Is the news media glorifying the VT shootings?

Yeah, we've talked about that on BBB's thread.

I think they should stop. I think it gives him exactly what he wanted, and inspires would-be copycats. They have this image of their OWN faces plastered everywhere in badass poses.

Tough question, Kick.

What constitutes glorifying? You and i might consider this guy to have been a sick f*ck, and the event to be almost incredibly horrifying. But many people, including young people without a sense of proportion, and no reasonable connection to reality, might think he was cool, and that what he did is cool.

If the question is framed as "Are the media paying too much attention to the details of this incident and its perpetrator," you're into an entirely different set of questions. Is it reasonable to expect media to withhold information? Is that not actually counter-intuitive to a journalist? It seems to me that journalists and news media publishers and broadcasters would be going against their very natures to resist publishing any information they can find. After all, this is what they do for a living.

I think there can be details (what happened when, who tried to do what, etc.) without spreading his own propaganda. Because that's what it is. He stage-managed this -- he wanted the badass stuff out there, he wanted that lasting image.

Just show a small picture of who he was, the original one was fine. The rest is unnecessary, and articles BBB and nimh have linked to argue convincingly that the propaganda is downright dangerous.

Thanks for your responses. Great questions, Set. I wish I had answers. It is really a tough call, in my opinion.

I didn't realize people had already started talking about this angle on A2K. It's hard to keep up with all the things people are saying around here with all the talk about it. I'll have to look for those articles you mentioned, Soz.

I think the info could be made pubicly available without as much fanfare as it is getting. There is a bit of a media race to see hwo can get the lastest on their WWWW sites and broadcasts and the major news sites are being updated every 5 or 10 minutes.

Each and every update doesn't require a new, sensationalized headline IMO. The graphics/images overload and is more than necessary.

Kicky, here's the article that BBB posted:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2619097#2619097

(She posted a couple more after that, too.)

And here's nimh's:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2619172#2619172

Excellent. Thanks Soz.

TV news feeding frenzy spurred by Seung-Hui Cho's self-starring videos

Full article

So now a kid who was asocial, isolated and insignificant is a famous, potent, rock star "martyr."

Great.

All you have to do to become important in America is slaughter 33 people.

That's how it seemed after Wednesday evening, anyway, when "NBC Nightly News" set off a TV news feeding frenzy by airing some of the self-starring videos NBC had been sent by dead Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho.

Suddenly, all Wednesday night into Thursday, cable news channels and the networks' news reports were airing what felt like wall-to-wall Cho. Over and over, they repeated the videos' haunting closeups of the 23-year-old student posing like some macho-movie hero with all his gaudy weaponry, calling himself a "martyr" like the Columbine high school killers he admired, and blaming the "debaucheries" of the wealthy for his horrors, putting the "blood on your hands" rather than his own.

Cho's self-directed boasts and reproach were so everywhere that an unnamed ABC spokesperson told the TVNewser.com industry blog that "the repetition of it is little more than pornography."

What is the purpose of showing these pictures? If there is nothing to gain from it, regarding good solid useful information, then it does more harm than good. Does showing a morbid bloody accident scene really help anyone with information or simply hurt the family of the victim?

In this case, by showing these pictures you only do a few things and none are positive or useful. The media gets more money. The criminal gets the glory he wanted (basically even though he is dead, he gets what he wanted). And worst of all it encourages more sickos to attempt similar feats so they can be glorified.

There is no more information or insight the public is getting by viewing these pictures. They are not gaining a better insight into why this individual did the crimes he did - it only confirms that he is a twisted sick individual - which was already apparent with the current information we have.

The American public has reached the point in our culture, that the news that gets the most coverage is the news that plays to the lowest common denominator amongst us.

Think about it. For weeks, there was Pamela Anderson and the baby. Then it was Don Imus. Now all we hear about is that murderous nutjob who acted on his sickest delusions.

It is like the newspapers and TV want to beat out the supermarket rags. Ugh!

By the way, the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) made a conscious decision that showing the video and images produced by Cho would be a case of "glorifying" the killer (i've just now heard a CBC spokesman say as much on the radio), and would not air them.

Their WWW site is pretty tame in comparison to most as well. No videos, no pics of Cho... Kinda nice.

10% of its airtime?!

Isn't that still, like, REALLY a lot? (24 hours a day, 2.4 solid hours of Cho... eek.)

I'm sick of the whole thing already.

Terrible tragedy
many dead before their time
families getting ZERO time to assimilate or mourn in silece.
Crazy mofo dead along with them.
mistakes were made.

Gorecrow American public can't stop rubbernecking, media smells a profit.

Jesus let these poor souls get cold for God's sake and shut the hell up, everyone.

Is that right? Is MSNBC a twenty-four hour news station?

Thanks Bear. The machine is alive and well...as always.

This was in the NYTimes this morning. Good media breakdown article, looking at the "bedside manner" of the Big 3 new anchors.

Amid Chaos, One Notably Restrained Voice

Interesting article, eoe. I should have been watching ABC instead of CNN, which was absolutely terrible. It seemed that everytime I turned on CNN, they had some new "expert" on who was spewing some garbage that was all suppositions and assumptions based on nothing.

I don't actually know. I assume so, but I hardly ever watch. (My sources of news -- Yahoo/ AP, New York Times, and occasionally Macneil/Lehrer Newshour, which isn't called that anymore but I never remember what it IS called. And whatever I Google. Pretty much never watch MSNBC or CNN or any of those, tho.)