46 Comments Add your own

• 1. Max  |  April 18th, 2007 at 5:35 pm

  Brian Williams said on the Nightly News that the package actually arrived this morning (Wednesday) because, even though it was sent overnight mail, Cho got the zip code wrong and delivery of the package was delayed.

  I’d be curious to see a discussion of what people thought about NBC airing this. To me, giving these rantings air time lends an air of legitimacy to them, something we don’t want to be doing. I also suspect that it may encourage other deranged people who would want their “manifestos” to reach a global audience.

• 2. Corey Spring  |  April 18th, 2007 at 6:02 pm

  I can’t help but agree with Max on this. I think airing a killer’s last words like this would only serve as encouragement to similarly minded people that their words will live on after their own massacre. It validates them as martyrs.

  Though before anyone hangs NBC out to dry, you have to realize any other news network would have done the exact same thing… the package just happened to be sent to NBC.

• 3. invitedmedia  |  April 18th, 2007 at 6:25 pm

  boy, if a lowly blogger did this…

• 4. invitedmedia  |  April 18th, 2007 at 6:31 pm

  way off topic…

  that sam zell must really not like the internets.

  before he even owns the place it looks like he already took tribune OFFline.

  i’ve been trying the site for over an hour and it continues to shut my browser down.

• 5. Z  |  April 18th, 2007 at 6:36 pm

  Of course, many stations and newspapers report a death row inmate’s last words as well.

  On the flip side, we often don’t report suicides and bomb threats so as not to encourage people.

  Hmmm. That’s a tough one.

  I suspect that, if a pattern emerged of people doing things like this, the networks would quickly become less likely to air them.

• 6. Dale  |  April 18th, 2007 at 6:46 pm

  Better than what KING TV did with the martin pang video tape they received exclusively several years ago, they refused to share it with other local stations…

• 7. Leonard  |  April 18th, 2007 at 7:10 pm

  I won’t bring up the discussion between “let the audience tell you what they want” and “don’t report on loonies because it creates copycats”.

  What I will mention is this notion that NBC has “shared” the footage. We received the footage via Reuters this morning with a raft of exclusions on its use, most notably “no internet use”. That means we can’t use even a still image on our site, can’t put any video or images in our video news stories. Crazy thing is, we create content to span across TV, net and mobile which means we could add the footage to an update for TV, but have to create an entirely separate version for internet and mobile. This issue that a lot of media organisations have regarding the internet is frustrating and needs to be kept at the forefront when anyone works out contract negotiations for use of footage.

• 8. Swift Loris  |  April 18th, 2007 at 7:44 pm

  Making the videos and photos public has instantly given Cho the status of an icon, a larger-than-life figure. I can’t see how that can possibly be a good thing for anybody psychologically, let alone for those whom it might tempt into copycattery and their potential victims.

  As a viewer, I really don’t want to have that vivid and personal an image (visual and aural) of the guy. I don’t want him taking up that much space in my memory banks. I’d rather devote the space to what he did and its consequences.

• 9. Don Day  |  April 18th, 2007 at 8:22 pm

  It’s of note that this is the second major story the NBC News has been at the center of in recent weeks. First Imus - now this.

• 10. Rubin  |  April 18th, 2007 at 8:54 pm

  I can’t help but wonder if all this media attention is helping create the next Cho. Is there some deranged psychologically ill, socially awkward kid sitting at home watching all this and getting excited by it? Are we glorifying this to potential troubled kids? Does everything have to have that tabloid flair?

• 11. disgusted  |  April 18th, 2007 at 9:30 pm

  ..and MSNBC.com and NBC will be crowing in a few days about beating CNN’s traffic and ratings. Thanks Cho!

• 12. Kerry  |  April 18th, 2007 at 10:57 pm

  I think it’s great that NBC aired them.. Although this is a terrible situation, if I was the news director I’d be thanking the heavens for sending this breaking-news-in-an-envelope. If we thought that this story was going to carry one for a mere few more weeks, now we can get at least a month out of it, because the new angle that we can look towards is social networking. Although the package was sent via traditional mail, it contained content which is usually shared online, and the fact is he could have easily just shared it online instead of mailing it. Does this spark a debate on whether social networking is too uncensored, and that any psycho can post up whatever thoughts they want? Of course, because that’s exactly the point. The fact that he could do all of this between shootings only goes to show how easy it is to share yourself to others… Just think, if he’d posted it online instead of physically posted it, he could have included twice the content.

• 13. Safran  |  April 18th, 2007 at 11:47 pm

  We sanitize too much as it is. We ask “why.” This answers it.

  It’s news. You report it.

• 14. Corey Spring  |  April 19th, 2007 at 1:36 am

  With all due respect, this doesn’t answer it. We’re all trying to apply logic to an incident and a person who had none. His video rant may have been a rally against ’spoiled rich kids,’ but by all accounts the majority of his victims were from middle-class families at best.

  All we have now are more questions, and despite all the punditry that will follow for the rest of the month, those answers will not come.

• 15. Jeremy  |  April 19th, 2007 at 2:13 am

  NBC has the option to air this. And they did.

  You have the option not to watch it. Or don’t click on the story. Period.

• 16. Max  |  April 19th, 2007 at 4:05 am

  Jeremy: this has nothing to do with whether or not I want to watch the video, this has to do with the message NBC has sent by airing the videos.

  The videos Cho sent may be news by many standards, but somewhere out there, there are delusional young people who are privately rooting for Cho. They will view the airing of this video as a victory for Cho.

  Everything that Cho wanted to happen has.

  Deciding not to air that video would have sent a message to people who want to use violence to hijack the media that we won’t allow it to happen, and showing those videos has to have emboldened people who share Cho’s emotional imbalances.

• 17. invitedmedia  |  April 19th, 2007 at 5:08 am

  jeremy, i’m certain that was nbc’s logic too.

  one wonders why it wasn’t applied last week with regards to the imus incident.

• 18. Greg  |  April 19th, 2007 at 5:46 am

  As for showing the information might add to someone copy Cho or a sense of legitmancy is strange. Like saying not showing them will cease all others from doing what Cho did. Upsurp, in this case I am thinking that the more we see, the more we understand (we being parents, teachers, ministers, our leaders) the better we can educate our youth into beings that would not consider doing as Cho did.
  However, a Jessie James, Bonnie and Clyde, Manson etc are born every day. What is a society to do? Prevent births? Sorry to say, we have to make the most of this by showing what we have, burn into the minds of our peoples the tradegy as a hope and prayer that it will only be replicated here and there and not an every day occurance.

• 19. G Man  |  April 19th, 2007 at 5:53 am

  What if he had simply just posted it to You Tube? Would there have been a take down order?

  Is this that much different than the Zodiac Killer? I’m sure there will be a flood of comments on that one, but is it?

  And are we upset because this might be putting fuel on the fire or because it’s showing us something for which we as a society will never truly be rid of? The lone outsider with an ax to grind and no way of knowing about it until it’s too late and you get footage on the evening news of the neighbors going “He was always quiet and kept to himself.”

• 20. saundra  |  April 19th, 2007 at 6:22 am

  Max; “Deciding not to air that video would have sent a message to people who want to use violence to hijack the media that we won’t allow it to happen, and showing those videos has to have emboldened people who share Cho’s emotional imbalances”…

  The same can be said for the video “messages” from Osama Bin Laden and other terror related videotapes that have aired. Should we supress those as well?

  It’s even more difficult when you’re obligated to turn the tapes over to to the FBI. How long before they would have been “leaked” and all over the internet?

  Police in Littleton sat on the security video from inside Columbine, but then played it at training seminars with the media in attendance. That’s how it was released and widely shown… a local photog videotaping the videotape from a monitor.

  How much “control” does NBC really have over distribution on the web now… even with all the exclusions they’ve placed on the video and pics? Fair use?

  Short of destroying the contents of that package, how do you keep it from getting out?

• 21. invitedmedia  |  April 19th, 2007 at 6:34 am

  we don’t run osama’s stuff with network’s logos emblazened.

  yet.

• 22. invitedmedia  |  April 19th, 2007 at 6:41 am

  btw-

  12 hours later and i still can’t get the tribune site to come up.

  what the zell is goin’ on over there?

• 23. Rob  |  April 19th, 2007 at 8:23 am

  Are we going to censor ourselves from reporting the news then because telling people what happened is just as empowering as showing this guy’s video clip? I don’t think so. You’d have to point fingers at all journalists to take responsibility for empowering people like Cho.

  And I guess while you’re at it you’d have to go after Kurt Russell and everyone involved in that made-for-TV movie he did about Charles Whitman.

  And you’d have to go after everyone on every social networking site that has blogged, discussed or uploaded content about the VA Tech shootings or any other random act of violence for that matter.

  As for airing Osama video messages … those empower his followers to show he’s still alive in a cave somewhere sure. But his followers are also empowered every time a US serviceman dies in Iraq. Guess we should stop reporting about the war because that’s empowering the ‘evil doers’ too.

• 24. Rocker  |  April 19th, 2007 at 8:27 am

  To me it’s repulsive that NBC is so aggressively leveraging this “exclusive”…branding it, for @!*$% sake!

  Sick. Are they proud of the fact that this psycho “chose” them?

  I understand the concerns about giving someone like this a platform, but ultimatley I think you can’t squelch information. But they should have instantly made it available to all outlets, no strings, no logo bugs.

• 25. Tonto Weinstein  |  April 19th, 2007 at 8:36 am

  It’s important to air this guy and everything he says The reason it happened is because Cho fell through the numerous cracks in a failing mental health system.

  Virginia Tech had ample opportunity to force him from school. He should have been expelled for many of the weird behaviors and his writings were simply not a creative extension of his work, he was trying to do or say something else.

  Virginia’s mental health facilities, like many other states, puts the burden on society to deal with people who need help. This is just another case where taxes ostensibly levied to protect society from dangerous people were spent on things other than protecting society. He *had* been committed to a mental health care facility. Obviously, he should not have been released and yet I’m certain that he was released not because he was a danger, but because of money.

  Furthermore, since he had been under the care of mental health professionals, he should have been denied a permit to purchase a weapon. Even the most basic gun controls failed, so to argue that a total ban on guns is somehow going to prevent this in the future is inane wishful thinking.

  Air everything this guy said, repeatedly without edits. Drill into people’s heads that the mental health system that is supposed to protect them from people like Cho is broken. And because the government is asleep at the switch, they need to be able to recognize at least the seriously ill who have obvious symptoms of potentially being a problem.

• 26. Everett W.  |  April 19th, 2007 at 9:53 am

  Columbine killers Klebold and Harris clearly inspired Cho to some extent. Is it so difficult to believe that the next would-be spree killer will be inspired by Cho’s 15 miuntes of NBC-promoted infamy?

  At the least, I really wouldn’t want my network news logo to be so tied in to such disturbing footage. If nothing else, NBC made a tactical error there.

• 27. Corey Spring  |  April 19th, 2007 at 11:01 am

  I want link to it here because the spam filter will throw it out, but there’s a story on the AP wire about the Va. cops expressing disappointment that this went to air.

• 28. Corey Spring  |  April 19th, 2007 at 11:02 am

  *won’t - not want

• 29. Dave  |  April 19th, 2007 at 11:33 am

  Sorry, but reporting is reporting. If this guy’s final words were in printed form, and the press got hold of it, those words would be reported.

  Video, obviously, has more impact.

  But it’s still news. And we get in bigger trouble when we hide the news or slant it in favor of this viewpoint or that one. It brings the conspiracy theorists out of the woodwork.

  It’s wrong to hide the news. We’re not here to be sensitive.

  The only question is how much you show or write about. That’s an issue worth debating.

  As for the argument about this stuff inspiring the next nutbag, it’s simple — the type of person who would do something like this already has the idea and the motivation. They seek to blame someone else (in Cho’s case, EVERYONE else) for what they’re about to do. Dylan and Klebold’s rampage would have inspired this guy even if only text was available about their crime. In that case, the only answer is to censor ALL of it.

  And we cannot make judgements about what to air or not to air based on whether it will stimulate the brain cells of one or two mentally disturbed people. Literally anything might do that. We’d best air nothing at all.

  Our profession gazes at its navel like no other. Instead of looking inwards, we should be standing shoulder to shoulder, asking people if they’d prefer heavily censored media instead. Because that is the path this question takes us down.

• 30. Dave  |  April 19th, 2007 at 11:37 am

  One last thought:

  Fox News has stopped using the video, calling it “demented” and “disturbing”.

  Shouldn’t this event BE disturbing?

  It would be lovely if news were an anaesthetic, a pleasant mist that made everything better. But some stuff needs to be unpleasant. Or else we’ll never think about it. We’ll just click over to The Simpsons.

• 31. invitedmedia  |  April 19th, 2007 at 12:22 pm

  dave, when ya’ gonna show us a few coffins headed home from iraq?

• 32. Corey Spring  |  April 19th, 2007 at 1:35 pm

  Tim Goodman has an interesting note in today’s San Francisco Chronicle:

  “There are definitely things that shouldn’t see the light of day,” NBC News President Steve Capus told Keith Olbermann on “Countdown” Wednesday night, as he explained that the network will continue to suppress some of the footage.

  But by admitting that — after having aired some of the footage already — NBC is putting itself in a tough spot. There will be certain factions who believe all of the tape should be seen and that NBC’s role as arbiter of the content is wrong (though that’s what news outlets do daily: editing).

• 33. RichardC  |  April 19th, 2007 at 4:03 pm

  It is very disheartening to see NBC airing these videos at all. It shows a total lack of feeling on their part to the tragedy the victims families, and those who share in the horror are going thru. All for the almighty rating point, and if there was a Howard Beel- He would once again, be Mad as Hell, and not take it anymore!!! The fact that the networks have pulled back on airing parts of this- reminds me of 9/11 - Compassion after the fact. Shame on Jeff Zucker- if this is what he needs to do to get ratings points-

• 34. Joel  |  April 19th, 2007 at 6:06 pm

  Cho could have posted this on the Internet and it would have received the same amount of attention if not more. I wonder what YouTube would have done if he posted it on their servers?

• 35. Bill L  |  April 19th, 2007 at 9:37 pm

  If someone flies a plane into a building, I want to try to understand why. If a guy stands in a college classroom and pops off shots into fellow students as if he’s at some shooting range at a carnival midway, I want to try to understand why. 3 weeks ago, a member of my family chose to end his own life. I want to understand why. To that end, I think the idea of keeping Cho’s manafesto quiet and not airing it shortchanges the public in our effort to process and understand what happened and why. As the Virginia Tech story first began airing, I kept asking myself, “What kind of person would do such a horrible thing? Why? What would make someone do this?” I want to know as much as I can about Cho so I can try to understand why this happened and how it could have possibly been prevented.
  The arguments that I have heard against airing this material are illogical and naïve. Cho has, by his horrendous actions already written himself into the annals of history. Showing the video manifesto is not going to further glorify Cho’s actions any more than showing a speech given by Hitler glorifies his actions. The notion that we can’t show something on TV or the web because it’s going to “give some delusional person ideas” or “spurn copycat actions” is pathetic. To one extent or another, we are all victims of Cho’s violent actions. Burying our heads in the sand and saying, “Don’t show it because it might cause someone else to do it” rather than focusing on the cause, warning signs, and what could have been prevented is socially irresponsible.

• 36. Brian  |  April 19th, 2007 at 10:44 pm

  Advertisers spend millions for the exposure NBC News and MSNBC.com have given Cho. They have given a crazy man what he wanted for the cost of 32 lives.

  To those of you who are claiming it’s journalism’s duty to report and show what they have — why not pictures of the carnage in the classrooms? Would you run those if you had them? If Chow sent pictures of the victims would you run those? If not, why not?

• 37. Al  |  April 20th, 2007 at 4:32 am

  Because showing uncovered dead bodies is forbidden by just about any station or newspaper in the country. Not the same thing.

• 38. Brian  |  April 20th, 2007 at 8:50 am

  Wah!!!??? Why is showing bodies forbibben? Any chance it’s because people, particulary families of victims, find it disturbing? But you’ve decided that it’s OK to give a murderer the platform he desires to continue to taunt the families and everyone else. You’re journalists. Just tell us what he said and what he did in the video and the photos just as you told us — and we can too easily imagine — about the bodies in the classrooms. On one hand journalists say they shouldn’t sanitize but then of course, you would never show bodies. Yes it’s about drawing a line, and in this case NBC drew it in the wrong place.

• 39. invitedmedia  |  April 20th, 2007 at 9:05 am

  and burned there logo into EVERY one of the uses.

  EVERY one.

• 40. invitedmedia  |  April 20th, 2007 at 9:09 am

  both sides can find plenty to bolster their view in brian williams’ post over at thehuffingtonpost.com right now.

  as i said elsewhere, i bet EVERY word was cleared by legal.

• 41. Anonymous  |  April 20th, 2007 at 10:49 am

  Safran is correct.

  For those who disagree: maybe you can build a tv network and newspaper which will show just happy news, approved by a distinguished committee, guaranteed not to offend or upset anyone anywhere at any time for any reason.

  On your network, the VA Tech story would be an 0:10 second reader to camera:

  “In Virgina today, there was non-positive event. There may be less people there now than before. Also in Iraq today, not good. Now in sports…”

• 42. invitedmedia  |  April 20th, 2007 at 11:20 am

  no one here said “don’t report on it”. most said the use of the logo emblazened rant by the perp was way off. big difference, pal.

  btw- is your iraq coverage on that “other network” going to START covering iraq????

  now, that would be news we can use.

• 43. Anonymous  |  April 20th, 2007 at 11:48 am

  Why don’t you dial up Dozier at rehab and ask her when she’s gonna “START” covering Iraq?

• 44. Dr.Brown  |  May 2nd, 2007 at 5:29 pm

• 45. Dr.Kronvil lyszsx  |  May 3rd, 2007 at 7:03 am

• 46. Dr.Kronvil xyjcda  |  May 3rd, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Leave a Comment

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed