Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan In the wake of the VT killings, news coverage naturally has been about little else round the clock. In a strange way, I think this sort of coverage is what the people that launch these attacks is after. The killer wants to be the center of attention and likes the feeling of power knowing that the "mystery" of why they went off will be discussed and debated for decades after the fact. It is a bizarre form of immortality -- we'll all remember Cho, but how many of his victims' names will fade from our memories? The press decends on VT, the coverage is very tabloid-y and breathless, maudlin, and non-stop. And I can't help but feel all this oversaturation coverage just fuels the next killer who wants to one-up the number of murders Cho was responsible for. I know this is news and must be covered. But I think there is a goulish quality to the reporting that only serves as fodder for future massacres.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper It is an interesting point. But, it seems like if you felt that way you would also feel like violent video games lead to violent behavior...sex on tv leads to premature sexual activity, etc. I certainly think there can be correlations.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I don't know. I think that for most people, a violent video game is an outlet and they're able to keep it in the proper perspective. Does it desensitize people to violence? Probably. But then there are people who are unstable to begin with. Maybe for them, a violent video game is a form of training exercise. I guess it's the non-stop nature of the coverage, reporting when there's nothing to report, the obsessive wring-everything-out-of-this-story aspect that is so unsettling to me. It's certainly nothing new in that regard, but it just seems more apparent to me with this case.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I agree. They've decided this is "the" story, and they'll devote hours to it, even if there's nothing new or even particularly interesting to say about it. Which leads to bigger and bigger leaps of logic and relevance. And yes, I think dwelling on the more sensationalistic aspects could spawn copycats. I'd like it better, if they felt they HAD to devote hours and hours, to focus on the victims, and have a gentleman's agreement among the news services to treat the shooter as a loser hardly worth talking about. Don't give him that infamy and encourage others to seek it out.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder What I'd like to see is Charles Gibson lead off the evening news by saying "Some poor loser excuse for a human being killed over 30 people today in a shooting rampage at Virginia Tech. He then did everyone a favor by killing himself, thereby saving the justice system the time and trouble of going through a charade for his trial, which would have been more than this piece of crap gave his victims today." I have my dreams.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Media coverage definitely contributes to this crap. Right now a major portion of the University of Minnesota is shut down because some loser decided to do a copycat threat.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer When the shooting had just happened and we didn't know the identity of the shooter, I was thinking that the press shouldn't tell us the name of the killer. Let him or her die in anonymity. He sent a media package to NBC with pictures and an effort to make his mark on the world, and to say in some sick, twisted way that he mattered. Now his name and likely his photos will be around for a very, very long time. Don't give them that. Don't let the people who are inclined to do this kind of thing think that they will be remembered if they do something like this. This rampage was about getting attention and getting noticed. I think it's important to mention the event itself, and it's important to talk about the motivations or about the signs that this kind of thing was coming. But it's not that important to tell us the shooter's name.
Originally Posted By Mr X I agree Tom. Also, I noticed that this guy mentioned the Columbine shooters as "martyrs" (he knew their names...I sure don't). Certainly a disturbed psychopath does not need to be treated as some sort of "celebrity" in order to fully report the story. In that sense, the media really does contribute to the NEXT horrible tragedy.
Originally Posted By DlandJB Didn't see this new thread. I posted my disgust for NBC airing this stuff and giving him a platform - and probably encouraging another bottom feeder in the Va Tech thread. Chilling.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I don't know! I think the jury is still out on that question. Do they do this for the publicity or are they just insane. I tend to lean on the side of insane. The coverage is morbid and unfortunately seems to be what the public wants. I can't remember his name right now but it's one of the regular hosts of the CBS Morning Show. Very clean cut fellow, bald head, etc. I watch tiny parts of his broadcast from Virginia Tech. Normally I always respected this man and his journalistic abilities but all he did was interview people on campus and try to get them to tell everyone how emotionally wrecked they were. Good heavens, he was coming across as about to lose it himself. His voice was cracking and filled with something short, in my mind, of real emotional meaning. I already know how those people feel. They are shocked, scared and I'm sure extremely saddened. The problem is that this is not the news story. We all know that is the normal reaction to a tragedy of this nature. It is a blatant effort to capitalize on the sorrow of other people. A public display of sorrow apparently sells advertising. Maybe some people like that, I just reel back with a shudder and change the channel. Along the lines of what this thread was about, to me that is what would prompt others to copycat. When someone sees the pain that they can cause by a lone action, and they are unstable, there thoughts would become...Wow, look at all the hurt I can cause...I'll show them. Anyway, I lost a lot of respect for that particular reporter, even if his emotions were genuine. That really isn't what I wanted for coverage. All I want to know is Who and Why!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I think the publicity seeking aspect is part of the mental illness. Tom's right -- no reason to give the killer that sort of celebrity. Paul Harvey on the radio will often employ a tactic that addresses this. Suppose someone parachutes into a football stadium or something. Harvey would report the event, and then say "He would want you to know his name." At that point, rather than announcing the identity of the publicity-seeker, he moves on to the next story, leaving the person unidentified.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yes Tom, this is what I was trying to say in #4, but as usual you said it better. Good to see you here again!
Originally Posted By debtee I think the backlash against the media ia being felt all the way into the international media. When I awoke this morning that stupid video was being shown in full content on morning tv, ( just what you want to see first thing in the morning ) but by this afternoon's news only still pictures from the video, not the video itself made the news. By evening it was not the first news story but the third story and only a glimpse of the still picture was shown. Maybe the media are waking up to the fact that the general public don't want to make these people ledgends or give them a voice. They don't deserve it.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 I agree with Tom's anonymity statement, however - there are those people out there who would protest the tv stations having information and not presenting it. There would be conspiracy theories about what the tv network is hiding, how the government was involved, how the killer was related to the Al Quaida movement, etc. Conspiracy theorists regarding 911 have been known to say that news footage of the twin towers stopped shortly after the event because there were secrets revealed in that footage that the government didn't want you to hear. But, all that said, I agree that this scumbag does not deserve to be memorialized through the repetitive airing of his little video. Nor should the New York Times and LA Times be referring to him as Mr. Cho, an irritating policy of theirs designed to show respect to all human beings.
