Va Tech Shooter sends "images, letter" to NBC

Why do you think he sent it NBC and not The New York Times or the Atlantic Monthly. Because psycho wanted to be on TV, and as much of a sick person as he was, he knew that the pavlovian dogs that run broadcast news wouldn't dwell for a moment on the humanity of disseminating the rants of a mass murderer, but golly gee, said NBC, we have a ethical code of conduct. Coming up, the Virginia Tech killer's last pictures,. But first, remember Deal or No Deal, Wednesdays' at 9pm, 8 pm Central.

 

Then why don't we air the beheadings?

And if this inspires dozens more self-aggrandizing psychopathic copycats, what then?

 

Or helps thousands upon thousands recognize signs of mental illness in their "quiet" child or roommate?

 

I'm much more upset about all the rumors and crap that have been reported as facts throught this case on TV, radio and the web than in NBC showing this stuff.

They would be crazy not to.

 

written by the journalist as stenographer school of journalism.

 

Do you really think those answers are on that tape? The tape's a manifesto, not a diagnostic tool.

 

Cho blew away the only other diagnostic tool we had.

 

Let's round up everone with the same symptoms, as reported by NBC news, and lock them up, in isolation.

 

Hey Knute, compelling to whom? Perhaps to future Columbine-like killers. After all, this insane kid attributed Columbine's killers in his video. No doubt, Va. Tech is gonna pop up in future videos. And now that NBC has set a precedent - yes, we'll show your shit to the nation - this WILL happen again in the next few years.

We only needed to see maybe 1 or 2 pics of the kid. Now we got fucks like Chris Matthews trying to characterize him and reaching hard for connections between what he did and violent movies. He even tried to get NBC's president to admit as such. Sick journalism NBC pulled, IMO.

These comparisons to "Oldman" are pissing me off, too. The pose isn't even similar to the one on in Oldman.

 

Anyone else tired of hearing the word "manifesto" in relation to what he sent to NBC? Karl Marx wrote a manifesto. This douche wrote a letter, and poorly I might add.

 

In your case, then it all needs to stop: the 14-straight hours of coverage in which nothing new happened until they got the guy's name, the comments from students on the loner, the comments from teachers, security and staff, his plays and term papers, the graphic descriptions of the shootings. Let's just say 32 dead and leave it at that. Is that what you want?

 

Here are the two letters I linked from Romenesko:

From ALEX DERING: Subject -- Cho Seung Hui's video. If Steve Capus, NBC News president, thinks his argument that some relatives of the dead may say, " 'We want to know why. We need to know what was in his head, what drove him to do this.' " has any merit, he's clearly still too shook up to be making any decisions.

Fact: Video tape, DVDs, notes, journals, etc. do not dissolve into the ether if not aired.

Fact: The items -- or copies -- sent by Cho Seung Hui could simply have been turned over to the relevant authorities.

Fact: Relevant authorities would be able to offer the items to the survivors on an individual basis.

Fact: Mr. Capus' argument is a weak defense of an indefensible decision.

Fact: The next school shooter will mail something similar -- probably with a PowerPoint presentation -- and probably to several networks.

Fact: This was done solely for the voyeurism and the morbidity.

Please, news execs with big, big salaries: Use a little common sense. No one doubted -- for even a single second -- that someone who goes on a shooting spree, killing dozens, was disturbed. The proof isn't needed; it's already evident.

***

From MATTHEW FELLING: Yet again a media outlet has decided to become a de facto publicist for a terrorist -- in this case, a domestic one.

NBC's decision to run Cho Seung Hui's manifesto-slash-rant is, in a word, wrong. Other words that come to mind? Of those I can print, "reckless" and "irresponsible" and "dangerous" rank high.

A few thoughts:

* Newspapers in the midwest agreed to push high school shootings off the front page and inside the paper, so as to not incite copycats. By giving a sick young man the opportunity on national TV to compare himself to "Jesus Christ" and hold himself up as a role model for twenty-something angst, the carrot of National Icon has been dangled before other afflicted youth who need psychological attention.

* The unabomber precedent is weak. The unabomber made a demand that his manifesto appear in newspapers, or else he would strike again. In Cho's case, there is no similiar Sword of Damocles dangling over Steve Capus.

* If the assailant in question were a member of Al Qaeda, or someone who had assassinated a political figure -- would we be as comfortable airing "The Gunman: His Side Of The Story?"

* Many academics and journalists agree that terrorism is directed more at the audience than the victims themselves. Didn't NBC play directly into his hands by running his profane soliloquy? What capital J Journalistic purpose does this living-room fearmongering serve?

* But various tactics could have been used to weaken the shock value of the raw video. Use still photo shots, perhaps. Or merely recount the words and transcribe them, rather than running his paranoid speech with a few curseword-induced pixelations and bleeps.

* Not that victims and their families should assume the roles of arbiters, but given the fact that NBC had this video exclusively -- as far as we know -- couldn't they have allowed for a mourning period before airing Cho Sueng Hui's "multimedia manifesto" and still gotten the ratings they lust after?