Cho’s package sent to NBC News was going to be covered, yes, but while the media are saying the right things, their actions are less impressive.
Every major news site - CBS News, ABC News, MSNBC, Fox News, and the New York Times - feature garish photos of a mentally-ill coward that will doubtless add to his “celebrity.” I knew we would see the photos at some point, but isn’t there a better way to handle this aspect of the story? Why couldn’t they lead with stories about people like Professor Liviu Librescu, who sacrificed his life to save his students? Or Ryan Clark, the honors student and RA who was killed simply doing his job? Or any of the 32 victims of this horror?
I rue that the depressed, despondent, and those simply seeking thrills and immortality will see how a crazed madman’s rage earned him instant fame and recognition. After Columbine, you would think the media would have a better approach. The fact that Cho mentions the Columbine murderers indicates to me that there has been far too much focus on the murderers. I know names like Klebold and Kinkel, but I couldn’t tell you the names of any of the innocent victims of their crimes.
What do you think? Am I a naive observer, or could the media found a better way to share the news about Cho without the sensationalistic photos?
(I am dreading the day that the first asshole makes a Cho t-shirt, or he shows up on a flyer for some fucked-up indie band.)
This all becomes clear when we realize that the media’s interest is making money first and informing(I use the term loosely) the public second.
It just so happens that they are in a position to make money by informing the public.
Maximum profit lies in informing the public in such a way that the most people watch for the longest period of time.
In our society, this is realized by “spicing” up the news and it ends up as sensational, alarmist, reactionary, over-produced, unconscionable, self-inflated, self-justifying tripe.
I guess you’re right, Shamozzle. Every now and then I like to delude myself and think there’s a higher purpose, but…
Fox is doing their part to fan the flames of hysteria. On their front page, they have a link “How To Spot A Psycho.”
Having worked in student affairs, we are constantly trying to de-stigmatize mental health services to students. Now students who need help will probably reconsider voluntarily seeing a counselor or mental health professional, lest they be labeled a “psycho.”
People are interested in the psycho. However, I think they’ve moved into overkill with the repetition. I hope they knock it off soon. Anyone whose following the story has seen it. Let’s move on. The kids that were actually in the room must be freaking every time they see the image of him looking down the barrel of those guns.
What’s interesting as well is that on CNN(and perhaps other outlets) they occasionally have a guest or a panel member who says(paraphrasing), “Look, you’ve got to stop calling it ‘the biggest shooting in US history’ because you’re just defining a high watermark for someone else to eclipse.” or “You shouldn’t be showing these pictures and videos becaue it’s not productive and it plays into the killer’s intent.” The wisdom in showing the videos was challenged on AC 360 last night and AC was like(paraphrasing), “Yea, we debated whether to show them.” Fuck off, you debated. AS IF. You were probably tripping over each other’s hard-ons on the way over to the computer to cue up the videos for broadcast…
Maybe Cho learned his lesson from the Unabomber coverage: kill enough people, and you earn instant credibility.
I agree the media are showing the Cho stuff mostly for the shock value (like when they show amateur video of a huge explosion in a place you’ve never heard of that turns out not to have hurt anybody anyway). But I wonder if there is also a seed of the belief that the more strongly you feel about something, the more valid your opinion is. He killed people - therefore, he must have had strong feelings - ergo there must be some validity to his opinion, so we’ll show his video.
Most sensible people would say that Cho has demonstrated, to say the least, spectacularly poor judgment, and therefore anything else he might have said is probably of no value to anyone, so there is no point in showing the video. But sensible people apparently don’t make editorial decisions in the major media these days.
I predict that, just like after Columbine, you’ll see talking heads seriously debating whether social pressures can be blamed for Cho’s actions, and what we all must do to ensure that nobody ever feels bullied or ostracized again. Maybe what they ought to talk about is how we need to teach kids to deal with setbacks and loneliness in a positive way instead of going down to the gun shop, but I ain’t holding my breath. Not that it would have helped Cho. That guy was clearly off his nut.
Also, to shift the spotlight a little, I would like to add that Professor Liviu Librescu was a very highly regarded researcher in the field of composites, having written several authoritative books on the subject. I didn’t know him, but I know a lot of people who did. He was also a Holocaust survivor. His loss is devastating.
Professors Longanathan and Granata will also be sorely missed.
When the media starts covering how the story is being covered, you know for sure that they are grabbing for anything even vaguely related. It’s already happened with this story.
It just the way it is. They wouldn’t do it if they knew we weren’t intested. The number of people that suck it up are greater than those who would appreciate less lurid coverage.
One of my buddy’s is an engineer with both his degree’s from VT. He’s worked for the Navy for a long time on submarines. I bet he knew Librescu or his work.
Look, the media puts this stuff on. You can choose whether to watch it or not. I was traveling in Florida at the time and had ample opportunity to watch evening television regarding the story, but chose not to. I refuse to look at the hangings and decapitations that have been available on various websites for years too.
You’re placing the emphasis on the people telling the story, and not on the people who have the ability to tune it out. You don’t like it: don’t watch it.
CNN is running large pictures of the dead now. It’s only marginally less exploitive than the pictures of Cho with the guns.
Librescu’s story is getting a fair amount of play. But objectively, it’s not the most important part of what happened. It’s a piece of the puzzle, but they’re not required to cover the most uplifting or nicest parts of this story.
That’s about as far as I’ll go in defending the news coverage. I think most of what I’m seeing on the Web, and the few newspaper headlines I’ve seen [I’ve only watched a couple of minutes of TV coverage and don’t plan to continue] are sleazy. A lot of it approaches the freak show level, like the outlets running pictures of Cho pointing his gun at ‘the viewer’ the New York Post with the memorable headline, “DIE!” Subhead was something like 'read the details that will shake you to your core.
True, but I think it’s worth discussing, and some of us are in journalism. We’re almost required to consider some of these issues.
The media is giving the public what they want. The public wants to hear about the shootings more than they want to hear about other things at the moment. When the public has been satisified, the media will move on.
There are SIX photos of the shooter on the front page of today’s USA Today.
Good message for all the potential copycats. Kill a bunch of people, get wall-to-wall media coverage including having all your rotten poems/plays/drawings spread all over cyberspace.
I don’t understand. How is interviewing a witness tasteless? Sure, it can be done in a tasteless manner a’la the Larry King thread in the Pit, but just interviewing is tasteless? Why?
I’m a little worried about copycats too, but the “kill someone, get famous” message was out there already. I’m worried that as the “evil evil evil” part of the story gets overplayed, the possibility of understanding anything gets lost. Cho’s actions are so shocking because he wanted them to be shocking and horrifying. That’s easily understandable. But as the papers and networks don’t just tell us what he did, but make a point of reminding us “isn’t this scary and terrible?” [and I must correct myself, “DIE!” was from the Daily News] they give him what he wanted in a different way.
She was doing the Larry King thing, “How did you feel when you got up and saw all your friends, Clay? Why do you think you were spared and no one else? What are you going to do with your life now?” Or maybe I’m just pissed because he thought a round was a magazine, who knows?
This is exactly the attitude that needs to be changed. He wasn’t a ‘coward’. His ability to reason sanely was severely impaired by an illness. This was not his fault. Nobody wants to be mentally ill - he did nothng to deserve it.
You may never have been in the presence of someone who is suffering a psychotic break. You may not really grok that people in that state are seeing and hearing things that don’t exist, and are neither sensible nor reasonable.
This poor guy deserves sympathy. I was watching a PBS show on mentally ill people last night (coincidental scheduling) and the psychiatrist who was one of the pioneers in treating mental illnesses said that having that kind of sickness is living in a constant nightmare. Imagine that. Imagine thinking every day that people are out to get you; rather imagine believing that with all your might. You can’t because your brain isn’t broken - spare a little sympathy for people whose brains are.
His illness caused him to feel that he had been victimized to the extent that he needed to fight back. If someone had spotted it years earlier and had been able to help him when he was still young enough, this might all have been prevented.
That he lived to 23 with all his demons is almost remarkable. Nothing is to be gained by putting him down and calling him names. Rather, people need to figure out how to determine if a person is seriously troubled and in need of help.
Can you lay out exactly what evidence has surfaced to convince you of this, along with details of your training and what specific patient workup you did?
In the absence of same, I don’t think you are any more qualified to make conclusions than another outsider who refers to the shooter as a coward. You simply do not know what level of control he had.
His family, yes. People who are mentally ill and will be unfairly stigmatized, yes. Him - no.
