecting to networks and newspapers airing Abu Ghraib pictures (also described as 'pornography'). I object for the same reason: hiding this stuff is inimical to an informed electorate.
  
• A news agency that gathers news, solicited or not, and turns if over to the police but not the public, is not a news agency: it is an arm of the police.
  
• The concern that this sort of broadcast can create copycat crimes is fair -- though just a guess. So is the belief that it will help more people recognize the warning signs and characteristics to watch for and better guard their environment.
  
• If these materials had been suppressed by the network, there would be wild speculation about what they contained.
  
• This is clearly, completely, protected speech. Congress and the FCC have no authority over it.
  
• The "public airwave" exception is troubling to me, even when there is in my mind a stronger set of precedents for invoking it (swear words and Janet Jackson's nipple). It doesn't really limit content in a cable and Internet age, it just plays Whack-a-Mole, with Howard Stern (for example) moving to satellite.
  
  

  ---

by: elwood @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 20:30:58 PM CDT

"well-intentioned people" (0.00 / 0)

A poor choice of words on my part -- the phrase is so often used in a patronizing context, which I certainly did not intend.

I know that a lot of people whose I opinion I value and respect are on the opposite side on this.

I also appreciate that the whole context of the tragedy makes any call to look at the issue strictly through a dispassionate view of theoretical principles, unsatisfying.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 21:01:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know about "dispassionate", (0.00 / 0)

since your argument seems to stem from a passionate belief in free speech, and is there any New Hampshire or American value greater than this?

(But thanks for the clarification.)

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 21:09:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Now this is exactly why I love this site. (0.00 / 0)

I won't be coming around to your view, but that was masterful.

A few responses:

* Your correction is a result of my poor writing skills.  What you say is what I meant by "instead of immediately".

* My offense has to do with the effect that the images and video will have on children and adolescents who are mature enough to emulate the "video game cool factor" of the material, but not yet mature enough to understand the actual violence perpetrated.  It strikes me a serious lapse in judgment on NBC's part not to have considered that and not to have either chosen to remark on receiving the materials only, or to reformat the information as text, or something analogous.

* Abu Ghraib doesn't appear analogous to me because of the above point, though I could be persuaded by the argument that if you allow one, you have to allow the other.

* You are right about Whack-a-Mole, but I am happy to have Congress and/or the FCC remind networks on occasion of their oversight role.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 21:05:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Coupla things (4.00 / 1)

• I believe NBC did deliver a full copy of all the material immediately, and also retained a copy, some of which they later showed.
  
• It's important to note that NBC did not show footage or descriptions of how (for example) Cho obtained the guns or planned to commit the crime: it was not a "how to guide."
  
• The portion I saw was instead a video diary where Cho tried to look menacing and rambled about how terrible people had treated him. He compared himself literally to Christ, asking "have you ever had nails driven into you?"
  
• I remember, in the aftermath of Columbine, how many fairly normal Goth high school kids felt suddenly under constant suspicion and avoidance. One helpful thing I would expect from the airing is a conversation among schoolkids: "What, you think classmate John is spooky weird like Cho? Dude, did you see Cho?? That guy was completely whacko,  no connection to reality! I mean, he thought we was like Jesus! John may be a little strange but he is nothing like Cho. Chill."
  

---

by: elwood @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 21:30:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In addition (regarding NBC)......... (0.00 / 0)

.....on Keith Olbermann's show the night the video was shown: the network president was on a telephone call to him, and said that they had asked the Virginia State Police in particular about whether to show it. He said that their response was, "It won't affect our investigation; just be sensitive about what you show; how much, etc.".

  Then, just recently, a spokesman for that department said that they disagreed with the decision to air it; they must have received so much flak they appeared to change their minds.

  In addition, on that same "Countdown", one of their guests (Cliff somebody) made the observation that if the network didn't do it, someone would eventually leak it and would wind up on YouTube.

  Now, none of this argues that NBC should have aired these segments. That's a tough call; if they had decided otherwise it would have been understandable (and maybe preferable). I just think that the clamor that they didn't cooperate with the FBI, state police, is inaccurate: the FBI spokesman that day, in fact, stated that NBC called them up just as soon as they determined that the package they received was from the killer.

 

 "We should pay attention to that man behind the curtain."

---

by: Ed Tracey @ Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:25:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

hmmm... (0.00 / 0)

I have no desire to see the footage.  I don't think that I will be seeking it out.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 21:11:56 PM CDT

My feelings go with Dean here... (4.00 / 1)

I don't believe in government censorship, but I do believe in self-censorship.

NBC's posting Cho's "message" is just the latest and looniest excess of big media's publicizing this murderer-suicide. Meanwhile, hundreds of other unhappy kids are watching this nonsense and hoping to become celebrities if they can just engineer something similar.

Was it even last week that the airwaves were all about Don Imus? You remember, before VT but just as the mass media was winding down its obsession with Anna Nicole Smith?

Meanwhile, 200 people died in Iraq in the past 24 hours. Shouldn't that theoretically receive ten times the airplay that NBC is giving Cho?

"Making trouble today for a better tomorrow" http://BetsyDevine.com/blog

---

by: Betsy Devine @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 22:46:48 PM CDT

Well, then you DISAGREE with Dean (4.00 / 1)

who is calling for Congressional and FCC penalties -- that is, government censorship.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 05:27:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I suppose, rightly, (0.00 / 0)

that my position puts me in the Nanny State category on this, and while I value highly the libertarian streak that Granite Staters of both parties share, on this I am proud to wear that hat, chiefly because as a teacher I must always have in my mind my first role of in loco parentis. Especially on this story which became extended in grisly fashion one media cycle prior to the Columbine anniversary, a date that is met with dread in my profession.

Relatedly: one of the reasons I spend my extra time bloggity blogging is because of my alarm over Congressional weakness in recent years, most vividly displayed in the deference given to the Executive over the Iraq war.  The Legislative ought to be co-equal to the other two, and it hasn't been.  Along those lines, it ought to be able to exercise influence and oversight over corporations when their interests conflict with the people (which is a very different angle than the journalistic right to broadcast, on which very firm ground I fear you stand).  If Congress can get aroused over a nipple in an artificial way to score political points with the religious right, then they ought to be able to express themselves genuinely over NBC's decision, if they have genuine feelings about it.  A loud "harumph" from one or two members might be more useful (and more in their rights) than fines.

When I wrote the post, I honestly had no idea that there was a controversy over this; it was written from the personal experiences of witnessing teenagers watching and reacting to the footage.  I see now that there are thousands of articles written about it with perspectives on both sides, from cheif editors at the CBC to psychologists with expertise on the media effects to the head of the local police investigation in Virginia.

It note with sardonic displeasure that I am at odds with Atrios on this, in my opinion one of the best media critics around, and in agreement with Matt Lauer, a person who was a chief reason I started switching off the TV.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 07:43:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The coverage, its effect (0.00 / 0)

I'm listening to NPR at the top of the hour, and the first story is VT plans for a memorial, and how the campus is moving forward.

If we accept the notion that there are disturbed kids out there following the news, thinking: "Look at the impact! That's the way to make all these people I hate remember me!" this respectful coverage seems just as dangerous as the tape segments NBC aired. The NBC segments did not provide instructions, and contrary to Cho's hopes made him look disturbed and irrational, not a wronged anti-hero.

The dividing line seems to be that the NBC segment "gave the killer what he wanted." But, so? If there is an honest public interest served in airing it, why is that an objection?

There is an issue, as always, with saturation coverage and meta-coverage (which I suppose I'm engaging in right now). But I don't see a crisp line of public-mindedness between covering the community mourning and covering the killer's history.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 05:50:39 AM CDT

NBC and the media (0.00 / 0)

I think that the media handle these things in a poor way. An event such as this should be dispassionately announced and then dropped.

The more this plays, the "cooler" it seems in a culture where just being on television is considered the apex of achievement. The guy who killed John Lennon supposedly did it for his 15 minutes of fame.

The whole Imus flap is useless if nothing is done about the decadent nature of the media. It's the Roman Circus Maximus all over again, but electronic and with commercials.

I've been told that today's mass media was at least in part developed by Goebbels and his minions  before and during the Nazi regime. BASF  produced audio tape which was used to record Hitler's rallies and played on the radio at a later date so people would think he was still out giving speeches when he was really cowering in his bunker.

We have to think very critically about all media, and remember that what's presented is rarely the whole truth. There is always the poverbial ax to grind, and someone is deciding what people see and don't see, how it's edited, presented, etc.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 07:36:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

NBC did the right thing (0.00 / 0)

NBC got a huge new piece of information on the biggest story of the day, and they ran with it.

Now, it's fine for us to judge the information later and say we wish it hadn't been shown, that's our right. But journalists are not supposed to think about whether information should be withheld, they're suppose to uncover and share information.

As for handing it over to the FBI, come on. They're reporters, they had a massive scoop, there's no mystery about who did the shootings or any criminal investigation in the usual sense.

It's not pretty, but it's journalism. This example may not be vital to our democracy, but the larger principle is.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 12:50:27 PM CDT

Why waste the ink (0.00 / 0)

NBC should have just said, we have a video and a written diatribe from Mr.Cho that is an apparent confession. Because we don't believe in giving murderers a public forum, we are not going to show the video.  NBC said people would sue to get it, but so what, let them sue. By the time the matter was heard, there would not be as much interest, and if the court ordered the materials released, at least it would not have been shown on every outlet for 24 hours.
I don't believe in government censorship, but I do believe in common sense and good taste, and giving a murdering psychopath a forum is neither.  It was one thing when the Times and Post ran the unabomber manifesto, that was to assist law enforcement catch him (which worked) and stop future killings. Cho was dead, and running the video wouldn't stop any new crimes by him, but may precipitate some other psychopath to try to outdo him. 

---

by: Frodo @ Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 12:57:13 PM CDT

Since you acknowledge that he's dead (0.00 / 0)

Why do you say NBC gave him a "forum?"

This is like the argument -- not your argument, but along the same lines -- that putting Saddam on trial would give him a forum. But, Saddam is Saddam, and it's not like the world forgets that when he speaks.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 13:00:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Because they did (0.00 / 0)

It doesn't matter that he is dead; NBC gave him a forum to spew his pyschopathic ramblings, which is what he wanted - or else he wouldn't have gone to the trouble of interupting his killing spree to go to the post office.  Why give a criminal what he wants?  This kid just killed over 30 people and NBC rewarded him posthumously with 24 hours coverage of his video and diatribe. Their bad. Their duty as reporters could have been met by just saying, he sent a package, he ranted about the rich and basically confessed, it was laced with profanity, we turned it over to the police.  I didn't need to see Sadaam nearly decapitated to know it happened, I didn't need to see Dale Earnhardt's autopsy photos to know he died in a crash at Daytona (and a tabloid or two sued to try to get the photos). Sometimes pictures do speak volumes and should be published no matter how disturbing to publicize horror and brutality (Abu Gharib, Aushwitz, the fireman carrying the dead child out after the OK city bombing), but there was no compelling similar reason here. 

---

by: Frodo @ Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 15:55:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sure there was a compelling reason (0.00 / 0)

I'm not sure how you reward a dead guy, but consider three things:

1) This was the deadliest shooting spree in US history.
2) The killer interrupted it to mail this video.
3) No previous killer had ever made a video statement.

All of that equals news. I agree that NBC didn't need to broadcast it incessantly, if they did. But I've seen and heard clips from other sources, so while people cluck at NBC, obviously a lot of news outlets agree that it's news.

Abu Ghirab is a good example. We agree war is horrible, right? Why is what they did more horrible (and therefore newsworthy) than a routine attack that doesn't get photographed? Should a news photographer have "given aid and comfort the enemy" by taking those photos?

Of course he should have taken them. But you and I got to decide that after the fact. During the moment and on deadline, if you have news, you broadcast it. If you don't, you're something other than a journalist.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 16:22:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]